A man from Burundi with Tutsi ethnicity applied for international protection in Belgium. On 21 November 2023, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected his application. The applicant appealed this decision before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL).
The council ruled on the situation in Burundi, highlighting political repression, human rights abuses, and a deteriorating civic space. It noted the appointment of General Gervais Ndirakobuca as Prime Minister who is considered to be a ‘hardliner’, the dominance of the CNDD-FDD party, and increasing violence by the Imbonerakure, whose militarization was seen as a threat to upcoming elections. The council found that the judicial system perpetuated impunity and authorities frequently arrested individuals who are unemployed, irregular or preparing to travel abroad for work on suspicion of joining armed groups. According to country information, the council observed that many Burundians feared expressing their views due to the risk of being perceived as opposition supporters and being arrested or abducted. It also noted that human rights defenders, journalists, and political opponents continued to face harassment, arrests, detention and unfair trials. Given these conditions, the council advised caution in assessing international protection applications from Burundian nationals.
The council referred to its previous ruling that staying in Belgium as an asylum seeker could lead to a person being suspected of opposition sympathies by Burundian authorities. This suspicion alone was deemed sufficient to justify a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion. Considering the situation in Burundi in light of updated country of origin information, the council found no reason to deviate from its prior case law.
Furthermore, taking into account the situation of voluntary returns, the council noted that reports indicated declining enthusiasm for voluntary repatriation among Burundian refugees due to the absence of adequate protection mechanisms. It found that discrimination, particularly against Tutsis and non-CNDD-FDD members, remained widespread, including in public sector employment. It also highlighted ongoing hostility by the Burundian regime towards Belgium. Additionally, the council found that the Burundian diaspora in Belgium faced heightened surveillance, with the Burundian National Intelligence Service monitoring online activities and engaging in discrediting campaigns against exiled opposition members.
Regarding forced returns, the council observed that the Burundian authorities had ways of identifying returnees who had applied for international protection, including through the household register system which obliges Burundian households to keep a register of residents and visitors coming to their residence. The council noted that the Belgium security services deemed the treatment of returnees by the Burundian authorities to be unpredictable. Ethnic background was identified as an aggravating factor by the council as reports suggested that while Hutus generally would not face problems upon return, Tutsis who applied for international protection and were subjected to a forced return would be suspected of having ties with the opposition.
In conclusion, the council found that the applicant, a young Tutsi man from Bujumbura, would likely be targeted by the Burundian authorities upon return due to his asylum application in Belgium. It determined that he had a well-founded fear of persecution and granted him refugee status, specifically on the ground of political opinion attributed to him by the Burundian authorities.