The applicant, Armenian national, applied for international protection and claimed that she worked as a cleaner for a businessman, and she was raped by him. She was urged not to report the incident and to have an abortion. She also alleged to have been threatened by police officers and she fled from Armenia to Russia prior to her arrival in the Netherlands. Her sister was approached by two police officers after she left Armenia. The State Secretary found credible the statements about identity and facts reported, however it rejected the application as manifestly unfounded as the applicant did not demonstrate that Armenia would not be a safe country of origin for her.

On appeal, the applicant argued that the State Secretary wrongly assessed the facts and that Armenia could not be a safe country for her because she could not claim protection from state authorities. When she wanted to report the rape incident to the police and was on the way there, she was attacked by a man coming from a black car so because of her fear, she no longer dared to report the rape to the police. The applicant underlined that she was too afraid to report the situation to the police, she was pregnant and under threat from the offender and the possibility to seek protection from the authorities was theoretical, as they were unable to offer protection, thus the applicant claimed that Armenia cannot be a safe country of origin.

The Court of the Hague noted that the applicant submitted evidence to substantiate the facts and statements made, including photos and a medical report which confirmed as credible the rape and the situation of the applicant. It was noted that the State Secretary accepted as credible all the statements except the fact that her sister received inquiries and threats from the police after she left and considered that she did not sufficiently substantiate this part of her statements. The Court of the Hague stated that the State Secretary used a too high threshold regarding this statement and it did not explain what the expectations from the applicant were on the ways she could reasonably substantiate this aspect.

The court also noted that the State Secretary accepted as credible the statements of the applicant about her attempt to reach the authorities in order to report the rape, but the State Secretary considered that the applicant should have made more efforts in order to seek protection from the authorities. It was not contested that Armenia has been designated as safe country of origin and the applicant underlined that country-of-origin reports show that support and aid for women who are victims of violence is provided almost exclusively by NGOs with the support of international organisations. Some reports also mention that the police are reluctant to handle cases of violence against women and perpetrators often put pressure on women to withdraw the charges.

The State Secretary claimed that the applicant should have complained to higher authorities in the country but the Court of the Hague considered that this aspect was not reasoned by the determining authority and it was not explained why it considered that the applicant should have used such remedies. The court considered that complaining to the Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service was not an adequate way to prevent imminent danger, and that the police would have been competent to investigate and prosecute the offender.

According to the court, the State Secretary would have to provide further reasons why the applicant may be expected to once again attempt to request protection from the police and to report two threats that were considered credible. The Court of the Hague further stated that the State Secretary failed to provide the reasons for not applying the benefit of the doubt for the applicant and for not substantiating its obligation to cooperate.

The Court of the Hague overturned the negative decision and referred the case back for re-examination. It noted that the State Secretary has the option to investigate whether the applicant’s statements are plausible. Furthermore, if the applicant has complied with her obligation to cooperate by giving her best efforts and has no other options to substantiate her account, the State Secretary can conduct a further investigation, for example by having an individual official report issued or by having a forensic medical examination carried out, in light of the medical indications. The State Secretary has the possibility to choose the means to use to fulfil its obligation to cooperate to further investigate the alleged protection needs of the applicant in Armenia.