[1]LB (Article 3 – Monrovia – Security) Liberia CG [2004] UKIAT 00299 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date of hearing: 24 March 2004 Date Determination notified: 28 April 2004 Before MS. D. K. GILL (VICE PRESIDENT) MRS. J. HOLT Between LB APPELLANT and Secretary of State for the Home Department RESPONDENT For the Appellant: Mr. B. Nauman, of Counsel, instructed by Duncan Lewis & Co. Solicitors. For the Respondent: Mr. P. Deller, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer. DETERMINATION AND REASONS The Appellant (a national of Liberia, born on 3rd May 1983, who entered the United Kingdom illegally on 17th October 2002) has appealed, with permission, against the determination of Mr. G M Perry, an Adjudicator, who (following a hearing on 11th July 2003 at Hatton Cross) dismissed his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds against the Respondent's decision of 28th November 2002 to give directions for his removal to Liberia.[2]The Respondent disputed the Appellant's nationality. The Adjudicator accepted that the Appellant is a Liberian national.[3]Given the terms of the grounds of application and the terms in which permission to appeal was granted, the issues before us are whether the Appellant's removal to Monrovia would be in breach of his rights under Articles 2 or 3, bearing in mind the general security situation in Monrovia and the humanitarian conditions in Monrovia.[4]The Tribunal in its reported decision in [2003] UKIAT 00164 T (Liberia) considered the issue of safety in Monrovia and concluded that Monrovia is safe. In that case, the Tribunal did not consider whether the general humanitarian conditions in Monrovia are such as to give rise to a breach of Article 3.[5]This Determination is being reported because:(a) with regard to the security situation in Monrovia, we have had our attention drawn to a report from UNHCR dated 8th August 2003, which was not before the Tribunal in the 164 T case. Our conclusion on the security situation is set out at paragraph 17.12 below.(b) we consider whether the general humanitarian conditions in Monrovia are such that removal to Monrovia would give rise to a breach of Article 3. Our conclusion on the general humanitarian conditions is set out at paragraph 18.6 below.[6]The Appellant's accounts: The Appellant is a Muslim by religion. He was born in Foya in Liberia. His mother is a Mandingo by ethnic origin. He claimed to have experienced problems in Liberia on account of his father's involvement with the Liberia Action Party (LAP) and his father's former position as a town warden. He claimed that his father was replaced by a new chief warden, after Charles Taylor came to power. He claimed that he and his family had problems with rebels fighting against the government of Charles Taylor, when the rebels attacked Foya. He claimed that, when government troops returned to the area, he and his family also had problems from the government troops because the new chief warden reported to them that the family's home was a base for the rebels. He claimed that his parents were shot by the government troops and that he and his brother managed to escape. He claimed to fear persecution from the government troops or the rebels. He also claims to fear persecution because of his Mandingo ethnic origin.[7]The Adjudicator's Determination: The Adjudicator rejected the Appellant's accounts of his alleged problems in Liberia on account of his father's political association or position as a town warden. It is clear from paragraphs 32 to 38 of the Determination that the Adjudicator did not believe the Appellant's story. He found that the Appellant's accounts of the problems facing his family had been free of any reference to any ethnic issue. It is clear, from paragraph 39 of the Determination, that the Adjudicator did not accept that the Appellant had ever suffered any problems on account of his half-Mandingo ethnic origin.[8]We quote paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the Determination:40. Given these facts I find that the Appellant has no well-founded fear of persecution were he to return to Liberia. I do not find that such a return, subject to my observation below, would be unreasonable or unduly harsh.41. I bear in mind the submissions made in relation to Article 3 of the ECHR and the Appellant's right not to suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and for the reasons set out I do not find that to return the Appellant to the [sic] Liberia would cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of its obligations under the Convention or at all.42. I am still mindful of the daily news that emerges of the situation in Liberia. It is clear that the situation is unstable and there is considerable loss of life - much of it civilian. Whilst I have found that the Appellant has neither established a well-founded fear of persecution nor engaged the articles of the ECHR I invite the Respondent to consider whether it would [sic] appropriate, in all the circumstances, to suspend its power to give removal directions.[9]In the grounds of application , it is asserted that the Adjudicator's recommendation that the Respondent suspend removal directions is an acknowledgement of a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment and that the Adjudicator therefore erred in dismissing the human rights appeal. It is asserted that the Adjudicator had failed to deal with the submission made to him that, if the Appellant's human rights appeal were to be allowed, then (absent a challenge to the Adjudicator's decision) the Appellant would have been granted humanitarian protection for a specified period, under a caution that, if the situation changes, he would be liable to be removed. Oral submissions[10]At the hearing before us, both parties agreed that the Adjudicator had erred in his assessment of the risk on return in relation to the Article 3 claim – firstly, because he had apparently taken into account "daily news" reports which were not adduced to him by way of evidence; and secondly, because his recommendation that the Respondent suspends removal directions undermines his finding that removal would not be a breach of the Appellant's Article 3 rights.[11]We drew Mr. Nauman's attention to the fact that the UNHCR report is dated 8th August 2003 – i.e. only four days after the arrival on 4th August 2003 of the peacekeeping troops in Monrovia. Furthermore, we noted that the UNHCR report appears to provide a general history of the conflict, and the human rights situation, in Liberia since December 1989. We asked Mr. Nauman to draw our attention to any parts of the UNHCR report which specifically deal with the situation in Monrovia since the arrival of the peacekeeping troops on 4th August 2003. page 11E para 19 (UNHCR) Reports from IDPs indicate serious maltreatment of displaced persons both within Monrovia and in the counties by all sides of the conflict, but particularly by the Government-allied forces. Reports continue to be made of systematic lootings, extortion, harassment and intimidation within Monrovia and the rest of the country. IDPs are robbed and forced to labour, oftentimes subjected to sexual abuse. page 11F para 22 (UNHCR) There are consistent allegations of abductions for forced labour or sexual slavery and forced recruitment by all parties in the conflict, especially government allied militia. Humanitarian agencies have documented many incidents of forced abduction of young men and women from displaced persons and refugee camps, some of which have implicated Government troops. As of the start of the year and towards the recent escalation of the conflict, abductions from IDP and refugee camps took place on a seemingly regular basis with camp residents reporting such incidents as their major concern. Abductees were allegedly used for purposes of porterage, sexual slavery, or other forms of forced labour. Forced recruitment is also known to have taken place in several locations and even within Monrovia in broad daylight, purportedly by Government allied forces. (our emphasis) page 11F para 24 (UNHCR) This states that crippling poverty, multiple displacements and continuous war has decimated Liberia's health infrastructure. At the height of the recent attacks on Monrovia there was not a single public hospital functioning in the whole of Liberia. In addition, the continuing conflict and looting of relief items has greatly reduced the capacity of the humanitarian community to respond to the current challenges in the health sector. para 5.18 CIPU report This states that there has been a reduction in violence in areas where peacekeepers have been deployed, particularly in Monrovia, but the situation remains tense. para 6.30 CIPU Report ......... There have also been incidents of rape, and theft from IDPs is common. Both forces loyal to the Government and rebels have committed these crimes, which appear to have been mainly perpetrated by members of the various militias. para 6.52 CIPU Report On 4th August 2003, the first units of the peacekeeping forces began into arrive. Both rebel and Government forces have withdrawn from Monrovia, and are allowing peacekeepers to operate within the city. para 6.53 CIPU Report However, this paragraph states that fighting is continuing in many areas. This violence is marked by looting and rape, mostly by rival Government and rebel militias. para 6.54 CIPU Report In the country generally, violent clashes between rebel and Government supporters has made the provision of aid and reporting on conditions in these areas very difficult. In July 2003, the UNHCR requested that Governments do not enforce the removal of failed Liberian asylum seekers for a period of six months. This was in response to an upsurge in violence, and the resulting difficulties in providing protection to the general population. para 6.33 CIPU Report Many members of the predominantly Muslim Mandingo minority encountered hostility when they sought to return, after the end of the civil war, to their villages ............Many Mandingos were unable to reoccupy their homes ...............Mandingo citizens faced growing discrimination, arbitrary arrests, and violence based on their ethnicity. page 11B (UNHCR) This refers to violations of the Cease-fire Agreement signed between the Government and two reels groups on 17th June 2003. page 11A (UNHCR) This states that a humanitarian disaster has ensued as international aid agencies have been unable to reach most of the country, including the capital, Monrovia, with food and medical aid that many people require. The lack of food, sufficient water and sanitation facilities has led to the outbreak of contagious diseases like diarrhoea and cholera. (This is repeated at page 11E, paragraph 18.) page 11C (UNHCR) This states that, despite the signing of the cease-fire agreement, fighting resumed on 24th June 2003 in Monrovia. Since then, the city has been under siege, several denied humanitarian access and means to their livelihood. page 11F (UNHCR) Ninety per cent of Liberians live in absolute poverty (less than $1 per day); of these, half live on less than $0.50 per day. This has translated to a serious situation of hunger, malnutrition and lack of access to the basic necessities of life. para 5.29 CIPU Report This states that, in Monrovia, the lack of medical supplies, food, adequate sanitation, and damage to the city's water supply caused by fighting, has made the health crisis much worse. Large numbers of people are seeking shelter in the city, which has added to the difficulty in providing adequate assistance. Civilians have also been caught up in the fighting in Monrovia. While it is not clear if they have been deliberately targeted, there have been a large number of casualties, possibly in the thousands. para 6.29 CIPU Report This states that recent fighting would mean that the present figure of IDPs can only be estimated, and this was given as 500,000 in September 2003. para 6.39 CIPU Report The recent fighting has also caused more people to seek shelter in Monrovia. In September 2003, there was an estimated 300,000 IDPs sheltering within the city, with only limited provisions for their care. The lack of medicine, food, access to clean water and shelter has resulted in a serious health crisis, which international agencies are attempting to address. para 6.50 CIPU Report Conditions in Monrovia itself remain poor. There is a lack of medical supplies, food, and adequate sanitation, and these factors have made the provision of health care difficult. Many thousands have been displaced by the recent fighting, and have no access to adequate shelter, they are either living rough, or seeking refuge in schools, churches or other temporary shelters. para 6.51 CIPU Report This refers to the looting of the port of Monrovia in early August 2003 by rebels withdrawing from the city and Liberians desperate to obtain food. The loss of supplies has made distribution of aid much harder for NGOs operating within the city. Peacekeepers have attempted to restore order to the port area, so as to permit the arrival of aid by sea. para 6.54 CIPU Report Conditions in Monrovia have improved, but the provision of basic services remains poor.[13]In Mr. Deller's submission, there was no reason for the Tribunal to take a different view from that taken by the Tribunal in the 164 T case . The Amnesty International Report referred in the 164 T case is the most up-to-date before us. It is clear from the Amnesty International Report that Monrovia is now safe. In Mr. Deller's submission, the humanitarian conditions in Monrovia were not such as to reach the Article 3 threshold.[14]In response, Mr. Nauman acknowledged that Amnesty International is a loud voice in relation to the Liberia but, in his submission, the report of Amnesty International Report quoted in the 164 T case was not as detailed as the UNHCR report dated 8th August 2003. In any event, the Amnesty International Report did not consider in detail the general humanitarian conditions in Monrovia, neither had the Tribunal in the 164 T case .[15]We reserved our determination. DETERMINATION AND REASONS[16]We have decided to dismiss this appeal, for reasons which we now give. Although the capital Monrovia enjoys an uneasy calm after the devastating events of June and July attacks on the civilian population by former government forces and the two armed opposition groups ........ are continuing in Bong, Nimba and Grand Bassa counties. " "It is clear the presence of United Nations troops offers protection to the civilian population in a few areas where they are currently deployed" .......... Amnesty International said "what is needed urgently is swift deployment of additional forces with adequate logistical support beyond Monrovia and the main route to Gbarnga". 40. The Court accepts the seriousness of the applicant's medical condition. Having regard however to the high threshold set by Article 3, particularly where the case does not concern the direct responsibility of the Contracting State for the infliction of harm, the Court does not find that there is a sufficiently real risk that the applicant's removal in these circumstances would be contrary to the standard of Article 3. It does not disclose the exceptional circumstances of the D. case (cited above) where the applicant was in the final stages of a terminal illness, AIDS, and had no prospect of medical care or family support on expulsion to St. Kitts.[19]It follows that we must dismiss this appeal. Decision The appeal is DISMISSED. Ms. D. K. GILL Vice President Date: 25th April 2004