The applicant, an Afghan national, requested international protection in the Netherlands on 8 December 2023, claiming fear of persecution by the Taliban upon return to Afghanistan due to imputed apostasy. He claimed that he had been arrested by the Taliban for having tattoos on his body and for not attending the mosque, and that he was accused of apostasy for these reasons. In addition, the applicant alleged that he was taken to a mosque where it was decided that he should be punished. He managed to escape while prayers were being held and left Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Taliban allegedly visited his parents’ home several times.

On 28 May 2025, the Minister for Asylum and Migration rejected his application for international protection as unfounded. It considered the alleged problems with the Taliban implausible and found that the applicant was not at risk of degrading or inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) upon return to Afghanistan simply because of his tattoos. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the District Court of The Hague. He argued that the Minister wrongly dismissed his problems with the Taliban as unbelievable due to his alleged apostasy. It also argued that the Taliban considered tattoos un-Islamic and therefore this created a real risk of degrading or inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR upon return to Afghanistan. In support of this, he referred to the General Office Notice ‘AAB Afghanistan 2023’.

The District Court of The Hague, seated in Middelburg, recalled that it is the applicant’s responsibility to make his claim for international protection plausible and that, in the absence of sufficient substantiating evidence, the authorities may nevertheless consider the facts and circumstances underlying the asylum claim to be credible if applicant meets a number of conditions. One of them is that the statements are coherent and plausible and are not inconsistent with available general and specific information relevant to the application. The court agreed with the Minister that the applicant’s account of problems with the Taliban due to imputed apostasy was implausible. Regarding the lead-up to the arrest, the court held that the Minister was correct in finding the applicant’s behavior illogical, as he continued to frequent places where the Taliban could easily find him, such as his home, workplace, and gym, despite allegedly fearing serious punishment. The court also found inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements about the level of danger he faced, noting that he alternately claimed he expected only minor punishment and that he feared stoning. According to the court, these inconsistencies were rightly held against him. Furthermore, the court found it implausible that the applicant could have escaped while surrounded by a large number of Taliban members and therefore agreed with the Minister that the escape narrative lacked credibility.

As to the risk of degrading and inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR, the court referred to established case law stating that the merely having tattoos does not automatically prevent return, but rather depends on the specific circumstances of a case. According to the settled case law, some of the relevant factors to consider in the assessment are the location and size of the tattoo, its precise shape, and the country to which the applicant must return. The court highlighted that the applicant had himself stated that his tattoos had no religious meaning and that they already existed before his departure from Afghanistan. The court agreed with the Minsiter that the applicant had not proven that tattoos as such were considered anti-Islamic in Afghanistan or that they would lead to an attribution of apostasy. Furthermore, it held that country-of-origin information (COI), including the General Office Note ‘AAB Afghanistan 2023’ cited by the applicant, did not indicate that having tattoos in Afghanistan entailed risks.

The District Court of The Hague, seated in Middelburg, concluded that the Minister for Asylum and Migration was right to reject the application for international protection as unfounded, and declared the appeal unfounded.