A Burundi national appealed against a decision of the CGRS rejecting her application for international protection. The applicant stated that her father was involved in political activities of the National Congress for Freedom and he has been threatened by Imbonerakure militia. The applicant married a Danish national of Burundian origin to be able to move to Denmark and once there, the applicant learnt about her husband's political engagement in CNDD-FDD. For this reason and following the violent behavior of her husband, the applicant left Denmark and traveled to Belgium, applying for international protection.  

The CGRS refused to grant international protection to the applicant, arguing that there were no elements to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and also due to the lack of credibility about the political profile of the applicant's father's. According to the applicant's statements and COI, the CGRS noted the implausibility and inconsistency of the situation described and concluded that Burundi was not in the context of an internal armed conflict. 

The applicant appealed before the CALL, claiming a violation of article 3 of ECHR and article 48/3 and 48/4 of the Law of 15 December 1980 and Law of 29 July 1991 on the formal statement of reasons for administrative acts.

The Council observed that the applicant was not involved in the political activities of her father and gave precise statements in the application questionnaire and noted that new COI elements occurred in Burundi and the current security situation was to be assessed, including risks in case of return to the country.

With regard to the burden of proof, governed by Articles 48/6 and 48/7 of the Law of 15 December 1980, the CALL recalled the CGRS's obligation to state reasons and provide explanations related to the credibility of the applicant's statements. The Council noted that the CGRS provided general and not specific reference to the situation of the applicant, as well as the security situation in Burundi, as according to updated COI, it was deteriorated and the applicant could face a real risk of persecution due to her father's political opinions imputed by national authorities.

For these reasons, the CALL recognized the refugee status of the applicant.