A national of Burkina Faso requested international protection in Belgium on 3 October 2019, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution by her father, her cousin, her neighbours and the Burkinabé society as a whole on account of her sexual orientation. By decision of 4 July 2023, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected her application. The applicant then appealed before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) which annulled the decision of the CGRS on 6 June 2024. The CALL found that the applicant’s marked psychological stress had to be taken into account in the assessment of the applicant’s statements. The CALL further considered that the applicant should have been questioned more about her marriage, the circumstances of obtaining her travel documents, and her sentimental relationships in Belgium. On 14 November 2024, the CGRS rejected her application for international protection due to the lack of credibility of her statements. The applicant appealed before the CALL arguing that she explained coherently how she realised her attraction to women and provided precise answers on her homosexual relationships in Belgium. She also stressed that the CGRS failed to take into account the repeated violence she suffered from men throughout her life, her forced marriage and her relationship with her partner R. She then recalled the situation of homosexual persons in Burkina Faso and claimed that the country’s military junta announced a ban on homosexual acts, making it the most recent African state to crack down on same-sex relations.

The CALL found that the applicant explained with great clarity the circumstances in which she became aware of her attraction to women through her relationship with R. It emphasised that the applicant expressed herself with spontaneity and conviction regarding the family environment in which she grew up following the death of her mother at the age of three. The CALL noted that the applicant grew up in a conservative, rather traditional environment marked by violence and humiliation inflicted upon her by her father and her stepmother.

The CALL further noted that, although the applicant indicated that the discovery of her sexual orientation truly began with R., she also stated that long before that meeting, she had feelings and thoughts toward persons of the female sex without being certain of exactly what she was feeling. The CALL then emphasised that the applicant provided details regarding the precautions taken in the context of her relationship with R., indicating in particular that they paid attention to how they dressed and that they met in public together with a couple of female friends, so that people thought they were merely friends chatting together. The CALL also considered that she described her relationship with R. and the manner in which they interacted on a daily basis in precise and concrete terms. The CALL noted that the applicant also described, in fairly personalised terms, the way in which she lived her homosexuality in Belgium and the homosexual relationships she has had with women she had met. Consequently, the CALL considered that the applicant’s sexual orientation was established.

The CALL found credible the circumstances in which the applicant’s homosexuality was discovered by her cousin B. and the neighbours. The CALL noted that the applicant asked her cousin to repair her phone, during which he accessed intimate photos, videos, and messages involving her partner. The CALL observed that B., accompanied by several individuals, later confronted and slapped the applicant at her restaurant, and then shared the intimate material with her family and young people in the neighbourhood. The CALL found that that the explanations provided by the applicant regarding the circumstances in which she gave her phone to her cousin for the necessary repairs were plausible and coherent.

Although certain grey areas remained in the applicant’s account, the CALL considered that her statements concerning the persecutions she allegedly suffered in her country of origin because of her sexual orientation, were sufficiently detailed, plausible, and coherent.

The CALL considered that the situation of homosexual persons in Burkina Faso depicted a Burkinabé society that remained fairly conservative and homophobic. It noted that romantic relationships and marriage between two persons of the same sex were regarded as acts against nature and are prohibited in Burkina Faso.

The CALL noted from press excerpts that the Director General of Burkinabé national television was recently dismissed on the grounds that a television drama broadcast on television showed, in a brief scene, two women kissing, which allegedly triggered anger and indignation among the Burkinabé authorities and viewers. The CALL further observed that following this wave of hatred on social media, the authorities of the military junta announced a ban on homosexual acts. The CALL also considered that the new legislation prohibiting homosexual relations had yet to be adopted by the parliament controlled by the military. The CALL then considered, based on statements by the Burkinabé Minister of Justice, that under this new legislation, homosexuality and the practices associated with it would be punishable by law.

The CALL held that the applicant’s fear amounted to fear of being persecuted on account of her membership of the social group of homosexuals in Burkina Faso. Considering the above, the CALL granted the applicant refugee status.