A Cameroonian national applied for international protection in Cyprus on 28 March 2018. On 2 March 2022 she was notified the rejection of her request for protection.

The applicant appealed the decision arguing that she cannot return to Cameroon because she is homosexual, and she will be killed as this is a criminal offense in her country of origin. She also argued that she is in danger as her mother was murdered and her sister was abducted by the Ambazonians.

The court noted that an appropriate investigation of the applicant’s alleged bisexuality was not carried out by the determining officer. Indicatively, the applicant was not asked why she did not include her sexual orientation in her application for international protection as a reason for leaving her country of origin, nor was she asked to provide more information about the relations she had established in Cameroon with other women. Also, the applicant was not questioned about how she expresses her sexual orientation in Cyprus, given that she lived four years in the Republic until her interview took place in 2021.

Besides the court noted that, in the context of the credibility assessment, the applicant was deemed at times incoherent or generic. However, such conclusions were reached without explaining why such information was characterized as insufficient and incomplete, or for what reason she would be expected to provide more details. The court noted in addition that in many cases, specific, closed-ended questions were not followed at the interview stage by additional clarifying questions so that the applicant could further explain what was already stated.

The court emphasized that, although the applicant referred to incidents that occurred when she was a child, namely 12-13 years old, neither the applicant's minority during this period, nor the long period of time that has elapsed since then, - which is expected to affect the memory of the applicant and the possibility of detailed recall of incidents that took place-, was considered during the evaluation of her statements.

Based on this, the court concluded that the authority had failed in its obligation to thoroughly examine the possibility of endangering the rights of the applicant which require absolute protection. In concluding this, the court cited ECtHR’s judgment in Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands and reminded that when assessing whether the applicant runs a real risk of being subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3 if deported, […] the officer must, if necessary, obtain ex officio proprio motu material on the case to carry out a thorough assessment.

The court also noted when assessing the need for subsidiary protection that the authority had failed in consulting up-to-date and time-accurate information on the security situation in the area of origin of the applicant as required by Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive.

The court concluded that the lack of investigation vitiated the legality of the decision taken. In accordance with its powers, the court proceeded to examine the decision ex nunc.

After accepting the statements of the applicant regarding her profile, the court proceeded to evaluate the statements of the applicant regarding her bisexuality. It noted that the determining officer had used the DSSH (Difference-Shame-Stigma-Harm) model. The court expressed its reservations about the use of such model, noting that it can limit the understanding of the complexity of applicants' experiences if it is not applied sensitively to the cultural differences and unique experiences of each individual.

Notably, it stated that in recent years the model has been criticised for the way it is used, in a way that normalizes and homogenises the sexuality and identity of applicants and the way people should express themselves. It noted that the model like any normative model, can be misused for instance as a ‘tick box’ which can reinforce stereotypes specially in the case of ‘shame’. In this respect the court referred to the fact that each person’s response to their sexual orientation is individual and contrasts with their personal history, culture and socio-economic status. Specifically, the court highlighted that the model seems to follow a linear narrative around sexuality, which does not always fit with experiences from different cultures. This can lead to rejection of applications when applicants do not follow specific Western perceptions of their sexual identity or personal experiences. The court noted that decisions using the DSSH model are often based on stereotypes, such as the assumption that someone must have experienced shame for their sexual identity, which is not always the case for all applicants. Consequently, in cases where there is absence of specific elements or emotions related to shame or stigma, the evaluation following DSSH guidelines may undermine the credibility of the applicants. The court furthermore highlighted that the model considers that it is assumed that applicants must have experienced an internal struggle with their sexuality before externalizing it. However, such an attitude ignores the fact that some applicants, due to cultural differences, may not have the same experience of self-acceptance that the model requires.

Instead, the court proceeded to evaluate the statements of the applicant not following the DSSH model but common credibility indicators stressing that there are no universal characteristics or qualities that characterize LGBTQI+ people. It stated that the presence or absence of specific stereotypical behaviors or appearance should not be taken for granted for the evaluation of sexual orientation of a person.

In contrast to the determining officer, the court noted that after posing her the relevant questions and confronting her about concrete inconsistencies, the statements of the applicant were consistent, coherent, and strongly possessed by the experiential and personal element. The court highlighted the particular importance of the statements of the applicant regarding how she expresses her sexual orientation in Cyprus. The court concluded that the alleged sexual orientation of the applicant is an accepted material fact of her claim.

After a legal assessment on whether the applicant fulfilled the substantive conditions to be granted international protection based her accepted sexual orientation, the court granted the applicant refugee status.

To reach this conclusion, the court referred to case law of the CJEU, ECtHR and to the EUAA Judicial Analysis on Qualification for international Protection - second edition (16 January 2023).