CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015 Advance unedited version
4.6
The State party submits that the removal of the author and her son to Ethiopia would
not be contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. It observes that the communication contains
no new information, except for the letter dated 30 August 2015 from the OLF Committee
Chairperson in the United Kingdom. The RAB accepted that she had been able to stay in
Ethiopia up to about three weeks after her father’s death in 2003, without having been
contacted by the Ethiopian authorities. It also accepted that several of her family members
had remained there for a long time, including her mother, who left Ethiopia only in 2010,
around four years after the author’s activities in Sudan had ceased. Moreover, her activities
for the OLF must be considered as less prominent. The Board thus found that a specific and
individual risk of persecution had not been rendered probable.
4.7
The State party observes that it appears from the author’s statements in the asylum
proceedings that she, her mother and her siblings had not experienced any kind of conflict
with the Ethiopian authorities as a consequence of her father’s circumstances, except for
several house searches, whether before or after his death, despite his longstanding
commitment to the OLF, and the fact that he had been imprisoned several times in this
connection and died as a result of torture. Her mother and siblings were also members of and
politically active for the OLF in Ethiopia, without experiencing any reprisals, and her mother
was able to continue living there until around 2010. Moreover, the author herself was not
involved with the OLF while still in Ethiopia.
4.8
The State party further observes that the author stated that her mother had often been
summoned for an interview with the Ethiopian authorities because they wanted information
on the whereabouts of her children and that the summonses had become more frequent after
her departure. The State party notes that her mother had only been asked about the departure
and whereabouts of her children and that she was not subjected to abuse on these occasions.
When asked why her mother had been summoned, the author replied that there was no real
answer to this question, but that she guessed that the authorities suspected her and her siblings
of performing illegal political activities.
4.9
Concerning the author’s stay in Sudan for around two years between 2003 and 2006,
the State party notes that it results from her own statement that she did not have any contact
with the Sudanese authorities at any time, nor was she identified or registered in connection
with OLF activities in Sudan. 600 to 700 people had been present at the OLF meetings that
she attended. Further, she does not appear to have played a prominent role, as she worked
with cleaning and in a cafeteria, her financial contributions were small and she was active for
the OLF only by singing, cooking and receiving tuition. Additionally, she was active for the
OLF only in Sudan and for two years only and ceased these activities in 2006. She was never
identified in this regard and never had any personal problems with the Ethiopian authorities.
4.10 The State party notes with concern reports of human rights violations in Ethiopia,
including against actual and suspected dissidents in the Oromia region.4 Large numbers of
4
4
alien to a country which is in full and effective enforcement of all the rights and freedoms set out in
the Convention”.
The State party also refers to Z. and T. v. United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), in which the
Court observed: “Where however an individual claims that on return to his own country he would be
impeded in his religious worship in a manner which falls short of those proscribed levels, the Court
considers that very limited assistance, if any, can be derived from article 9 by itself. Otherwise it
would be imposing an obligation on Contracting States effectively to act as indirect guarantors of
freedom of worship for the rest of the world”.
The State party submits that, in a few special cases, the European Court of Human Rights has
presumed that responsibility could attach to a Contracting State in respect of circumstances outside of
its own territory in relation to article 8 of the Convention. However, those cases presented territorial
ties with the Contracting State, contrary to the present case.
Amnesty International, “Because I am Oromo: Sweeping repression in the Oromia region of
Ethiopia”, October 2014, <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr25/006/2014/en/>; Human
Rights Watch, “Ethiopia: Lethal Force Against Protestors”, 18 December 2015,
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/18/ethiopia-lethal-force-against-protesters>; US Department of
State, “Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 – Ethiopia”, 25 June 2015, <https://20092017.state.gov/documents/organization/236570.pdf>; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2015:
Ethiopia”, <https://www.hrw.org/node/268032> ; Amnesty International, “Report 2014/15 –
Ethiopia”, 25 February 2015,