“The Expert and other Evidence.”
“The overall effect of sections 298B and 298C is to render it illegal for Ahmadis to (i) refer to themselves as Muslims or refer to their founder as a Prophet; (ii) refer to their places of worship as mosques; (iii) use the traditional Muslim form of greeting; (iv) use the Muslim call to prayer, known as the azhan ; (v) use the Qur’an or observe Islamic rites; and (vi) preach or ‘propagate’ the Ahmadi faith.”
“Alongside the blasphemy provisions, section 298B and 298C of the Penal Code impose severe limitations on the exercise of the Ahmadi faith. These restrictions, which encompass a prohibition to proselytise, were found to be incompatible with international human rights law (by the UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities) in 1985 (including the right to freedom of thought, expression, conscience and religion and the right of religious minorities to profess and practise their own religion). This has led many human rights observers to question whether sections 298B and 298C can be justified on the ground of public order or safety. Furthermore, the vagueness of language reportedly opens 298B and 298C to the same type of abuse as the blasphemy laws.”
“ Anti-Ahmadi sentiment is reportedly tolerated by the authorities. For example, the Punjab Government allowed Muslim religious leaders to hold an anti-Ahmadi conference in Rabwah on7 September 2008 , on the anniversary of the constitutional amendment which declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslim. Rallies and campaigns promoting intolerance and discrimination against Ahmadis, whether through traditional media, or distribution of pamphlets, use of stickers and wall graffiti, are reported across the country. It is also reported that hate speech and incitement to violence against Ahmadis, including by Islamic scholars, remain largely unchecked and/or unpunished by the authorities. Areas where discrimination against the Ahmadi community is institutionalized reportedly include issuance of passports and national identity cards, voting, property rights, access to education and freedom of expression and press. The Government designates religious affiliation on national identity cards and passports, and requests religious information in national identity card applications. Designation as ‘Muslim’ requires a written denunciation of the founder of the Ahmadi faith as a false prophet. This requirement has a particularly negative impact on Ahmadis and effectively prevents them from participating in the hajj or other Islamic pilgrimages. It also affects the distribution of cash assistance for internally displaced Ahmadis. A Government initiative to abolish the religious identification column in Pakistani passports was abandoned in March 2005, allegedly in response to pressure from Islamist religious parties. Pakistani citizens are also required to take an oath denouncing the founder of the Ahmadi movement in order to be listed as ‘Muslim’ on the electoral roll. Ahmadis, who refuse to disavow their claim to being Muslim, are thus effectively disenfranchised from participating in elections. It is further reported that, pursuant to a scheme to be introduced by the Punjab provincial authorities, Ahmadis may be required to identify themselves as ‘Qadiani’ on the national identification cards, which, if implemented, may put them at greater risk of being targeted. The Constitution prohibits discrimination on religious grounds with regard to admission to State-funded educational institutions. Prospective students must, however, declare their religious affiliation on the application form. Those who identify themselves as Muslim must declare in writing that they believe in the finality of the Prophethood, a requirement that singles out Ahmadis. Furthermore, it is reported that Ahmadis, alongside other religious minorities, continue to face discrimination in access to higher education. Ahmadis also appear to face discriminatory practices in public sector employment. It is reported that some Government departments refuse to hire or retain Ahmadis, who are also unlikely to be promoted in senior positions within the civil service. Although pursuant to section 298B(1) of the Penal Code Ahmadis are forbidden from calling their places of worship mosques, no formal restrictions on establishing places of worship exist. In practice, however, local authorities often refuse Ahmadis permission to build places of worship, and existing ones are at times closed, destroyed, desecrated or illegally expropriated. In addition, Ahmadis have been barred from holding public conferences since 1983. Their publications are banned from public sale, and the publishing houses are sometimes closed down and their staff harassed. Denial of shelter and/or relief aid to forcibly displaced members of the Ahmadi community from Dera Ghazi Khan, Muzaffargarh and Rajanpur districts in the context of massive floods in South Punjab in August 2010 was also reported. The existence of laws which are discriminatory and/or otherwise in breach of international human rights standards does not, of itself, amount to persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. An assessment of the implementation of the blasphemy, anti-Ahmadi and other discriminatory provisions and their effect is critical to establishing persecution. In determining whether restrictions on the right to freedom of belief and religion rise to the level of persecution, the breadth of the restrictions and the severity of the punishments incurred must be considered. The importance or centrality of the practice within the religion and/or to the individual concerned is equally relevant. In light of the foregoing, UNHCR considers that members of the Ahmadi community, including those targeted by Islamic extremist elements or charged with criminal offences under the blasphemy or anti-Ahmadi provisions, are likely to be in need of international refugee protection on account of their religion, depending on the individual circumstances of the case.”
“The question of law of public importance common to all these appeals is whether Ordinance No XX of 1984, the Anti-Islamic Activities of the Qadiani Group, Lahore Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, 1984 is ultra vires the Constitution. If not, whether the convictions recorded and the sentences imposed in five criminal appeals are in accordance with Section 5 introduced by it.”
“ a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Mohammed (peace be upon him), the last of the prophets and does not believe in, or recognise as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be, a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Mohammed (peace be upon him).”
“ a person who is not a Muslim and includes a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Parsi community, a person of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who calls themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), or Bahai, and a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes.”
“20. Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions – subject to law, public order and morality – (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.”
“…The Ahmadis like other minorities are free to profess their religion in this country and no-one can take away that right of theirs, either by legislation or by executive orders. They must, however, honour the Constitution and the law and should neither desecrate or defile the pious personage of any other religions including Islam, nor should they use their exclusive epithets, descriptions and titles and also avoid using the exclusive names like mosque and practice like ‘azan’ so the feelings of the Muslim community are not injured and the people are not misled or deceived as regards the faith.”
“1. The finding in IA and Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG[2007] UKAIT 00088 that the existence of a majority Ahmadi community in Rabwah does not justify dismissing an appeal which would otherwise be allowed remains valid. Rabwah is no safer than elsewhere in Pakistan for Ahmadis, but the question whether it is an appropriate internal relocation option for an Ahmadi will always depend on the particular circumstances and facts of that individual’s situation. 2. In Pakistan as a whole, whilst it is clear that from time to time local pressure is exerted to restrict the building of new Ahmadi mosques, schools and cemeteries, and that a very small number of Ahmadis are arrested and charged with blasphemy or behaviour offensive to Muslims, the number of problems recorded is small and has declined since the Musharraf Government took power. Set against the number of Ahmadis in Pakistan as a whole, they are very low indeed. The courts do grant bail and all appeals against blasphemy convictions in recent years have succeeded. 3. There is very sparse evidence indeed of harm to Ahmadis from non-state agents (though rather more anecdotal evidence of difficulties for Christians). The general risk today on return to Pakistan for Ahmadis who propagate the Ahmadi faith falls well below the level necessary to show a real risk of persecution, serious harm or ill-treatment and thus to engage any form of international protection. 4. Where, exceptionally, the facts of a particular appellant’s case indicate that such an appellant cannot be returned safely to their home area, the existence of an internal relocation option, either to Rabwah or elsewhere in Pakistan, is a question of fact in each such appeal.”
“Where it is found that an Ahmadi will be ‘discreet’ on return the reasons for such discretion will need to be considered in the light of HJ (Iran)[2010] UKSC 31 .”
“35. (a) The first stage, of course, is to consider whether the applicant is indeed gay. Unless he can establish that he is of that orientation he will not be entitled to be treated as a member of the particular social group. But I would regard this part of the test as having been satisfied if the applicant's case is that he is at risk of persecution because he is suspected of being gay, if his past history shows that this is in fact the case. (b) The next stage is to examine a group of questions which are directed to what his situation will be on return. This part of the inquiry is directed to what will happen in the future. The Home Office's Country of Origin report will provide the background. There will be little difficulty in holding that in countries such as Iran and Cameroon gays or persons who are believed to be gay are persecuted and that persecution is something that may reasonably be feared. The question is how each applicant, looked at individually, will conduct himself if returned and how others will react to what he does. Those others will include everyone with whom he will come in contact, in private as well as in public. The way he conducts himself may vary from one situation to another, with varying degrees of risk. But he cannot and must not be expected to conceal aspects of his sexual orientation which he is unwilling to conceal, even from those whom he knows may disapprove of it. If he fears persecution as a result and that fear is well-founded, he will be entitled to asylum however unreasonable his refusal to resort to concealment may be. The question what is reasonably tolerable has no part in this inquiry. (c) On the other hand, the fact that the applicant will not be able to do in the country of his nationality everything that he can do openly in the country whose protection he seeks is not the test. As I said earlier (see para 15), the Convention was not directed to reforming the level of rights in the country of origin. So it would be wrong to approach the issue on the basis that the purpose of the Convention is to guarantee to an applicant who is gay that he can live as freely and as openly as a gay person as he would be able to do if he were not returned. It does not guarantee to everyone the human rights standards that are applied by the receiving country within its own territory. The focus throughout must be on what will happen in the country of origin. (d) The next stage, if it is found that the applicant will in fact conceal aspects of his sexual orientation if returned, is to consider why he will do so. If this will simply be in response to social pressures or for cultural or religious reasons of his own choosing and not because of a fear of persecution, his claim for asylum must be rejected. But if the reason why he will resort to concealment is that he genuinely fears that otherwise he will be persecuted, it will be necessary to consider whether that fear is well founded. (e) This is the final and conclusive question: does he have a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted? If he has, the causative condition that Lord Bingham referred to in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006] 2 AC 426 , para 5 will have been established. The applicant will be entitled to asylum.”
“82. When an applicant applies for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he is gay, the tribunal must first ask itself whether it is satisfied on the evidence that he is gay, or that he would be treated as gay by potential persecutors in his country of nationality. If so, the tribunal must then ask itself whether it is satisfied on the available evidence that gay people who lived openly would be liable to persecution in the applicant's country of nationality. If so, the tribunal must go on to consider what the individual applicant would do if he were returned to that country. If the applicant would in fact live openly and thereby be exposed to a real risk of persecution, then he has a well-founded fear of persecution - even if he could avoid the risk by living "discreetly". If, on the other hand, the tribunal concludes that the applicant would in fact live discreetly and so avoid persecution, it must go on to ask itself why he would do so. If the tribunal concludes that the applicant would choose to live discreetly simply because that was how he himself would wish to live, or because of social pressures, e g, not wanting to distress his parents or embarrass his friends, then his application should be rejected. Social pressures of that kind do not amount to persecution and the Convention does not offer protection against them. Such a person has no well-founded fear of persecution because, for reasons that have nothing to do with any fear of persecution, he himself chooses to adopt a way of life which means that he is not in fact liable to be persecuted because he is gay. If, on the other hand, the tribunal concludes that a material reason for the applicant living discreetly on his return would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then, other things being equal, his application should be accepted. Such a person has a well-founded fear of persecution. To reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the Convention exists to protect – his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution. By admitting him to asylum and allowing him to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution, the receiving state gives effect to that right by affording the applicant a surrogate for the protection from persecution which his country of nationality should have afforded him.”
“There is no support in any of the human rights jurisprudence for a distinction between the conscientious non-believer and the indifferent non-believer, any more than there is support for a distinction between the zealous believer and the marginally committed believer. All are equally entitled to human rights protection and to protection against persecution under the Convention. None of them forfeits these rights because he will feel compelled to lie in order to avoid persecution.”
“1. Acts of persecution within the meaning of Article 1A of the Geneva Convention must (a) be sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made underArticle 15(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). 2. Acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1, can, inter alia, take the form of: (a) acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence; (b) legal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory measure; (c) prosecution or punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory; (d) denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; (e) prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses as set out in Article Article 12(2); (f) acts of gender-specific or child-specific nature. 3. In accordance with Article 2(c) there must be a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 10 and the acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1.”
“1(b) The concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief.”
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief in freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“While the Court would not rule out the possibility that the responsibility of the returning State might in exceptional circumstances be engaged underArticle 9 of the Convention where the person concerned ran a real risk of flagrant violation of that Article in the receiving State, the Court share the view of the House of Lords in the Ullah that it would be difficult to visualise a case in which a sufficiently flagrant violation of Article 9 would not also involve treatment in violation ofArticle 3 of the Convention .”
“This case raises the question of what approach should be applied to Article 9 rights allegedly at risk on expulsion. The applicants argue that a flagrant denial test should not be applied in the context of Article 9, as was done by the House of Lords in Ullah , as this would fail to respect the primacy of religious rights; and it is contended that effectively requiring them to modify their conduct, concealing their adherence to Christianity and forgoing the possibility of talking about their faith and bearing witness to others, in order to avoid hostile attention would be to deny the right per se . The Court’s case-law indeed underlines that freedom of thought, religion and conscience is one of the foundations of a democratic society and that manifesting one’s religion, including seeking to convince one’s neighbour, is an essential part of that freedom ( Kokkinakis , § 31). This is however first and foremost the standard applied within the Contracting States, which are committed to democratic ideals, the rule of law and human rights. The Contracting States nonetheless have obligations towards those from other jurisdictions, imposed variously under the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and under the above-mentioned Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. As a result, protection is offered to those who have a substantiated claim that they will either suffer persecution for, inter alia , religious reasons or will be at real risk of death or serious ill-treatment, and possibly flagrant denial of a fair trial or arbitrary detention, because of their religious affiliation (as for any other reason). 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 world. If, for example, a country outside the umbrella of the Convention were to ban a religion but not impose any measure of persecution, prosecution, deprivation of liberty or ill-treatment, the Court doubts that the Convention could be interpreted as requiring a Contracting State to provide the adherents of that banned sect with the possibility of pursuing that religion freely and openly on their own territories. While the Court would not rule out the possibility that the responsibility of the returning State might in exceptional circumstances be engaged underArticle 9 of the Convention where the person concerned ran a real risk of flagrant violation of that Article in the receiving State, the Court shares the view of the House of Lords in the Ullah case that it would be difficult to visualise a case in which a sufficiently flagrant violation of Article 9 would not also involve treatment in violation ofArticle 3 of the Convention .”
“In the present application, the applicants have failed to make out a case of persecution on religious grounds or to substantiate that they were at risk of a violation of Articles 2 or 3. Neither applicant had herself been subject to any physical attack or prevented from adhering to her faith. Both have claimed to have received unpleasant telephone calls and to have felt at risk of attack. The essence of their case rests on the general situation in Pakistan where there have been, over the past few years, attacks on churches and Christians. The domestic authorities however gave weight to the fact that the Christian community in Pakistan was under no official bar and indeed had their own parliamentary representatives and that the Pakistani law enforcement and judicial bodies respectively were taking steps to protect churches and schools and to arrest, prosecute and punish those who carried out attacks. The applicants have emphasised that the police themselves fear the Islamic extremists and that the authorities have failed in the past to protect Christian churches despite the presence of guards. Nonetheless it is not apparent that the authorities are incapable of taking, or are unwilling to take, appropriate action in respect of violence or threats of violence directed against Christian targets. In those circumstances, the Court finds that, even assuming thatArticle 9 of the Convention is in principle capable of being engaged in the circumstances of the expulsion of an individual by a Contracting State, the applicants have not shown that they are personally at such risk or are members of such a vulnerable or threatened group or in such a precarious position as Christians as might disclose any appearance of a flagrant violation ofArticle 9 of the Convention .”
“1. Is Article 9(1)(a) of [the] Directive…to be interpreted as meaning that not every interference with religious freedom which infringesArticle 9 of the ECHR constitutes an act of persecution within the meaning of [the former provision], and that a severe violation of religious freedom as a basic human right arises only if the core area of that religious freedom is adversely affected? 2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: (a) Is the core area of religious freedom limited to the profession and practice of faith in the areas of the home and neighbourhood, or can there be an act of persecution, within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of [the] Directive…, also in cases where, in the country of origin the observance of faith in public gives rise to a risk to life, physical integrity or freedom and the applicant accordingly abstains from such practice? (b) If the core area of religious freedom can also comprise the public observance of certain religious practices: - does it suffice in that case, in order for there to be a severe violation of religious freedom, that the applicant feels that such observance of his faith is indispensible in order for him to preserve his religious identity, - or is it further necessary that the religious community to which the applicant belongs should regard that religious observance as constituting a central part of its doctrine, - or can further restrictions arise as a result of other circumstances, such as the general conditions in the country of origin? 3. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Is there a well founded fear of persecution, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of [the] Directive…, if it is established that the applicant will carry out certain religious practices – other than those falling within the core area – after returning to the country of origin, even though they will give rise to a risk to his life, physical integrity or freedom, or can the applicant reasonably be expected to abstain from such practices.”
“[57] Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of a democratic society and is a basic human right. Interference with the right to religious freedom may be so serious as to be treated in the same way as the cases referred to inArticle 15(2) of the ECHR , to which Article 9(1) of the Directive refers by way of guidance, for the purpose of determining which acts must in particular be regarded as constituting persecution. [58] However, that cannot be taken to mean that any interference with the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Charter constitutes an act of persecution requiring the competent authorities to grant refugee status within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Directive to any person subject to the interference in question. [59] On the contrary, it is apparent from the wording of Article 9(1) of the Directive that there must be a ‘severe violation’ of religious freedom having a significant effect on the person concerned in order for it to be possible for the acts in question to be regarded as acts of persecution. [60] Acts amounting to limitations on the exercise of the basic right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the Charter which are provided for by law, without any violation of that right arising, are thus automatically excluded as they are covered by Article 52(1) of the Charter. [61] Nor can acts which undoubtedly infringe the right conferred by Article 10(1) of the Charter, but its gravity is not equivalent to that of an infringement of the basic human rights from which no derogation can be made byArticle 15(2) of the ECHR , be regarded as constituting persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Directive and Article 1A of the Geneva Convention. [62] For the purpose of determining, specifically, which acts may be regarded as constituting persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive, it is unnecessary to distinguish acts that interfere with the ‘core areas’ (‘forum internum’) of the basic right to freedom of religion, which do not include religious activities in public (‘forum externum’), from acts which do not affect those purported ‘core areas’. [63] Such a distinction is incompatible with the broad definition of ‘religion’ given by Article 10(1)(b) of the Directive, which encompasses all its constituent components, be they public or private, collective or individual. Acts which may constitute a ‘severe violation’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive include serious acts which interfere with the applicant’s freedom not only to practice his faith in private circles but also to live that faith publicly. [64] That interpretation is likely to ensure that Article 9(1) of the Directive is applied in such a manner as to enable the competent authorities to assess all kinds of acts which interfere with the basic right of freedom of religion in order to determine whether, by their nature or repetition, they are sufficiently severe as to be regarded as amounting to persecution. [65] It follows that acts which, on account of their intrinsic severity as well as the severity of their consequences for the person concerned, may be regarded as constituting persecution must be identified, not on the basis of the particular aspect of religious freedom that is being interfered with but on the basis of the nature of the repression inflicted on the individual and its consequences, as observed by the Advocate General at point 52 of his Opinion. [66] It is therefore the severity of the measures and sanctions adopted or liable to be adopted against the person concerned which will determine whether a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Charter constitutes persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Directive. [67] Accordingly, a violation of the right to freedom of religion may constitute persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive where an applicant for asylum, as a result of exercising that freedom in his country of origin, runs a genuine risk of, inter alia, being prosecuted or subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by one of the actors referred to in Article 6 of the Directive.”
“[69] Given that the concept of ‘religion’ as defined in Article 10(1)(b) of the Directive also includes participation in formal worship in public, either alone or in community with others, the prohibition of such participation may constitute a sufficiently serious act within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive and, therefore, persecution where, in the country of origin concerned, it gives rise to a genuine risk that the applicant will, inter alia, be prosecuted or subject to inhuman or degrading punishment by one of the actors referred to in Article 6 of the Directive. [70] In assessing such a risk, the competent authorities must take account of a number of factors, both objective and subjective. The subjective circumstance that the observance of a certain religious practice in public, which is subject to the restrictions at issue, is of particular importance to the person concerned in order to preserve his religious identity is a relevant factor to be taken into account in determining the level of risk to which the applicant will be exposed in his country of origin on account of his religion, even if the observance of such a religious practice does not constitute a core element of faith for the religious community concerned. [71] Indeed, it is apparent from the wording of Article 10(1)(b) of the Directive that the scope of protection afforded on the basis of persecution on religious grounds extends both to forms of personal or communal conduct which the person concerned considers to be necessary to him – namely those ‘based on … any religious belief’ – and to those prescribed by religious doctrine – namely those ‘mandated by any religious belief’.”
“- not all interference with the right to freedom of religion which infringes Article 10(1) of the Charter is capable of constituting an ‘act of persecution’ within the meaning of that provision of the Directive; - there may be an act of persecution as a result of interference with the external manifestation of that freedom, and - for the purpose of determining whether interference with the right to freedom of religion which infringes Article 10(1) of the Charter may constitute an ‘act of persecution’, the competent authorities must ascertain, in the light of the personal circumstances of the person concerned, whether that person, as a result of exercising that freedom in his country of origin, runs a genuine risk of, inter alia, being prosecuted or subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by one of the actors referred to in Article 6 of the Directive.”
“[78] None of those rules states that, in assessing the extent of the risk of actual acts of persecution in a particular situation, it is necessary to take account of the possibility open to the applicant of avoiding the risk of persecution by abstaining from the religious practice in question and, consequently, renouncing the protection which the Directive is intended to afford the applicant by conferring refugee status. [79] It follows that, where it is established that, upon his return to his country of origin, the person concerned will follow a religious practice which will expose him to a real risk of persecution, he should be granted refugee status, in accordance with Article 13 of the Directive. The fact that he could avoid that risk by abstaining from certain religious practices is, in principle, irrelevant. [80] In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the third question referred in both cases is that Article 2(c) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant’s fear of being persecuted is well‑founded if, in the light of the applicant’s personal circumstances, the competent authorities consider that it may reasonably be thought that, upon his return to his country of origin, he will engage in religious practices which will expose him to a real risk of persecution. In assessing an application for refugee status on an individual basis, those authorities cannot reasonably expect the applicant to abstain from those religious practices.”
“Where however an individual claims that on return to his own country he would be impeded in his religious worship in a manner that falls short of these prescribed 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 on worship for the rest of the world.”
“(i) The appellant MN is an Ahmadi. (ii) He was a successful businessman in Pakistan with sufficient wealth to enable him to donate significant sums of money to the Ahmadi community. (iii) He was an active member of the Ahmadi community within the community in Pakistan. (iv) The appellant “discreetly proselytised his faith” to non-Ahmadis in Pakistan but only to persons he could trust because he was not allowed to go and preach in Pakistan. (v) The appellant was present at and injured in the attack by Islamist extremists on the Ahmadi mosque in Modeltown, Lahore on28 May 2010 . (vi) He was taken to hospital and in hospital he was visited [there] by the Interior Minister, Mr Rehman Malik, on29 May 2010 . (vii) The appellant’s speaking to the Minister – as a victim of the attack – was shown on Pakistani television. (viii) On31 May 2010 the hospital in which the appellant lay was also attacked by Islamist extremists.”
“However, Ahmadis were subject to the worst possible persecution when Zia Ul Haq took over the reins of power after removing Bhutto. On26 April 1984 Zia, influenced by reactionary elements, promulgated Ordinance XX which added sections 298(B) and 298(C) to the Pakistan penal code Under this legislation it is an offence, punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years, the imposition of a fine or both for an Ahmadi who: directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims. ” (as quoted from Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jamaat: History, Belief, Practice by S Valentine published in London in 2008.) He continues: “In 1986 Ahmadis were subject to even more repressive legislation when 295C was inserted into the Penal Code. This stated that the penalties for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad were death or life imprisonment with fines. This was later amended in 1991 to make the death penalty, the only punishment for blasphemy.”
“It is quite active hounding Ahmadis in the UK, Suhail Bava is currently its leader. There are some instances when Khatm-i-Nabuwat operatives exhort on the Muslims to boycott Ahmadi shopkeepers. From the oral source it has been learned that some Ahmadis have moved to other vicinities where they have their kins.”
“The Ahmadi person will believe that Muhammad is khatamun nabiyyen , the seal of the all the prophets and will believe that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the same Imam Mahdi and promised messiah whose advent was prophesied by the Holy Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.”
“The Ahmadi person will promise that he will try his best to abide by the ten conditions of bai’at (initiation) as prescribed by the promised messiah (set out below); that he will give precedence to his/her faith over all worldly objects; that he will remain loyal to the institution of Khalifat in Ahmadiyyat and will obey the Khalifatul Mashi and everything good that he may require of that Ahmadi. Integral to this promise is that the Ahmadi will spread his faith to others who are not Ahmadis and engage in doing good works.”
“There is no compulsion in faith. Jihad now is only meant to be a striving towards righteousness. A jihad can only be declared by a state under special conditions and cannot be called by individuals or groups.” ii. Further: “There is no worldly punishment for apostasy.” iii. In contrast, non-Ahmadis believe that: “ Jihad means a holy war and is an essential article of faith. Having invited a non-believer to Islam, if he/she does not believe he/she should be killed.” iv. and: “Anyone who converts from Islam to another faith must be decapitated.”
“All Khalifa (heads of the Ahmadiyya community) have been reminding about this obligation to preach. For this task the entire Jama’at, missionaries and the auxiliaries work side by side. The resources of the community (publications, literature, the 24 hour satellite TV channel, a system of trained missionaries with the fresh pool known as waqfeen nau children who are committed to devote their lives for the sake of their God) are fully committed to the attainment of that objective. Nevertheless it must be firmly understood that propagation is one thing and conversion a completely different issue. The aim of each Ahmadi is to convey the message and it is up to God to guide the person to whom the message has been conveyed towards the light… Thus it is the responsibility of each Ahmadi in each community to preach. Each Ahmadi’s task is to fulfil his/her responsibility.”
“It should also be remembered that whereas preaching is a requirement of each Ahmadi, an Ahmadi who does not or is unable to preach because of circumstances beyond his reasonable control will not be excommunicated. Different Ahmadis practise their faith at different spiritual levels but just because they have not manifestly preached does not mean they were less devout and sincere in their beliefs.”
“Quite obviously an Ahmadi must use wisdom and due diligence when engaging in preaching as in some countries, for instance in the Middle East, free assembly and debate is prevented. In such places an Ahmadi is required to display a high moral standard so that others are attracted to that Ahmadi and his way of life and thus wish to enquire about his beliefs. This would be the minimum standard of discreet indirect preaching by leaving an impression on someone about one’s chosen way of life expected of an Ahmadi. It is only due to the fear of persecution that Ahmadis are obliged to conceal a fundamental obligation of their faith and modify their preaching activities by being discreet to avoid such harassment. Ahmadis therefore believe that such forced concealment makes it persecutory.”
“The duty to propagate beliefs is essential to the missions of prophets. The prophets have a constant urge to spread the message that they receive from God and rescue as many souls as possible and bring such souls closer to the ways of God rather than following ways towards darkness and evil. This work cannot be achieved by one person alone. Following the demise of the prophet, his works are carried on by his successors. Ultimately, it is therefore the adherents of that prophet who are the instruments to broadcast that message to the people. The Arabic word is ‘ tabligh ’ and is not limited to the narrower translation of how preaching is understood in the UK. It incorporates preaching, proselytising and propagation of the faith.”
“Life for Ahmadi women living without the protection of male relatives in the context of present day Pakistan would undoubtedly be fraught with difficulties and dangers, and this scenario becomes even more problematic were they to be bringing up children of their own. The challenge of operating successfully without the involvement of male relatives is intensely difficult for Pakistani women. Ahmadi women without male support would not only be personally endangering themselves but also risking their children’s safety and wellbeing.”
“…these auxiliary organisations enable the Ahmadi Muslim community to ensure that no member is disenfranchised and can correlate to a group of likeminded gender, age and interests”
“Country guidance on the position of Ahmadis in Pakistan. Questions answered by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association UK; evidence of persecution of the followers of the Ahmadi faith in Pakistan.”
“We would not like to hazard a guess”
“What would the likely charge/sentence for someone openly propagating by standing on a street corner issuing leaflets and proclaiming the Ahmadi faith as the true religion?”
“The crime statistics from April 1984 to December 2011, however, list a number of registered cases against Ahmadis for offences against religion that is far below ‘tens of thousands’ of cases. A possible explanation might be that in two cases the entire population of Rabwah and Kotli respectively were accused of offences under section 298C and for the repair of a mosque – if these two cases are included the figure is indeed in tens of thousands.” m. Dr Lau goes on to observe, however, that the paucity of centrally and officially collected data on the number of Ahmadis accused should not, in his opinion, “…detract from the fact that all human rights organisations consistently report a significant number of such cases”. n. In respect of the reliability of the Ahmadi community’s own reports and figures, he explains that as a member of the PHRG he was able to interview many of the victims of violence and false prosecutions which featured in the 2009 community report. Without exception, their accounts accorded with what had been written and had been published. He describes the Ahmadi community as quite well-organised and producing reports that are as accurate as possible. He is not aware of any suggestion of over or under- reporting. o. Dr Lau observes the limited time available to him in order to prepare his report meant that he was not able to answer an enquiry about a reference in the PHRG report that no Ahmadi dares to propagate in the open. As to reported incidents of Ahmadis operating medical camps, his instructions had not referred him to any incidents of this but he was aware of reports that during the catastrophic floods of 2010 some 500 internally displaced families were denied humanitarian aid apparently on the ground of their religion. He is also aware that the Ahmadi community itself runs medical camps. p. Questions turn to the availability of bail and whether the provisions under sections 295 and 298 of the Code are bailable by the police as opposed to the courts and if so which ones. His response is that: “ offences under sections 295 PPC are bailable, all others under section 295 are not.”
“I would describe the position of Ahmadi men and women as being under extreme risk. Violations of human rights against them are a flagrant denial of their religious rights too. However, in my view the situation of Ahmadis is worse than other religious minorities. Their very existence is under consistent threat. Violations of human rights against Ahmadis are systematic and of a serious nature.”
“The Convention is not there to safeguard or protect potentially affected persons from having to live in regimes where pluralist values are less respected, even much less respected than they are here.” (xiv) The TV station of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, MTA, is readily available throughout Pakistan and they have a number of publications which are both published and circulated in Pakistan. (xv) Ahmadis are generally safe in Pakistan but where exceptionally it is found one cannot return to one’s home area, the existence of the internal flight option will always be a question of fact. (xvi) As to the applicability of HJ (Iran) UKSC 31, the court was not setting a rigid principle but a flexible one to be applied according to the context of the claim made. There is no reliable evidence that those Ahmadis who live openly in Pakistan are being persecuted. They are free to go to their places of worship up and down the country. As to preaching, individual Ahmadis take their duty more or less seriously according to their own views and the strength of their devotion. It should not be assumed on the basis of the evidence of Imam Rashed that every single Ahmadi has a very deep conviction to preach his faith. Quoting from his skeleton, “the Secretary of State accepts that if an Ahmadi applicant demonstrates that if he returns to Pakistan and lives openly as an Ahmadi, he will face real and continuing prospect of persecution, he will be a refuge, even if, because of dangers of living openly, he will actually live discreetly.”
“It is for the authority responsible, the asylum granting authority for reviewing the application of someone to verify whether the legislation is actually implemented by the Pakistani authority … on the basis of regular reports issued by states and by organisations for the protection of human rights. If it is it can reach the level of persecution.”
“The following activities are important to me in the way in which I express my faith. If I indulge in those activities I will come to the attention of groups like KN, and that will give rise to an atmosphere of insecure daily living, which I should not be expected to put up with and if an FIR is issued, even more so.”
“by requiring the refugee applicant to abandon a core right, a refugee decision maker is requiring the refugee claimant, the same submissive and compliant behaviour, the same denial of a fundamental human right which the agent of persecution in a country of origin seeks to achieve by persecutory conduct”
“A determination of whether the applicant’s proposed or intended action lay at the core of the right or at its margins [is] useful in deciding whether or not the prohibition of it amounts to persecution.”
“The application of the tests set out by the CJEU are to the sort of conduct which the appellants would wish to carry out in Pakistan and as the appellants have made clear, we are not simply talking about preaching but about manifestations of their religion and the practice of what is required by the religion in all aspects of life means that each of the appeals must now succeed.”
“ 298B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places. (1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation; (a) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),as ‘ Ameerul Mumineen ’, ‘ Khalifa-tui-Mumineen ’, ‘ Khalifatul- Muslimeen ’, ‘ Sahaabi ’ or ‘ Razi Allah Anho ’ (b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as ‘ Ummul-Mumineen ’ (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family ( Ahl-e-bait ) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as ‘ Ahl-e-Bait ’; or (d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as ‘ Masjid ’; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Any person of the Quadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as ‘ Azan ’ or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 298C. Person of Quadiani group etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith. Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘ Ahmadis ’ or by any other name), who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
“295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Item Document Date 1 Aysha Haroon, International: The News, ‘While the State Looks Away’23 May 2012 2 Rana Tanveer, The Express Tribune, ‘Ahmadi place of worship: Clerics press for demolition of dome’21 May 2012 3 UNHCR, Eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of members of religious minorities from Pakistan’14 May 2012 4 Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan: News Report April 2012 5 Dawn.com, ‘No looking back for us’7 April 2012 6 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: Government makes no effort to halt the12 March 2012 Persecution and killings of Ahmadis’12 March 2012 7 John Cheetham, www.canberratimes.com.au , “A good Muslim’s better life cut short by Extremists’11 March 2012 8 March 5-11: Extremism Watch, Jinnah-institute 5-11 March 2012 9 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘Another Ahmadi Martyred in Pakistan’7 March 2012 10 Azam Khan, The Express Tribune, ‘Police bar Ahmadis from entering worship centre’2 March 2012 11 Rahab Fizah & Anna Thorning, Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: More Muslim than the Muslims’2 March 2012 12 Z Ali, The Express Tribune, ‘Targeted Attack: Ahmadi Killed, grandson injured in Shaheed Benazirabad’1 March 2012 13 Abdul Alim, The Muslim Times, ‘Pakistan: Punjab govt orders Ahmadiyya women Magazine ‘Misbah’ banned, threatens Daily Al-Fazal’21 March 2012 14 The Express Tribune, ‘Minority Issue: Cameras forced off Ahmadi worship Centre’25 February 2012 15 Pakistan Today, ‘Shahbaz Bhatti’s alleged killer remanded for 7 days’14 February 2012 16 Rana Yusuf, The Express Tribune, ‘Barred: Lawyers ban drink on court complex’11 February 2012 17 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘Ahmadiyya community targeted by terrorist organisations’4 February 2012 18 Amnesty International News, ‘Pakistan should protect Ahmaddiya community against threat of violence’2 February 2012 19 Imran Jattala Ahmadiyya Times, ‘Rawalpindi’30 January 2012 20 Mudassir Raja, The Express Tribune, ‘Protest against ‘unconstitutional’ practices becomes Ahmadi rally’29 January 2012 21 Human Rights Watch World Report 2012 2012 22 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘Pakistan: the State of Human Rights in 2011’ 2011 23 Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan during the Year 2011: A Summary31 December 2011 24 Rana Tanveer, Express Tribune, ‘Harassment: Three Ahmedis [sic] accused under Blasphemy laws’24 December 2011 25 Atif M Malik, Health & Human Rights Journal, ‘Denial of flood aid to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community In Pakistan’ 2011 26 Amnesty International Report 2011 (Pakistan) 2011 27 Jinnah Institute, ‘A Question of Faith: A Report on the Status of Religious Minorities in Pakistan’ 2011 28 Abdul Manan, The Express Tribune, ‘For minorities in Pakistan, persecution never ends’4 December 2011 29 Rana Tanveer, The Express Tribune ‘Blasphemy allegations: Ahmadi family under threat from Clerics’1 December 2011 30 Syed Danish Hussain www.nation.com.pk ‘Banner against Ahmadis not removed despite passing 10 Days’20 November 2011 31 Muhammad Sadaqat, The Express Tribune ‘Hint of Ahmadi ties gets hakkem ‘banished’ ‘1 November 2011 32 BBC News Asia, ‘Pakistan judge Pervez Ali Shah ‘flees death threats’25 October 2011 33 Rana Tanveer, The Express Tribune, ‘Qadri supporters rail against US, Ahmadis’10 October 2011 34 Zeenews.com, ‘Ahmadi students, teacher expelled from Pak schools8 October 2011 35 Declan Walsh, the Guardian, ‘Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have left even judges in fear of their lives’3 October 2011 36 BBC News Asia, ‘Salman Taseer murder: Mumtaz Qadri sentenced to death’1 October 2011 37 Home Office UK Border Agency, Country of Origin Report: Pakistan29 September 2011 38 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: Ahmadi students are under threat from the Extremist religious groups – government turns a blind eye Again’28 September 2011 39 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: The federal government must intervene To stop the killings of Ahmadis’5 September 2011 40 Omar Oakes, This is Local London, ‘Morden man fears for brother named on Ahmadiyya Muslim murder list in Pakistan’5 August 2011 41 Home Office UK Border Agency, Operational Guidance Note, Pakistan August 2011 42 Daily Times, ‘Ahmedi community slams govt over killing of minority Member’13 July 2011 43 Saba Imtiaz, The Express Tribune, ‘Ahmadis in Karachi: Pulpit pounding, barricades, prayers But no peace’19 June 2011 44 ‘Ahmadis panic over hit list’ www.ucanews.com14 June 2011 45 Afnan Khan, Daily Times, www.dailytimes.com.pk ‘Terrorists chalk out plan to target Ahmedis’ [sic]14 June 2011 46 Shamsul Islam, The Express Tribune, ‘Textile City: Politicians turn blind eye to hate pamplets’13 June 2011 47 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: Extremists openly plan to kill hundreds of Ahmadis—government turns a blind eye’11 June 2011 48 Umer Nangiana, The Express Tribune ‘Ahmadis fair game for TTP Kidnappers’10 June 2011 49 Shamsul Islam, The Express Tribune, ‘Targeting minorities: No friend to Ahmadis in Faisalabad’ (Copy of Pamphlet mentioned in article with translation from Persecution.org)9 June 2011 50 Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: A year on from the Lahore attacks but Ahmedis Still suffering’ [sic]30 May 2011 51 PAKISTAN : Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Annual Report 2011 2011 52 BBC News South Asia, ‘Pakistan Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti shot dead’2 March 2011 53 The Independent, ‘Pakistan: Boy arrested for exam blasphemy’2 February 2011 54 Julie McCarthy www.npr.org/2011/01/24 , ‘Extremist Intimidation calls Pakistan secular society’24 January 2011 55 Home Office UK Border Agency, Country of Origin Information Report: Pakistan [Extract]17 January 2011 56 BBC News South Asia, ‘Punjab Governor Salman Taseer assassinated in Islamabad’4 January 2011 57 Human Rights Watch World Report 2011: Pakistan 2011 58 Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan during the Year 2010: A Summary 2010 59 BBC South Asia, ‘Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi ‘has price on her head’’7 December 2010 60 Human Rights Watch, ‘Pakistan: Repeal Blasphemy Law’23 November 2010 61 US Department of State: Pakistan International Religious Freedom Report17 November 2011 62 US Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report [extract] July-December 2010 63 Dawn.com, ‘Firing at Ahmedi worship place in Lahore; no casualties’19 November 2010 64 Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request ‘RIRs’4 November 2010 65 BBC News South Asia, ‘Pakistan Ahmadi man forcibly exhumed in Lahore’2 November 2010 66 Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request ‘RIRs’: ‘Arrest Warrants’28 October 2010 67 Pak Tribune.com, ‘Ahmadi leader killed in Mardan suicide attack’4 September 2010 68 David O’Reilly, The Philadelphia Inquirer, ‘US citizen slain over his religion in his native Pakistan’25 August 2010 69 Ahmadiyya Times, ‘Pakistan: Plea against Mubashir Luqman dismissed’16 August 2010 70 Afnan Khan, Daily Times, ‘Inquiry into attacks on Ahmedis pulls off vanishing act’ [sic]6 July 2010 71 Los Angeles Times, ‘Pakistan sect endures persecution’ Alex Rodriguez6 July 2010 72 Aljazeera News, ‘Lahore most assault suspects held’5 July 2010 73 Mohsin Hamid, Dawn.com, ‘Fear and Silence – Why are Ahmadis persecuted so ferociously in Pakistan?’27 June 2010 74 Rana Tanveer, Express Tribune, ‘Shezan factory attacked in Lahore’14 June 2010 75 Duncan Walsh, The Guardian, ‘Ahmadi massacre silence is dispiriting’7 June 2010 76 Fayed Pervez/PPI Photographs of KN protest, Pashawar, Pakistan7 June 2010 77 The Economist, ‘Into the heartland; The Punjabi Taliban’5 June 2010 78 Human Rights Watch, ‘Pakistan: Massacre of Minority Ahmadis’1 June 2010 79 Abdul Manan, Express Tribune, ‘Ahmadi man murdered in Narowal’1 June 2010 80 BBC News, ‘Gunman attack Pakistani hospital’1 June 2010 81 Reuters & Khaleej Times, ‘Pakistani law fuels hatred of Ahmadis: UN experts’31 May 2010 82 BBC News South Asia, ‘Pakistan mosque attacks in Lahore kill scores’29 May 2010 83 Jane Perlez, New York Times, ‘Pakistani Taliban carried out attack on Lahore Mosques, Police say’29 May 2010 84 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘Ahmadi Muslim Killed in Karachi’26 May 2010 85 ‘Police Organisations in Pakistan’, Extract of 2.7 Women in the Police HRCP/CHRI 2010 May 2010 86 Farhad Jerral, ‘Culperable role of PML-N in Lahore’s Ahmadi massacre’ with English translation May 2010 87 Dawn.com, ‘A community harried by threats’14 April 2010 88 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘3 Ahmadi Muslims Killed in Pakistan in Barbaric Attack’4 April 2010 89 US Department of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Pakistan11 March 2010 90 Human Rights Commission In Pakistan, ‘State of Human Rights in 2009’ [extract] February 2010 91 Parliamentary Human Rights Group Report of the fact Finding mission to Pakistan to examine the human rights Situation of the Ahmadiyya community 13-22 February 2010 92 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘Retired Ahmadi Professor Murdered in Lahore’5 January 2010 93 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘An Ahmadi Teacher Killed in Pakistan’30 November 2009 94 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010: Pakistan ‘Events of 2009’ [extract] undated 95 Persecution.org, Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan during the Year 2009: A Summary undated 96 Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat International Press Release, ‘Murder of Another Ahmadi Muslim in Pakistan’5 October 2009 97 UN High Commissioner for Refugees ‘Pakistan: The situation of religious minorities’ [extract] May 2009 98 Ahmadiyya Foreign Missions Office Press Release, ‘Brutal Murder of Two Ahmadi Doctors in Multan’18 March 2009 99 International Crisis Group, ‘Reforming the Judiciary in Pakistan, Asia Report 160’16 October 2008 100 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010: Pakistan ‘Events of 2008’ undated 101 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request (AMA UK procedure)26 November 2007 102 Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan during the Year 2008: A Summary undated 103 Home Office UK Border Agency, Country of Origin Information Report Pakistan [extract]30 April 2007 104 Parliamentary Human Rights Group, ‘Rabwah: A Place for Martyrs?’ January 2007 105 The Constitution of Pakistan, Part 2, Chapter 1: Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy undated 106 Judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan Criminal Appeals No 31-K to 35-K of 1988; Civil Appeals No 149 and 150 of 1989 and Civil Appeal No 412 of 1992 1992, 1989, 1988 107 Pakistan Penal Code6 October 1860 APPENDIX D Extract from “Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan during the Year 2011”