CAT/C/68/D/863/2018
As a result, the complainant’s asylum claim was not thoroughly examined. When she
applied for her temporary asylum residence permit, the complainant received medical care
at the Asylum Centre Medical Facility. Doctors there prescribed medication for her
epilepsy. The complainant took that medication, in addition to the medication her smuggler
had provided.
2.10 Asylum seekers in the Netherlands typically undergo a medical examination to see
whether they are fit to begin the asylum procedure. However, this practice had not yet been
initiated at the time when the complainant arrived in the Netherlands. On 26 and 28
October 2009, the immigration authorities interviewed the complainant. During these
interviews, she recounted her experiences, but did not mention that she had been raped. She
informed the authorities that she was taking medication for epileptic fits. After the
interviews, in a letter dated 29 December 2009, the complainant’s lawyer informed the
immigration authorities that the complainant had been mistreated and raped.
2.11 On 8 February 2010, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued to the
complainant a temporary asylum residence permit, which has a maximum validity of five
years, on the basis of the ongoing general violence (civil war) in Côte d’Ivoire. The
complainant’s permit was valid from August 2009 to August 2013. By 2013, the
complainant had regained contact with her children, who were residing in Mali. She applied
for family reunification with them.
2.12 On 30 October 2013, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a decision
announcing its plan to withdraw the complainant’s residence permit, because the
circumstances on the basis of which the permit had been issued no longer existed. In its
decision, the Service stated that the general policy of offering protection to nationals of
Côte d’Ivoire would be terminated, because the situation of general violence there had
ended on 30 June 2010. The Service also stated that the complainant did not qualify for a
residence permit based on individual risk. Her story lacked credibility because she had not
provided any identity or travel documents, and she was unable to provide any details about
her travel route. The Service indicated that under the “doctrine of positive persuasion”, any
inconsistency, vagueness or contradiction in an applicant’s narrative would result in an
adverse credibility finding. Because the complainant’s statements about what had happened
to her in her country of origin were astonishing, vague, lacking in detail, and inconsistent
on numerous points, the complainant was deemed to lack credibility.
2.13 On an unspecified date, the complainant appealed the decision to withdraw her
residence permit. In her appeal, she stated that she had been heavily medicated during her
interviews with the immigration authorities in October 2009. This explained her inability to
recall any details of her travel route, and to clearly recount her past experiences. She also
stated that she had been imprisoned and tortured in the past, and emphasized her diagnosis
of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, for which the treatment administered had not been
successful.
2.14 On 27 January 2014, the complainant, accompanied by her lawyer, attended an
appeal hearing before the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The complainant
informed the Service about her previous and ongoing medical issues, and indicated that she
was willing to undergo a medical examination, but did not want the Service to postpone its
decision on her case. The complainant wished to receive a decision as soon as possible,
since she had requested family reunification with her four children. The agents of the
Service asked her many questions about her experiences in Côte d’Ivoire, but she provided
inconsistent details in her answers. She explained that she was very afraid to return to her
country because of the horrible abuse she had endured there. She feared encountering her
abusers again, as they had never been charged or convicted for harming her. During the
hearing, the complainant had severe and unpleasant palpitations, and started to
hyperventilate. An emergency officer was summoned to examine her. After a brief pause,
the hearing continued.
2.15 On 17 March 2014, the Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the
complainant’s appeal and decided to withdraw her temporary asylum residence permit. In
its decision, the Service maintained that the complainant still had not provided any identity
or travel documents, that her statements during the hearing had been inconsistent with the
3