page 5
2.10 On 2 November 1998, the Immigration Service rejected the complainant’s application for
asylum. The reasons for rejection related to his explanations about the three arrests he had
described. Regarding the arrest in 1989, the Immigration Service attached importance to the fact
that the complainant was not a member of a political party nor had he participated in any
political activities, that the Security Service arrested everybody at the mosque, and this was the
reason why the complainant was arrested, that the fact that he was beaten is not by itself a
foundation for asylum, and that the complainant was released after nine days.
2.11 With regard to the arrest in July 1995, the Immigration Service deemed important that the
arrest was caused by a riot in May between members of Islamic Al Jama’a and the Security
Service, where the complainant was not involved, that there were general arrests of many people
and not an individual persecution of the complainant, and that he was released after 3-4 hours
only. In relation to the arrest in May 1996, the Immigration Service attaches importance to that
the complainant was arrested because his cousin was connected with the Islamic movement and
because the Security Service unjustifiably suspected him of the same, that he was subjected to
heavy-handed treatment is not by itself a foundation for asylum, and that he was released after
about three weeks. The Immigration Service did not consider it as a reason for asylum that the
complainant was ordered to provide information about his friends and report to the Security
Service every Thursday, nor the fact that his brother was arrested after his departure, bearing in
mind that he was released after one month. Also the fact that the complainant collected money
for political prisoners was not considered a reason for asylum, since he did not have conflicts
with the authorities because of this. The complainant had also stated that it is prohibited to stay
outside Libya for more than six months. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed in
a letter dated 30 January 1998, that Libyan citizens, who return to Libya more than a year after
their legal or illegal departure, would be detained and questioned, and then released after some
hours. Finally, the Immigration Service attached importance to the fact that the complainant’s
passport carried an exit stamp dated 27 August 1996, but that he only applied for asylum
on 24 April 1997.
2.12 On 13 January 1999, the complainant was examined by the Amnesty International’s
Medical Group, Danish Section, which concluded that the symptoms identified in him are often
seen in people who have been subjected to extreme strains such as acts of war, detention or
torture, and that these symptoms are consistent with consequences of the alleged torture.
Furthermore, the Medical Group while not identifying any physical symptoms of torture,
considered that the complainant needed treatment because of his serious psychological
symptoms. The report was sent to the Danish authorities on 4 February 1999.
2.13 The complainant appealed the Immigration Service decision to the Refugee Board, which
confirmed the decision of the Immigration Service on 2 March 1999. Referring to the letter from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Refugee Board considered it unlikely that the complainant
would risk persecution upon return to Libya. In addition to repeating some of the argumentation
by the Immigration Service, the Refugee Board attached importance to the fact that the
complainant left Libya legally on 26 August 1996, where his passport was stamped on his
departure, and had therefore no reason to believe that he was exposed to such persecution as
envisaged by the law on asylum. Furthermore, the Refugee Board did not give importance to the

Select target paragraph3