CAT/C/66/D/820/2017
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant has been a supporter of the Alliance nationale pour le changement
(National Alliance for Change) since the opposition movement’s inception in October 2010.
In 2011, she became an active member of the Alliance and was appointed section secretary
for her neighbourhood in Lomé. She participated in several political demonstrations against
the regime in power in Togo.
2.2
The complainant was actively involved in planning and staging an anti-government
protest in Lomé on 12 June 2012 that was organized on the initiative of Sauvons le Togo, a
grouping of opposition parties. The complainant was then seized by two men in civilian
clothing, thrown into a car and driven to the military encampment of the Quick Reaction
Force in Lomé. She was held there for eight days in isolation under very harsh conditions.
After regaining her freedom, with the help of a person close to her, the complainant decided
to seek refuge in Ghana. While there, she learned that uniformed men had searched her
former home in Lomé. Having then decided to leave for Europe, she arrived in Switzerland
via Italy on 18 September 2012. On the same day, she applied for asylum in Switzerland.
2.3
On 19 and 20 September 2012, the complainant filed an application for asylum at
the reception and processing centre in Kreuzlingen, Switzerland. On 25 September 2012, a
preliminary hearing was held to determine the grounds for her asylum application.
2.4
On 31 March 2014, a federal hearing was held to determine the grounds for the
complainant’s application. She notes that, in support of her asylum application, she
provided four photographs of herself at a political rally in Togo on 19 March 2011 and her
voter registration card. On 7 March 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration denied her
application on the grounds that the information provided in her statements fell short of the
requirements for refugee status in Switzerland. The State Secretariat for Migration therefore
ordered her removal from Switzerland. The complainant appealed the expulsion order. On
26 April 2016, the Federal Administrative Court declared the appeal against the State
Secretariat for Migration’s decision to be inadmissible.
2.5
The complainant adds that her daughter’s father has been actively sought by the
Togolese authorities since April 2016. He was summoned to the court of first instance of
Lomé on 1 and 15 April 2016. On 28 April 2016, the State prosecutor lodged a complaint
against him in connection with the complainant’s past political activities. Following these
summonses, the applicant’s husband disappeared with their child and was not heard from
again until he and the child reappeared in Ghana on 8 August 2016. He then sent the
complainant documents attesting to the problems that he had had with the Togolese
authorities. The complainant submits that her husband’s summonses, and the State
prosecutor’s complaint against him, are evidence that she is still being actively sought in
Togo on account of her political activism.
2.6
The complainant notes that, following these developments, she requested a review of
the decision to return her to Togo. On 28 September 2016, the State Secretariat for
Migration dismissed this request. The Federal Administrative Court subsequently dismissed
her appeal and, on 2 November 2016, upheld the decision to return her to Togo, with the
date for that return being set as 14 April 2017. Consequently, the complainant states that
she no longer has recourse to any domestic remedy to contest her return to her country of
origin.
2.7
The complainant submits that the State party did not take into consideration either
her status as secretary of a prominent opposition party or the evidence of her participation
in political protests against the regime in power, for which reasons she is currently being
sought by the Togolese authorities. She adds that the State party employed a psychological
technique whereby a subject is questioned in two stages and the slightest discrepancy is
taken as an indication that the grounds for asylum are implausible, irrespective of the
veracity of the facts.
2.8
The complainant notes that, when there are serious doubts about the evidence
submitted by an asylum seeker, the State party usually sends trusted officials from its
diplomatic missions to verify the veracity of the facts in the country of origin. In the present
case, she believes that the State party did not afford her equal treatment with other asylum
2
GE.19-12298