The applicant, Sudanese national, was rejected asylum by decision of 20 March 2020. He invoked risks upon return due to his participation in the Netherlands in demonstrations against the Sudanese rulers in light of the situation under the transitional government in that country and who are regarded as ‘political activists’. The applicant has resided in the Netherlands since 2001 and has participated in various demonstrations in the Netherlands since 2013 against the then government of Al-Bashir.

The applicant applied against the negative decision and the Council of State noted that although there are indications that the civilian branch of the transition government is undergoing reforms in the area of political freedoms, there are also indications that serious human rights violations against political activists are still taking place and that the military branch still directs the army to act with violence against them, especially if these political activists are critical of the military branch. The Council of State noted that in the absence of information over the balance of power in the transition government, it is not clear whether and to what extent the civil branch influences these violent practices. Moreover, the Council noted that there is no clear information on the circumstances that are relevant for the situation of the applicant, namely the risks of return for political activist and the way security services are monitoring the diaspora and to which extent. There is also unclarity over the attitude of the military branch of the transition government towards political activists who are abroad and have criticized the military branch, and to what extent this may lead to a risk upon return.

The Council of State held that these unclarities lead to the conclusion that the applicant raised doubts about the State Secretary's position on the situation in Sudan and in light of the duty of cooperation it was for the State Secretary to dispel this doubt, which the latter has insufficiently done before the court.

The Council of State concluded that the State Secretary had insufficiently investigated the situation in Sudan, before taking the decision that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm if returned. The negative decision was overturned, and the case referred back for re-examination.