An undocumented Cameroonian woman applied for international protection in Cyprus on 6 May 2020. The applicant was interviewed by a competent officer of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the Head of the Asylum Service signed and communicated the rejection of the application on 29 September 2021.

The applicant lodged an appeal to the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC) arguing, in essence, a lack of proper investigation. The applicant claimed that her allegations of fear of persecution or serious harm had been incorrectly investigated, and her allegations that she was a victim of trafficking had not been investigated at all.

The IPAC evaluated the substance of the allegations made and noted serious deficiencies in the investigative process. The allegation that the applicant is a potential victim of trafficking was not adequately investigated either during the interview or upon taking the decision. The IPAC remarked that the decision had been drafted in the absence of an adequate vulnerability assessment and that no steps had been taken to ensure it in view of the allegations of potential trafficking. The court noted that this is an omission of major importance because first any suspicion that the applicant is a potential victim of trafficking renders her a vulnerable person within the meaning of the law and thus requires special procedural guarantees; secondly, because allegations of trafficking can constitute a separate material fact that should be isolated and evaluated not only to be part of the applicant’s profile but also her credibility and risk assessment.

While examining the file, the IPAC noted that upon registration of the application for asylum, a vulnerability assessment had been carried out, but however, the competent officer had not asked any questions regarding the circumstances of her trip to Cyprus and her stay in the areas not controlled by Cyprus. The IPAC highlighted in this respect that the profile of the applicant as a woman who travelled alone, originating from Cameroon – a country known for high rates of trafficking – as well as her prolonged stay in areas not controlled by the Republic were sufficient indicators to investigate whether the applicant was subjected to trafficking in human beings.

Further, the court noted that whilst the applicant had been referred to a psychologist, there was a total absence of evidence in the file as to how the said psychologist evaluated her mental condition or monitored her health. The court highlighted that it was procedurally flawed to assess the application without having the results of such psychological assessment. The judge underlined, by referring to Article 24 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 10A of the Cyprus Refugee Laws that the obligation to examine whether an applicant needs special procedural guarantees is imperative. The court highlighted that, where needs for specific procedural guarantees are indeed identified ‘the nature of such needs should be further assessed to provide adequate support’. The court stated that, although ‘adequate support’ is not defined in the EU Law, there are concrete references to the obligation of the authorities in the Cypriot Refugee Law. As such, the court indicated that Article 9ΚΔ (6) of the Refugee Law provides that for someone who is found to require special procedural needs, the authorities, shall, at least: 1) provide support that takes into account the specific reception and/or procedural needs of the applicant throughout the international protection procedure; and 2) ensure appropriate monitoring of his/her condition. She further indicated that Article 9ΚΔ provides a detailed reference on how to carry out such special needs assessment, by determining the need of an individualised assessment which can include a medical assessment and interviews with specialists, by identifying the responsible bodies and authorities involved in such process and setting out the procedure to indeed grant concrete reception or procedural guarantees.

The court ruled that there were investigative deficiencies at the interview stage, namely in the interview records there were clear indicators of potential trafficking disclosed by the applicant’s statements to the officer. In a very thorough and detailed manner, the court proceeded and subsumed every statement of the applicant into the key elements of trafficking as per article 2 of the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Persons and the Protection of Victims Law of 2014 (Law 60 (I)/2014, transposing to the Cypriot legal system Directive 2011/36/EU). The court ruled that as per relevant material facts, the applicant found herself in a situation of coercion, exploitation and physical abuse or attempted physical abuse by her trafficker. The IPAC concluded that the Asylum Service had failed in its duty to examine the indicators disclosed by the applicant, failed in taking the appropriate measures for the protection of the applicant, and failed in referring the matter to further investigation by the competent authorities.

Then, by looking at article 44 of the 2014 Law on the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Persons and the Protection of Victims, the court examined whether national law allowed the relevant authorities any discretion to inform the Social Welfare Services of a potential case of trafficking.  In this respect, the court concluded that the competent officer did not properly exercise his discretion since, despite the fact there were data which could give raise to suspicions that the applicant might be a victim of trafficking in human beings, the Asylum Service did not sufficiently investigate the matter.   

In highlighting the legal obligation that authorities have to identify victims of trafficking, the judge referred to the ECtHR case Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia.

The judge annulled the decision of the Asylum Service and ordered the following actions:

• To take the necessary steps to examine, through the competent authorities, the possibility that the applicant was a victim of trafficking in persons.
• To evaluate, through the appropriate channel, the psychiatric/psychological condition of the applicant.
• To examine the necessity of conducting a new substantive interview, after receiving the conclusions of the above mentioned experts and after providing the appropriate procedural guarantees.