The Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected by decision of 24 August 2023 the request for international protection submitted by an Ethiopian national of Tigray ethnicity. The appeal lodged by the applicant was allowed by the Council of the Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) by ruling of 29 April 2024 on grounds that the CGRS insufficiently assessed the applicant’s statements in view of updated country of origin information (COI).

In the re-examination, the CGRS rejected again the claim, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, after consulting primarily the findings in the ‘COI Focus Ethiopia. The situation of Tigray in Addis-Abeba’ of 5 September 2024. The CGRS held that the applicant’s ethnicity was insufficient to demonstrate a risk upon return to Addis Abeba because the situation there has significantly improved after the lifting of the state of emergency and the ceasefire agreement between Tigray People’s Liberation Front (FCT) and the Federal Government in November 2022. The CGRS assessed that the four or more arrests of the applicant occurred in a specific context and time of a general campaign against Tigray, in a hostile climate at that time against them. The CGRS also noted that the applicant was released each time with many other Tigray persons.

The CGRS found that the vast majority of those arrested throughout the country after the conflict in 2020 were released. Despite psychological and economic consequences after the 2 years conflict, the Tigray are no longer subject to discrimination or mass arrests in Addis Abeba. The COI Focus report 2024 mentioned that arrests of young Tigray happened at the end of March 2024 and April 2024 on basis of alleged alliance between the Fano groups and Tigray Defence Forces (TDF). The same report notes that no massive arrests take place in the capital, but targeted arrest mainly against Tigray presumed members or affiliated with TDF and Tigray without a valid identity document.

Since the applicant did not prove to belong to a specific profile, nor to have been former member of the TDF, the CGRS dismissed his claim, concluding that the evidence in the file proved that his arrests occurred due to a wide campaign directed against people from Tigray and not because of a specific profile.

In addition, the CGRS mentioned, based on the information in the same COI Focus, that the security situation in the capital of Mekele, where the applicant previously lived and built a house, significantly improved and there was no risk of being subject to a serious harm and indiscriminate violence. Based on the abovementioned, the CGRS concluded that the applicant would no longer be at risk either in Addis Abeba or in Mekele and that he did not display a specific risk profile if returned to Addis Abeba. The CGRS rejected the application, and the applicant submitted a new appeal before CALL, arguing that the CGRS insufficiently considered CALL’s findings in its judgement of 29 April 2024, particularly the previous four arrests of the applicant and the general situation of Tigray in Ethiopia. The applicant alleged that the CGRS ignored his past experiences, failed to assess an individual threat and did not detail whether arrests and prosecution still constituted a risk upon return. He pointed to a Human Rights Watch report of 2024 to counter the CGRS finding of an internal flight alternative to Mekele since he lacked family or a social network there, the Ethiopian authorities were still targeting Tigray, and the humanitarian situation was precarious.

Citing the CJEU judgement in X v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, The Attorney General (C-756/21, 29 June 2023), CALL underlined that the competent authorities have the duty to ensure that accurate and updated COI support the determination of whether, in light of the elements of a case, the substantive conditions for being granted international protection are met. CALL confirmed its previous findings in the judgment of 29 April 2024 according to which the applicant’s statement on discrimination against Tigray, his arrests over a period of 13 months and the releases after the deposit were credible and undisputed. The applicant was detained between 23 December 2020 and 15 November 2021, three occasions for two days, one week and approximately one month respectively. His second and third release were based on payment of a security deposit whereas for the last arrest he was released with all other prisoners.

The CALL acknowledged that the CGRS relied on a new COI, namely the COI Focus report of 5 September 2024 and Cedoca COI Focus of 16 May 2024 but disagreed with its conclusion according to which the applicant’s profile could not expose him to a risk of problems or arrests upon return. The CALL pointed specifically to the undisputed statement of the applicant according to which he was suspected of having participated in the Tigray fighting and thus had to write and sign, while in prison, a document where he wrote ‘I am suspended of participating in the war’. According to COI in the file, Tigray allegedly affiliated with the TDF and those without identity documents constituted a particularly at-risk group of being arrested, along with persons found in bars, leisure parks, coffee shops and street vendors and homeless persons.

The CALL affirmed that the COI Focus 2024, used as basis for the contested decision, did not clarify what is considered by the authorities of Addis Abeba to constitute TDF affiliation/membership. The CALL reasoned that, in the absence of precise and sufficient information on how Ethiopian authorities attribute affiliation with TDF, it could not be excluded that the applicant would face a serious risk upon return. Relying on the COI in the file and on the findings of a lawyer contacted by Cedoca, the CALL further noted that the possession of an identity document did not constitute a guarantee against arrests.

Even if the applicant was released from past arrests, this did not prevent him being considered (allegedly) affiliated with TDF especially since he had to sign a document attesting that he was suspected of participation in the war. The CALL concluded that it could not be ruled out that persons such as the applicant, who were suspected of past involvement in the fight of Tigray, could be at risk upon return.

As regards specifically the possibility of an internal flight alternative to Mekele, CALL cited the UNHCR guideline on international protection and the EUAA Analysis Judicial Analysis on Qualification for international protection, January 2023, to underline that such possibility may exist only when there is clear evidence that the actor of persecution cannot localise the person concerned, but first it must be ascertain whether the applicant can safely move to this part of the country. CALL affirmed that the CGRS asserted changes in the security situation for Tigray in Mekele without specifying whether this implied a benefit or a worsening of the situation of Tigray. CALL did not find any specific indication in the COI of a possible safe route of travel from Addis Abeba to Mekele. The CALL noted that the applicant can reach Mekele from Europe only via Addis Abeba airport, which was established as unsafe since the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities. Even assuming that he may reach Ethiopia by land, he cannot travel to Mekele by the land road in the Afar region because that route is considered dangerous for public transport. CALL concluded that the applicant cannot safely reach Mekele.

In view of the cumulative elements and personal circumstances of the applicant examined in light of updated COI, CALL granted him refugee status, holding that it was possible to consider that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion and race.