CAT/C/70/D/888/2018
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant entered Switzerland on 2 November 2001 and lodged an asylum
application. In a decision of 22 February 2002, the Swiss authorities decided not to examine
the merits of her asylum application and ordered her removal from the territory. On 19 April
2002, the complainant married Mr. R., a Swiss and Italian national born in 1962, residing in
the canton of Zurich. As a result of the marriage, she was granted a residence permit and then
a permanent residence permit in the canton of Zurich.
2.2
In 2015, the complainant travelled to Yaoundé, Cameroon. There she met M.K., a
woman of Cameroonian origin, married to a Congolese man and living in Yaoundé. The two
women maintained a secret romantic relationship given that homosexual relations are
criminalized in Cameroon. Throughout 2015, they managed to keep their relationship a secret.
2.3
In January 2016, the complainant returned to Yaoundé at the invitation of M.K. and
continued her relationship with her. On 20 January 2016, they were caught by M.K.’s
husband in the family home. The complainant managed to escape and leave the country
immediately, after bribing immigration officials at the airport through the intermediary of a
friend. After she left, legal proceedings were initiated against her and M.K. for homosexuality.
M.K. was arrested and admitted the facts. She remains in custody pending trial. The
complainant is therefore wanted by the Cameroonian authorities to appear and testify. Since
then, the complainant has not returned to Cameroon.
2.4
On 21 September 2017, the aliens police of the canton of Zurich revoked the
complainant’s permanent residence permit and ordered her removal from Switzerland by 21
December 2017. This decision became enforceable and, on 2 January 2018, the complainant
was placed in administrative detention by the Zurich cantonal police pending her return to
Cameroon. On 5 January 2018, she submitted an asylum application verbally.
2.5
On 1 February 2018, the complainant was summoned by the State Secretariat for
Migration for a hearing at her place of detention on the grounds for her asylum application.
The hearing was attended by a male member of the Secretariat staff responsible for the
hearing, a representative of an independent charitable organization, a minute-taker and an
interpreter. The complainant’s legal representative was not informed of the hearing, despite
the fact that the complainant had signed a written power of attorney giving him the power to
represent her. In a decision of 14 February 2018, the State Secretariat rejected her asylum
application and ordered her deportation from Switzerland. On 27 February 2018, the
complainant submitted an appeal to the Federal Administrative Tribunal. By judgment of 15
March 2018, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the State Secretariat and returned the
case for a hearing in the presence of the complainant’s legal representative, which took place
on 9 May 2018. To substantiate the grounds for her asylum application, the complainant
produced an article from the Cameroonian newspaper Le Courrier of 29 February 2016 about
her love affair with M.K. and the proceedings initiated against her by the Cameroonian
authorities.1
2.6
In a decision of 11 June 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the
complainant’s application for asylum, ordered her removal from Switzerland and ordered the
execution of this measure. On 9 July 2018, the complainant appealed against this decision.
In its judgment of 21 August 2018 ending the proceedings, the Federal Administrative
Tribunal declared the appeal inadmissible. Thus, the State Secretariat’s decision of 11 June
2018 became enforceable.
2.7
The complainant claims that the Swiss authorities rejected her asylum application on
the grounds that some of her allegations were implausible, without taking into account other
relevant elements of her case. She based her claim for asylum on the situation she faced as a
homosexual in Cameroon, having been caught in a sexual act with her female partner. This
behaviour is punishable both criminally and socially in Cameroon. The fact that some
elements of the complainant’s statement at her hearing on 9 May 2018 were contradictory
should not call into question the plausibility of her account, in accordance with the principle
of the balance of probabilities. Several other elements of the case support the credibility of
1
2
Le Courrier, edition of 29 February 2016, front page and page 3 (included in the file).
GE.21-00516