UK judges
demolish Iranian Bahai couple claims against Iran: Say they carried out
religious teaching activities against the wishes of Government
The hearing was
for granting asylum of an Iranian Bahai couple by UK state Department. The case
was heard at Bradford on 27 April 2006
Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE Mr. LANE , Mr.ROBERTS and Mr. MACDONALD
The Iranian
Bahai couple was the appellant and the secretary of State Home department (UK)
was the respondent.
The case is an
eyeopener against Bahai propaganda on alleged atrocities in Iran. The learnt
judge have demolished all appeals of the Bahai couple against the government of
Iran. The comments of the learned judges would be guidance to other
judiciaries, in times to come, for realizing the truth.
The Case
The
appellant, a citizen of Iran born on 29 August 1953, entered the United Kingdom
on 23 April 2005 using a twelve-month visitor’s multi-visa, which was valid
from 14 February 2005 to 14 February 2006. He was accompanied by his wife. On
10 October 2005, the appellant claimed asylum. On 16 November 2005 the
respondent decided (i) to vary the appellant's leave to enter the United
Kingdom, so as to terminate that leave, and (ii) that the appellant should be
removed to Iran by way of directions. The appellant appealed against that
decision on the grounds that his removal from the United Kingdom in consequence
of it would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee
Convention and would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
as being incompatible with the appellant's rights under the ECHR.
The Tribunal's assessment
A. Iranian Bahai Claim
Baha’is in Iran
face substantial discrimination, which extends beyond the purely religious
field to such matters as education, work, ownership of property and access to
justice.
Tribunal's assessment
The evidence does not, however, show that the nature and prevalence
of this discrimination is of such intensity and generality as to amount to
persecution for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. It is significant that
none of the outside observers who have had cause to consider the situation of
Baha’is has formed the conclusion that a person is at real risk of persecution
in Iran merely by reason of being a Baha’i. That includes Baha’is who practise
their faith. Whilst the use of such language by the couple is understandable,
it does not compel a conclusion on the part of this Tribunal that any Iranian
Baha’i, practising or not, who makes his or her way to the United Kingdom,
should without more investigation be accorded international protection.
B. Iranian Bahai Claim
The appellant Doctor by profession claims
to fear persecution in Iran on account of their being Bahais.. The appellant
was arrested in 1983 on charges relating to his activities as a Baha’i, and
sentenced to ten years imprisonment by the Revolutionary Court. He was released
in 1989, having served some five years eight months of his sentence.
In 1998 the appellant was arrested in
connection with his activities as a lecturer at the Baha’i Institute of Higher
Education. The appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment by the
Revolutionary Court. After fourteen months and fourteen days, the appellant was
released by the Court of Appeal, which the appellant ascribed in part, to
international pressure on Iran to improve the treatment of Baha’is.
In July 2004 the
appellant was arrested at home whilst hosting a devotional meeting involving a
form of Baha’i teaching developed by an organisation known as the Ruhy
Institute. Ruhy teaching enables non-Baha’i people to become familiar with the
Baha’i faith. One of those present at the devotional meeting was a Muslim who
had informally converted to the Baha’i faith. The appellant's wife was also
arrested and accused of converting Muslims to that faith. The appellant was
released on bail after two nights in detention.
Tribunal's assessment
Putting that matter aside, both the appellant and his wife were able to study
and become doctors and, albeit with difficulty, practice their profession in a
variety of places in Iran. The confiscation of their home was, we find, most
likely to have been an aspect of the authorities’ adverse attention towards the
appellant as a result for what they perceived to be his teaching and community
activities. The appellants were able to travel abroad and return without
significant difficulties. We say so, bearing in mind what the appellant and his
wife described as an unpleasant incident at the airport when they returned to
Iran in 2001.
C. Iranian Bahai Claim
Bahais are being
harassed in Iran, in particular, under the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
who was elected in June 2005 and who, it is clear from the evidence, pursued a
more conservative and uncompromising set of policies than those of his
predecessor.
Tribunal's assessment
The
fact is, nevertheless, that according to the latest reports, relatively few
Baha’is are being arrested and imprisoned, considering the overall size
(300-350,000) of the Baha’i community in Iran. As we have already noted, even
Human Rights Watch, in its 2006 report, goes no further than to opine that
Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities ‘are subject to discrimination and, in
some cases, persecution’. The express reference to the Baha’is, which follows
this quotation, refers to the community continuing ‘to be denied permission to
worship or engage in communal affairs in a public manner’. That Baha’is are
able to pursue their religious observances in domestic settings is clear. It is
many years since they were last permitted in general to worship in public halls
and the like. The evidence before us does not show such a flagrant denial of a
Baha’i’s freedom of religion as to amount to an effective denial for that right
D. Iranian Bahai Claim
Baha’is are on
occasion deprived of their rights to property,
Tribunal's assessment
1-The evidence before us does not show that any Baha’i, regardless of
his or her circumstances, is at real risk of being deprived of his or her home
or business. The evidence before us as to the Iranian state’s attitude towards
the recognition of Baha’i marriages is, we have to say, somewhat unclear. On
the appellant's own account, and that of his wife, official attitudes appear to
fluctuate. Overall, the Tribunal does not find that the evidence discloses such
a state of affairs as, when combined with the other matters to which we have
referred, can properly lead to the conclusion that a Baha’i is entitled to
protection under the Refugee Convention or the ECHR should he or she make such
a claim to the authorities in this country.
2- As a consequence of these findings,
the Tribunal has considered whether the evidence shows that a particular
description or category of Baha’i in Iran is currently at real risk of
persecution or other serious ill-treatment or whether the undoubted persecution
that certain Baha’is suffer, such as those imprisoned for their faith, is
merely random or otherwise so unpredictable as to prevent any particular Baha’i
being identified in advance as being at real risk. At the hearing, Mr. De Mello,
Mr Leith and Mr Wheatley (all Bahais) sought to emphasize the importance of the
information contained at paragraph 25 of Mr. Leith’s statement - There are
believed to be 300,000-350,000 Baha'is in Iran. We clearly do not expect the
Iranian authorities to prosecute all of them.
E. Iranian
Bahai Claim
While interrogating one of the Baha'is
arrested 2005, an intelligence agent stated: ‘We have learned how to confront
(the Baha'is). We no longer pursue ordinary (Baha'is); we will paralyze your
inner core.’ The comment seems to define the current strategy of the Iranian
authorities in their latest attempt to undermine the long-term viability of the
Baha’i community. The new policy is characterized by identifying and targeting
a group of Baha'is who play an ad hoc but vital role in providing communal
activity and leadership for the wider community’.
Tribunal's assessment
1. Taking the appellant's account at face value for the moment, he
told us that he ceased to work on behalf of the Institute, at their suggestion,
after he had been released from his second sentence of imprisonment. His
evidence was, however, to the effect that he had nevertheless pursued the
promotion of the Baha’i faith by means of the teaching system produced by the
Ruhy Institute.
2. The Tribunal has adopted a cautious approach to what is said to
have been the comments of the Iranian intelligence agent, as set out in
paragraph 25 of Mr. Leith’s report. Although he possesses undoubted
considerable knowledge of the position of Baha’is in Iran, Mr. Leith is not
(and no doubt would not claim to be) an impartial observer. His job is to
foster the interests of his co-religionists in Iran. Furthermore, the comments
of the intelligence agent are unsourced. Both Mr. Leith and Mr. Wheatley told
us that they were received as part of the ongoing system of contacts and
information-gathering operated by the external affairs office of the National
Spiritual Assembly for the Baha’is in the United Kingdom.(Unquote - this could imply high level of espionage that faith members
indulge)
3. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that Mr. Leith has, at paragraph 25
of his report, accurately described what he has been told was said to a Baha’i
by someone operating within the intelligence community within Iran. The real
question is whether the comments are reasonably likely to represent present
Iranian government policy or, given the complex nature of the Iranian state
security apparatus, the policy of some form of organization that is sponsored
or at least condoned by those in power and which is able to act against those
Baha’is which are regarded as ‘inner core’.
4. For these reasons the Tribunal is able to place some weight on the
comment recorded in paragraph 25 of Mr. Leith’s statement. The fact remains,
however, that as matters stand it is only a single comment, from an unnamed
individual, whose alleged words have, it seems, not been passed directly to Mr.
Leith by the person to whom they were spoken. It would accordingly be going too
far to use the statement as the basis of a conclusion that all Baha’is, who
comprise, or are regarded by the Iranian state security apparatus as
comprising, an “inner core” are as such at current real risk of persecution. On
the other hand, we do not consider that the totality of the evidence in this
appeal does no more than show that some Baha’is are randomly persecuted and the
appellant is a person who happens to have been so persecuted. The appellant has
been an active teacher and has suffered previous sentences of imprisonment for
what were plainly religious reasons. That is essentially accepted by the
respondent. The credibility of the appellant’s claim to be in current
well-founded fear was challenged by the respondent at the hearing on the basis
that the alleged telephone conversation and other evidence of renewed adverse
interest in the appellant by the authorities since he last left Iran were not
believable. Whilst not accepting that there is evidence of a concerted policy
to take out the inner core of the Baha’i community in Iran, we nevertheless
find that, having regard to the current political situation, the background
evidence and the evidence of Messrs Leith and Wheatley, shorn of its more
rhetorical aspects, provide support for the appellant in assessing the credibility
of that part of his claim which was challenged by Mrs. Petterson.
The Tribunal's conclusions
may be summarized as follows:-
(a) an Iranian Baha’i is not, as such, at
real risk of persecution in Iran;
(b) such a person will, however, be able to
demonstrate a well-founded fear if, on the particular facts of the case, he or
she is reasonably likely to be targeted by the Iranian authorities (or their
agents) for religious reasons. Evidence of past persecution will be of
particular relevance in this regard. It is doubtful if a person who has not
previously come to the serious adverse attention of the authorities, by reason
of his or her teaching or particular organizational or other activities on
behalf of the Baja’s community in Iran, will be able, even in the current
climate, to show that he or she will be at real risk on return.
Date: 24 April 2006