A family with minor children from Azerbaijan applied for international protection in the Czech Republic. In support of their application for international protection, they claimed that the father (hereinafter applicant A) had previously been detained for participating in anti-government demonstrations and was beaten unconscious and subsequently hospitalized. Consequently, the applicants claimed that they would be persecuted upon return to their country, and that the father would be detained and suffer inhumane treatment in prison.
On 13 July 2021, the Ministry of the Interior denied international protection for all the applicants on the grounds that their story was unreliable, and that the medical report and police summons presented had been allegedly forged. Moreover, the Ministry of the Interior considered that although there was politically motivated persecution of the opposition in Azerbaijan, applicant A was not a politician, journalist, defence attorney or other publicly known figure. For this reason, the Ministry considered that the applicants were not in danger if they were to return to their country of origin.
The applicants then submitted an appeal before the Regional Court in Hradec Králové, alleging that the defendant had downplayed the threat of persecution and did not properly or sufficiently ascertain the facts of the case. They claimed that the information obtained by the Ministry of the Interior regarding the country of origin did not meet the criteria imposed by the Supreme Administrative Court (relevance, credibility, balance, timeliness, transparency and verification from various sources). Consequently, they requested that the court annulled the contested decisions and returned the case to the defendant for further proceedings.
The Regional Court, by judgment of 14 December 2021, annulled the contested decision and returned the case to the defendant for further proceedings. The court found that the applicants should have been given the opportunity to comment on the alleged contradictions that arose in his testimony and on the ambiguities regarding the submitted documents. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered by the Regional Court to assess the question of the possible safe return of all applicants to their country of origin based on enough up-to-date reports on the country of origin.
As a result, on 1 March 2023, an additional interview was held with applicant A with the purpose of enabling him to remove the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the asylum story. During the interview, the interpreter admitted that there might have been inaccuracies in the translation. The applicant’s legal representative also noted that there had been problems in the interpretation and that the interpreter repeatedly apologised during the interview. By decision of 16 May 2023, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicants’ request for international protection for the second time. The applicants then appealed this decision before the Regional Court in Hradec Králové.
The court considered that, in a situation where the appointed interpreter himself admitted that there might have been inaccuracies in the translation and considering that the additional interview was conducted specifically for the purpose of removing doubts, then the interview cannot be considered sufficient evidence for a proper establishment of the facts of the case. Thus, the court considered that the applicant’s right to interpretation had not been preserved and that the case in question concerned a procedural defect that affected the legality of the defendant’s decisions. It also considered that the official who had conducted the interview should have interrupted it to ensure proper interpretation.
In addition, the court disagreed with the defendant that if the participation of applicant A in political demonstrations proved to be true, it would not be a reason for granting international protection. It explained that if such participation was admitted (after a properly conducted interview and quality interpretation), then the likelihood of inhuman treatment in the event of his return should be dealt with sufficient seriousness. The court observed that the punishment of government critics was clearly apparent from the reports contained in the administrative file. It also observed that, despite the reports meeting the criteria set out in the case law, further information was needed regarding the staffing of the police department in Azerbaijan.
For all the above reasons, the court concluded that the action was justified and obliged the defendant to interview the applicants again, while ensuring proper interpretation, and to supplement the current reports on the country of origin. It also concluded that it was necessary to give the applicants the opportunity to clarify any discrepancies in the documents presented as well as any ambiguities in their personal testimonies.