FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12010/03 by Rigobert YOUATOU against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 April 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr M. Pellonpää , President , Sir Nicolas Bratza , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the application lodged on 9 April 2003,

Having regard to the Court's request, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent State not to expel the applicant pending the Court's fuller examination of the case,

Having regard to the communication of the case to the respondent Government in October 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Rigobert Youatou, is a national of Cameroon who was born in 1962. He currently lives in the United Kingdom.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

He first arrived in the UK in 1996 and, having applied for and been refused asylum, pre-empted removal directions by voluntarily returning to Cameroon through France in December 1999.

He submitted that he was subsequently arrested, beaten and tortured by the security forces in Cameroon when found taking pictures of a mass grave of persons allegedly killed by forces known as the Operational Command. He also maintained that he agreed to provide evidence of torture by the security forces to two NGOs ((Comité contre L'Impunité (“CNI”) based in Cameroon and “Poola'a” based in Cameroon and in Belgium) which were about to file proceedings against the President of Cameroon in Belgium. The applicant believed that the authorities in Cameroon found out (as a result of raids and interceptions) about his cooperation with CNI.

He left Cameroon on 28 January 2002 arriving in the United Kingdom on the same day. On 30 January 2002 he applied for asylum using an alias. He divulged his real name (and thereby his prior unsuccessful asylum application) during his immigration interview in March 2002.

On 22 March 2002 the Secretary of State refused asylum. He did not find the applicant's story convincing or credible for a number of detailed reasons given, notably the applicant's voluntary return to Cameroon in December 1999. By decision dated 23 July 2002 the Special Adjudicator (“SA”) rejected the applicant's appeal. Mr Nitcheu (the UK representative of CNI and the Chairman of Poola'a) gave evidence supporting the applicant's factual claims and to the effect that CNI's offices in Cameroon had been demolished in January 2002. The SA did not find the applicant credible (for a number of detailed reasons given) or Mr Nitcheu convincing (noting, inter alia , his failure to produce evidence of his membership of the relevant NGOs or of their existence).

On 30 September 2002 the applicant obtained leave to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“IAT”). On 7 March 2003 the IAT rejected his appeal. Additional evidence had been introduced by the applicant before the IAT including documents concerning his being a witness in the proceedings against the President of Cameroon and newspaper articles. The IAT considered that there was no good reason why these documents had not been produced to the SA and it was not satisfied that the new documentary evidence provided any proper basis for undermining the SA's findings. The IAT also noted:

“Even assuming that the [applicant] has involved himself with the attempt to bring matters before the Belgian courts, the [IAT] are not satisfied that this has been done for any motive other than to generate a plausible claim for asylum. If these matters were to come to the attention of the Cameroonian authorities, in our view there is no real risk in the light of his background and circumstances that it will be regarded by the Cameroonian authorities as anything other than a dishonest attempt to obtain asylum status to which he is not entitled. In our view there is no serious possibility that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 or that he will be persecuted for a Convention reason on return”.

On 31 March 2003 the Secretary of State rejected the applicant's request to withdraw removal directions: the genuine nature of his asylum request had been undermined by his failure to apply until March 2003 to the IAT for leave to appeal against the decision of the SA (this appears to be incorrect as the IAT had given leave on 30 September 2002) and by his failure to apply for leave to appeal from the decision of the IAT.

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court on 23 May 2003 and a renewed application was refused on 5 June 2003. On 3 July 2003 the Court of Appeal rejected his further appeal.

The applicant's further asylum application (based on the new documents and information) was rejected by the Secretary of State in July 2003.

One of the documents submitted to the Secretary of State was a letter from the applicant's girlfriend's brother in Cameroon explaining that the applicant's girlfriend had been arrested and tortured and had subsequently died and advising him not to return to Cameroon. The Secretary of State found that the letter was to be disregarded as “insignificant” and as “making no difference to the likelihood of your claim succeeding” as it did not provide evidence that the applicant himself would be at risk on return.

The applicant also submitted to the Secretary of State letters dated April and June 2003 from CNI and Poola'a in Cameroon respectively, confirming certain factual submissions of the applicant and supporting his asylum application. The Secretary of State found that, even if those NOGs existed, their letters provided no evidence of a real risk to the applicant on return and agreed with the IAT that, even if the applicant was a witness in the Belgian proceedings, he had done this to render his asylum appeal more plausible.

On 23 July 2003 the applicant made fresh representations to the Secretary of State and these were rejected on 5 August 2003. The applicant had submitted an arrest warrant from Cameroon. However, the Secretary of State considered that it was not conclusive evidence of risk on return to Cameroon: the burden was on the applicant to prove the authenticity of the arrest warrant, he had not discharged this burden and forgery was widespread in Cameroon. In addition, the warrant was signed on 5 March 2003 and sent by facsimile to the United Kingdom on 25 June 2003 so that the Secretary of State considered that the applicant had held back this document from prior asylum hearings in an effort to thwart his expulsion.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention about his proposed expulsion to Cameroon and under Article 6 about the fairness of the asylum proceedings in the United Kingdom.

THE LAW

On 21 October 2003 the applicant's complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention were communicated, the parties being also requested to submit any information as to the nature, history and current status of the proceedings issued in Belgium against the President of Cameroon.

By letter dated 1 March 2004 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted asylum status within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention and they enclosed a copy of a letter to this effect sent to the applicant on 25 February 2004. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application from its list of cases.

By letter dated 10 March 2004 the applicant confirmed that he no longer wished to proceed with his application and that he agreed that his case should be struck out of the Court's list of cases.

The Court finds that the matter has been resolved since the applicant has been granted asylum and no longer wishes to pursue his application. It also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation of the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O'Boyle Matti Pellonpää Registrar President