CAT/C/62/D/685/2015
the criminal proceedings or that he would be subjected to disproportionate or
discriminatory punishment. The court also noted that the complainants had not
substantiated that D.M. had any influence on the authorities in Armenia, and noted that
D.M. had not worked for the former president since 2002. The court therefore found that
the complainants had not substantiated their claim that the Armenian authorities would be
unable or unwilling to protect them, should they require assistance upon return to Armenia.
The complainants’ subsequent appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the
Council of State was rejected as manifestly unfounded, on 23 February 2011.
2.5
On 8 April 2011, the complainants submitted a second application for asylum,
adding documents that had been obtained from Armenia after the conclusion of the first
asylum proceedings, namely three summons requesting the male complainant to report to
the Armenian police as a suspect in a drug trafficking case, and a summons from a police
station in the Russian Federation in which the male complainant was named as a suspect in
a criminal case.1 On 14 July 2011, the Immigration and Naturalization Service rejected the
complainants’ application. The Service found that the complainants had not presented any
new circumstances or facts, compared to their initial application, and also noted that the
documents submitted by the complainants could have been submitted during the first
application proceeding. The decision was upheld by the district court of The Hague on 18
August 2011.
2.6
On 7 May 2014, the complainants submitted a third application for asylum. They
claimed that the male complainant’s father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and their children
had fled to the Russian Federation after the second asylum procedure in the State party. In
2012, the male complainant’s father wanted to return to Armenia. His brother travelled to
Armenia to see if the situation had calmed down. A few days after his return, he received a
summons addressed to the male complainant, requesting the latter to report to the police
station. The male complainant’s brother visited the police station and informed the police
that the male complainant was not in the country and that they should look for D.M. instead.
He was dismissed and the police told D.M. about the visit. The next day, persons connected
to a locally influential clan came to the complainant’s brother’s house, together with D.M.
The complainant’s brother was taken away to a building and was told that he should think
carefully about what he would tell the police. He was beaten until he lost consciousness and
he woke up in a hospital. At the hospital, the police interviewed him. He identified the
persons who had assaulted him and the police opened an investigation. However, that
investigation was later closed, because the persons identified as the perpetrators had in turn
reported to the police that the complainant’s brother had threatened them with a gun and
that they had acted in self-defence. They also filed a report against the brother for making a
false accusation. Thereafter, the male complainant’s brother left the country. The
complainants submitted documents from the police investigation and medical reports on the
injuries of the male complainant’s brother to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
support of their application.
2.7
On 13 June 2014, the Immigration and Naturalization Service rejected the
complainants’ application for asylum. The Service considered that no new facts or
circumstances had been presented by the complainants, as the authenticity of the documents
submitted by them could not be verified. The Immigration and Naturalization Service noted
that the medical records submitted by the complainants substantiated the fact that the male
complainant’s brother had been injured, but did not specify the cause of the injuries. It
found that information provided by the complainants’ family members was not an objective
source of information. It also found that it had not been substantiated that there was a
connection between D.M. and the locally influential clan, or that D.M. would be able to
influence any legal procedure against the male complainant. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service also found that the documents submitted did not substantiate the
claim that the complainants would be in danger if returned to Armenia. The decision was
upheld by the district court of The Hague on 17 July 2014. The court found the documents
submitted by the complainants to be new evidence. However, it found that the statement
provided by the male complainant’s brother was not objective. It also found that the
1
The criminal offence was not indicated on the summons.
3