Citation: 2020 RLLR 52
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 10, 2020
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Zimbabwe
RPD Number: VB9-08524
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000149-000153
— DECISION
[1] PRESIDING MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add that in the event that written reasons are issued, a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar, and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.
[2] The claimant, [XXX] claims to be a citizen of Zimbabwe and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as the claimant does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground; namely, her political opinion. She’s an active member of the main opposition alliance in Zimbabwe.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in the basis of claim form and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant is a woman born in [XXX]. In [XXX] 2019, there were unprecedented riots in Zimbabwe. The claimant is a long time political and social activist. She was active in the ZTCU Union, which was the steppingstone for the MDC under Morgan Tsvangirai; the MDC being one of the main opposition parties in Zimbabwe.
[5] The claimant became an active member of the MDC which is the — just a minute, please — the Movement for Democratic Change and she is now a member of the MDC alliance. In addition, the claimant’s work history has resulted in problems with the authorities, as result of which, her husband left her.
[6] In [XXX] 2019 the claimant’s sister [XXX] and her husband were killed in a vehicle accident near a police camp. The claimant started the guardianship process for the children of her late sister. The claimant fears that her sister was mistaken for her when her sister was chased in the course of this fatal accident. The claimant is a victim of sex abuse and assault from the Zimbabwe police and the Zimbabwe military. This is as she was employed by an [XXX] and she is also an active member of the MDC.
[7] On [XXX] 2019 the claimant suffered at the hands of the police, the military and the ZANU-PF, which is the ruling party of Zimbabwe. While among 200 protesting citizens and activists, the claimant was hit, she was arrested and sexually abused. She passed out. The police recorded her name and threatened her against engaging in protest against the government. They said that she has always been on their close watch and that her movements would be monitored. They said that they would harm her more and eventually kill her.
[8] On [XXX] 2019, two police officers who she knew from their previous visits to her workplace went again to her workplace looking for her. They caught her and took her to the Harare Central Police where they said her name is on the top list for elimination. The claimant had to relocate to another suburb in [XXX] some [XXX] away. Her family is in danger; her mother has been visited by the police approximately seven times since [XXX] 2019. Her mother has since relocated to be with the claimant’s children. When the claimant reported to the police, they refused to take the report at face value. She then asked for a request for a medical report form, this was in order to seek treatment for health issues that she suffered from as a result of mistreatment by the police authorities.
[9] The claimant obtained medical treatment, she then sought [XXX]. She did this at the [XXX]. She was [XXX]. The claimant applied for a Canadian visitor visa on [XXX] 2019. She obtained it on [XXX] 2019 and she left for Canada on [XXX] 2019. She later learned from her party, the MDC Alliance that the authorities of Zimbabwe are after her.
[10] The claim was referred on October 30th of 2019. The claimant alleges fear of risk to her life, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the same agent of harm, and she also alleges that neither state protection nor safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in her country of nationality.
ANALYSIS
[11] The main issue is credibility.
Identity
[12] The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The current passport is on file along with other documents. I am satisfied as to the claimant’s identity.
Credibility
[13] When credibility is assessed, there are two principles that are followed. Firstly, when the claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts, there is a presumption that what the claimant is saying is true unless there is reason to doubt it. Secondly, when assessing credibility, the panel is entitled to rely on rationality and common sense. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.
[14] The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness. Her testimony contained many details which added credibility and context to her allegations. Her testimony was consistent with her allegations. Her testimony helped the panel to make sense of the allegations by putting them into the claimant’s personal and national context. The claimant did not embellish. The claimant was able to answer difficult questions in a credible manner. The claimant provided original copies of multiple corroborating documents.
[15] The claimant has established her profile as a long time social and political activist who has consistently worked for the opposition and/or the founding ZCTU Union, which predates the MDC and/or NGOs perceived to be anti-government. The panel finds that the claimant would be treated upon returning to Zimbabwe in a manner consistent with this profile, as she has come to the attention of the authorities as recently as [XXX] 2019. The panel finds that the claimant would resume these political and/or anti-government activities in Zimbabwe should she return there as she has done this at her own risk for decades.
Similarly Situated Persons and Objective Basis
[16] The claim is objectively based as per the country conditions documents. In the United States Department of State report at Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package it says that the government of Zimbabwe restricts the rights to freedom of association and that ZANU-PF supporters, sometimes with government support or acquiescence intimidated and harassed members of organizations perceived to be associated with other political parties.
[17] Another document which is at item 10.1 of the National Documentation Package and which was published in June 2019 and which is called, On the Days of Darkness in Zimbabwe, an Updated Report on the Human Rights Violations committed between January 14, 2019 and February 5th, 2019 states as follows,
“The Zimbabwean army unlawfully deployed into the streets and residential areas where it unleashed a reign of terror on anyone they came across. The Human Rights NGO Forum published a report which details more than 1800 such violations of human rights since January 14, 2019 across the whole country. This was in response to mass protests among the Zimbabwean population in January 2019 following an increase in fuel prices”.
[18] Another document, which is part of the National Documentation Package at Item 4.7 of the National Documentation Package, which is a British document called, Country Information and Policy Notes, Zimbabwe Opposition to the Government, also published in 2019, states that,
“The ruling ZANU-PF uses the state security apparatus to harass and intimidate those in opposition to it. The levels of politically motivated violence and human rights violations by state security forces and ZANU-PF supporters, fluctuate with recent peaks. With regards to those perceived to have been in the opposition to the government at the time of the January 2019 demonstrations, it is established that they faced serious human rights violations against them. This was followed by further direct targeting of opposition, perceived opposition and NGOs which continued after the initial violence through house raids, arrests and detentions.”
[19] This is very close to the experience of the claimant.
[20] Moving to the question of state protection, the panel finds that state protection in Zimbabwe would not be forthcoming in this case as the claimant fears the Zimbabwean state itself. That state has already abused her rights to political expression and freedom of association and assembly.
[21] The Zimbabwe government is described in the United States Department of State report as only taking limited steps towards potential consequences for security sector officials who committed human rights violations. This document states that impunity remained a problem in this regard. The presumption of state protection has, therefore, been rebutted based on the objective country conditions information.
[22] Moving to the last question, which is whether there is an internal flight alternative where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution, the panel finds that the analysis of internal flight alternative fails on the first prong as the claimant, on a balance of probabilities does face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Zimbabwe as a result of her profile and of the stated country conditions information.
[23] In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Zimbabwe for her political opinion. Her claim is accepted.
— DECISION CONCLUDED