Date when decision was rendered: 25.8.2014

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 2473; 480/1/13

Reference to source

KHO 2014:131.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, residence permit, crimes against humanity,
utlänningar, asyl, uppehållstillstånd, brott mot mänskligheten,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, oleskelulupa, rikos ihmisyyttä vastaan,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87 and 89 of the Aliens Act; Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 § och 89 §; Rådets direktiv 2004/83/EG om miniminormer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer skall betraktas som flyktingar eller som personer som av andra skäl behöver internationellt skydd samt om dessa personers rättsliga ställning och om innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 12

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § ja 89 §; Neuvoston direktiivi 2004/83/EY kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelyä pakolaisiksi tai muuta kansainvälistä suojelua tarvitseviksi henkilöiksi koskevista vähimmäisvaatimuksista sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällöstä 12 artikla.

Article 1-F of Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; Articles 7 and 25 of the ICC Statute

Abstract

X was originally from Afghanistan and had applied for asylum in Finland.The Immigration Service found that the requirements for providing international protection were met.However, with reference to the exclusion clauses in the Aliens Act and the Refugee Convention, the Immigration Service held that X could not be granted asylum because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he had committed a serious non-political crime in his home country.X was issued with a temporary residence permit in Finland.The administrative court agreed with the Immigration Service.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that X had for almost 30 years been a member of the State Information Service (KhAD) in Afghanistan and had acted as a spy and an informer.KhAD was the official state security and intelligence agency and had reportedly been involved in various human rights violations, including subjecting civilians to arrest, disappearences, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and extrajudicial executions.In the court's view, such acts could be classified as crimes against humanity, rather than serious non-political crimes.A person is criminally responsible for a crime against humanity also if that person contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons.Mere membership to KhAD would not automatically lead to the application of the exclusion clauses.The individual exclusion assessment needs to take into consideration the individual's role, rank and functions within KhAD.In the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, X's long-term membership to KhAD could be regarded as contribution to human rights violations committed by KhAD.The court held that X must have known that at least some of the people he had reported to KhAD had ended up being executed.In connection with intelligence operations, X had infiltrated anti-government terrorist groups, had received weapons training and terrorist training and had acted as a commander to armed groups which where trained to terrorise people.In the court's view, it was not decisive whether or not X, because of his duties as member of KhAD and because of his involvement in undercover operations, had been obliged to contribute to human rights violations.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that X had contributed to the commission of crimes against humanity and could thus not be granted asylum in Finland.

7.7.2016 / 7.7.2016 / RHANSKI