A Pakistani national requested international protection in Croatia, claiming that he had been imprisoned in 2005–2006 on false charges linked to his father’s political activity, that he was a member or sympathizer of the opposition Peoples Party and later Taharik Insav party (PTI), and that he faced threats from the Sunni majority due to his Shiite faith. He alleged that he had sought police protection without success, that he continued to receive threats after his release, and that return to Pakistan would expose him to imprisonment or death. He recognised that certain parts of Pakistan, specifically Lahore and Karachi, are predominantly Shiite, but claimed that he could not return there because he had no job. He also stated that he had previously requested international protection in Greece, which was rejected and that he had lived outside Pakistan for 17 years without returning. The Ministry of the Interior rejected his application on 25 February 2025, finding his statements contradictory and unconvincing, and concluding that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm. On appeal, the applicant argued that the Ministry had failed to properly assess his political and religious claims, that his Shiite minority status exposed him to discrimination, and that the passage of time did not eliminate the risks he faced. 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb held an oral hearing, examined the applicant’s testimony, and reviewed country of origin information (COI). It noted contradictions in his account: he alternately described himself as a sympathizer and member of the Peoples Party, was unable to provide evidence of such membership, and gave inconsistent reasons for his imprisonment. The court found that he had not substantiated participation in party activities or persecution linked to political opinion.  

Regarding religion, the court relied on COI within the Minority Rights Group International bulletin. It noted that in principle all citizens of Pakistan are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion or belief, as the country is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that in reality, exclusive nationalism in Pakistan means that members of religious minorities such as Shia, Hindu, Christian and Sikh often felt that their rights were restricted in Pakistan. It noted that everything stated in the report can be applied to the applicant but he had not proven that he had experienced problems of mutual intolerance between Sunnis and Shias, or that he has been denied freedom of religion or belief, or denied employment based on his nationality.  

The court also relied on BBC and Business Recorder reports confirming cooperation between the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and the Pakistan People's Party, undermining his claim of political targeting. The court, in view of COI cited, found the applicant's account that he had problems due to his political affiliation not convincing. In addition, the court held that the applicant's account that the police did nothing in his case, and in general where a problem of religious affiliation is reported, was also not convincing. It noted that the applicant had not proven in any way that he requested police assistance and his long absence from Pakistan weakened his credibility. 

The court further cited ACLED data showing 163 security incidents and 73 deaths in his region between January 2023 and January 2024, corresponding to 0.26 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, which did not reach the threshold of indiscriminate violence under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. Based on that, the court held that there was no security risk that reached the level of endangering the lives of the civilian population and therefore, it could not be established that the applicant was exposed to persecution or serious harm in his country of origin, or that he would be exposed to it upon return.  

The court upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision and dismissed the claim as unfounded.