CAT/C/62/D/685/2015
by the police. The car was searched and drugs were found inside it. The complainant was
detained by the police overnight. With the help of his cousin, he was released on bail the
next day, on the condition that he did not leave the country. Shortly after the complainant
was released, D.M. visited him. The complainant was forced to go with D.M. to a
warehouse, together with the latter’s associates. He was requested to sign a confession
stating that he was responsible for the drugs in the car. He refused to do so and was beaten.
His father was also brought to the warehouse and beaten in front of him. D.M. threatened to
beat the complainant’s entire family and to murder them if he did not cooperate. After these
threats, the complainant signed a statement stating that he was responsible for the drugs in
the car. Following that incident, D.M. personally brought the complainant to the airport and
he fled to the Russian Federation. After H.I. had departed for the Russian Federation, his
wife was questioned by the police. She was pressured by D.M. not to say anything to the
police about his involvement in what had happened. After having been questioned by the
police, she also fled to the Russian Federation, together with the couple’s children.
2.2
The complainants lived for three years in the Russian Federation as undocumented
migrants. One day, the male complainant was summoned to a police station. The
complainants could not think of any reason for the summons other than it being related to
what had happened with D.M. in Armenia. They therefore decided to flee the Russian
Federation, for the Netherlands. They arrived in the Netherlands on 26 October 2010 and
applied for asylum on 17 November 2010.
2.3
On 23 November 2010, the Immigration and Naturalization Service expressed its
intention to reject the complainants’ asylum application. The Service found their stated
reason for applying for asylum to be credible, but concluded that the complainants had not
substantiated their claim that they would face a real risk of persecution if returned to
Armenia. The Service also noted that the male complainant was a suspect in a criminal case,
and found that there was nothing to indicate that he would not be able to defend himself in
criminal proceedings if he were returned. The Service found that the complainants had not
substantiated their claim that D.M. would be a threat to them upon return. The Service also
noted that the male complainant had been able to leave Armenia legally, although his bail
had been granted on the condition that he did not leave the country. On 24 November 2010,
the complainants submitted their comments on the opinion of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. They argued that the male complainant would not be afforded a fair
trial because of D.M.’s influence in Armenia. They also argued that the poor conditions of
prisons in Armenia would amount to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. On 25
November 2010, the Immigration and Naturalization Service rejected the complainants’
application for asylum, noting that the complainants did not seem to have much information
on D.M. but only what they had heard from other persons and seen on television. The
Immigration and Naturalization Service also noted that the complainants had not sought
protection from the police for the threats allegedly made by D.M. Concerning the
complainants’ claim that the conditions in Armenian prisons were very poor, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service noted that the Government of Armenia was
working on improving conditions, and as an example noted that the number of cases of
tuberculosis had decreased.
2.4
The complainants filed an application for judicial review of the decision before the
district court of The Hague on 26 November 2010. In their application, the complainants
argued that the asylum procedure was flawed because, upon their arrival in the Netherlands,
they had been heard by the police and had been asked questions as to their identity and their
entry into and stay in the Netherlands. The complainants argued that those questions had
not been asked in the context of an Immigration and Naturalization Service interview and
that the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of 25 November 2010
should therefore be nullified. On 17 December 2010, the court rejected the complainants’
appeal against the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The court found
that the procedure for interviewing the complainants in the course of the asylum
proceedings had been followed, as the police had not questioned the complainants on their
reasons for applying for asylum. The court also confirmed the Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s finding that if the male complainant were to be prosecuted for a
criminal offence upon return to Armenia, this would be for a regular criminal offence, and
that nothing in the case indicated that he would be unable to defend himself in the course of
2