2023 RLLR 95
Citation: 2023 RLLR 95
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 17, 2023
Panel: Cristina De Leon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nikolay Bakunin
Country: Russia
RPD Number: TC2-17302
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-17307
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the claims for refugee protection made by the claimants, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, in RPD file numbers TC2-17302 and TC2-17307. The claimants are citizens of Russia and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The events and circumstances alleged in support of the claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim forms marked as Exhibit 2.1 and 2.2. In summary, the claimants fear persecution and harm at the hands of state authorities and their agents due to the principal claimant’s political opinion and activities and their recent opposition to the — to Russia’s actions in the war in Ukraine. The principal claimant, specifically, fears criminal prosecution and jail time in accordance with Russian law, which prohibits any speech or activity that discredits the Russian army.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA.
Nexus
[4] I find that the claims bear a nexus to a Convention ground, that of the principal claimant’s political opinion and that of the associate claimant’s membership in a particular social group as wife of a person identified as an individual opposed to the Putin regime and the war in Ukraine.
Identity
[5] The claimants’ identities were established, on a balance of probabilities, by certified, true copies of their Russian Federation passports.
Exclusion Under Article 1F(a)
[6] Section 98 of the IRPA states, “A person referred to in section E and F of article one (1) of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.” Article 1F(a) of the Convention reads as follows. “The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes.”
[7] The principal claimant was a conscript in the Russian Army and with the rank of XXXX from XXXX 1972 to XXXX 1974. He was officially assigned to the XXXX XXXX as a XXXX, but in reality, he was part of the XXXX XXXX of the army and participated in competition among members of the Soviet Union in XXXX XXXX. The principal claimant showed the Panel maps relating to XXXX XXXX and explained that the competition involved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He testified that he was never in a combat zone, that he did not handle or use a weapon, that he did not supervise any unit or individuals. Asked why he indicated that he was assigned to the XXXX XXXX and his details of military service, he explained that he believed he had to write down his official position and duties. I accept as plausible that the claimant believed he had to provide official information that would check out against any official documentation. Further, the principal claimant’s spontaneity and candor in showing the Panel the maps that were used in the XXXX XXXX competitions, persuade me, on a balance of probabilities, of the truth of his claim.
[8] I am unable to find any evidentiary basis that would support a conclusion that there are serious reasons to consider that the claimant committed any work crimes or crimes against humanity during his two (2) year mandatory military service. I note that the Minister initially notified that it would intervene on the basis of article 1F(a), but withdrew on January 4, 2023, indicating that the Minister has no further information to provide. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant is not excluded from refugee protection under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention.
Credibility
[9] The principal claimant testified in a detailed, spontaneous and straightforward manner. He was eager to show the Panel documents, which were part of his archive, in support of his claim, but not otherwise submitted. These included documents like his campaign materials, a photo of his wife at a rally, and he was looking for a book published that featured him and his political biography, but could not find the same. There were no inconsistencies or omissions which went to the core of the claims. I believe what the principal claimant has alleged in support of the claims.
[10] The claimants also submitted other documentary evidence. A letter from XXXX XXXX confirming his membership and role and confirming his activism in XXXX and participating in protests and rallies against the war in Ukraine. The claimants also submitted an excerpt from the book, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) providing details of his political and public growth and activities, and which contained an excerpt from one (1) of the principal claimant’s several XXXX XXXX. I have no reason to doubt the voracity of these documents and as such, I place great weight on the in support of the principal claimant’s profile as a known political figure, oppositionist and activist.
[11] Based on the principal claimant’s testimony and the corroborating documents, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant has been active in politics since 1987 and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the democratic movement in Russia in 1989. In XXXX of 1990, while serving as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) region in Moscow, he left the Communist Party of the USSR and began to oppose the communist regime and XXXX democratic organizations. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I accept his evidence and find, on a balance of probabilities, that he was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and, thereafter, the XXXX XXXX XXXX. And thereafter, he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was also XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX and member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX led by XXXX XXXX.
[12] The principal claimant also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He XXXX XXXX XXXX of the political party, People’s Freedom Party, on the basis of the Solidarity Movement and was XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX. In 2012, he left People’s Freedom Party and took part in the XXXX of the XXXX XXXX. And to this day, is still a member of this party and XXXX the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I accept the principal claimant’s evidence and find, on a balance of probabilities, that he XXXX and participated in several opposition rallies and marches in Moscow, protesting the actions of the Putin regime. I accept and find, on a balance of probabilities, that the associate claimant also attended these rallies and marches along with her husband. I accept and find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX condemning corruption and the criminal elements in Putin’s government, fraudulent elections. He also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I accept and find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant was involved in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for state and Moscow regional XXXX, for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, district of Moscow region, where he did XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Moscow region and XXXX XXXX in campaign events. I also find, on a balance of probabilities, starting in 2014, when Russia (inaudible) the claimant started opposing Russia’s actions. And thereafter, when Russian invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, he participated in protests against a war and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX condemning the war and discrediting the Russian army and president Putin.
[13] And further, the principal claimant was threatened with criminal prosecution by local police. And on XXXX 2022, would have been arrested by police that came to his door, except that he was not home. He was being sought for his anti-war protests and XXXX. I further accept that since coming to Canada, the claimant has participated online in an anti-war forum and that he signed an appeal condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that he, and other signatories of the appeal, were declared enemies of Russia by Putin. And as such, are subject to immediate arrest and criminal prosecution if they were to return to Russia.
Subjective Fear
[14] I find that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, a subjective fear of persecution and harm at the hands of Russian authorities due to the principal claimant’s political opinion, opposed to the Putin regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Objective Basis
[15] The claimants submitted a Human Rights Watch article, dated March 7, 2022, entitled, “Russia Criminalizes Independent War Reporting and Anti-War Protests”, which explains that Russia enacted two (2) laws that were brought into force on March 4, 2022, criminalizing independent war reporting and the protesting of the war. With penalties of up to 15 years in prison. The laws also make it illegal to spread, so called, fake news about the Russian armed forces, to call for an end to their deployment and to support sanctions against against Russian targets. The laws also impose strict censorship on all discussions of Russian’s war with Ukraine, with Russian authorities banning the description of the aggression as war or an invasion.
[16] The claimants also submitted another Human Rights Watch article dated March 9, 2022, entitled, “Russia Brutal Arrests and Torture, Ill Treatment of Anti-War Protesters”, which reported that Russian authorities have arbitrarily arrested thousands of peaceful protesters at anti-war rallies across Russia. In line with their increasingly brutal crackdowns on those who disagree with Russia’s military offense in Ukraine. The article reports that the police used excessive force against protestors, while detaining them. And in several instances, inflicted abuse, amounting to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment on those in custody, including administering electric shocks, water boarding, kicking and beating with police baton, punching and threats to shoot and threats of sexual assault.
[17] A 26-year-old woman managed to record the audio while she was being interrogated by a police officer, who slapped her, hit her in the face with a water bottle, grabbed her by the hair, threatened to give her electric shocks and snatched her phone. The police officer, heard in the audio, said, “Do you think I will be punished somehow? Putin told us to kill you all. Putin is on our side. You are enemies of the state. You are enemies of the nation. We will get a bonus for this.” The article also reports that authorities have carried out raids on human right defenders’ homes, arresting them because they had, allegedly, participated in the peaceful anti-war movement. Human Rights Watch director was quoted as saying, “That Russian authorities continued to deny people their right to freedom of assembly and stifle the voices of those who disagree with Russia’s war in the Ukraine. The escalated police violence illustrates the length to which Russian authorities will go to intimidate and silence dissent.
[18] The claimants also submitted a 2021 Amnesty International article entitled, “Russia No Place for Protests,” which discussed how Russian authorities generally have used increasingly repressive measures to restrict and suppress peaceful protests, enforced through unfair trial and founded in disproportionate sanctions and excessive use of force against protestors and dissidents. I find that there is cogent objective basis for the claimants’ fear of persecution and harm at the hands of Russian authorities due to the principal claimant’s political opinion opposed to the Putin regime and Russia’s war against the Ukraine.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[19] Based on their subjective fear grounded on an objective basis, I find that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, a well-founded fear of persecution at the hand of state actors in Russia.
[20] At this juncture, I need to mention that the associate claimant, also, faces a serious possibility of risk of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group, as wife of a known political dissident. We only need to recall the story of Skripal family, whereby the target was the father of the Skripal family, but the daughter was, as well, poisoned because of the incident. In this regard, I find that the associate claimant’s familial relationship with the principal claimant renders her vulnerable and exposed to the serious possibility of persecution and harm as a result of her relationship to her husband as well.
State Protection
[21] The agent of persecution is the Russian state through state actors. The objective evidence in Item 2.1 is clear that the Russian authorities use harsh and violent methods to suppress dissent, up to and including torture. Item 4.14 at page 2 indicates that time and time again, Russian authorities have suppressed free speech and peaceful protests through police brutality, violence and mass arrests. Item 2.2 indicates that police enjoyed impunity for the unlawful use of force, including their use of stun guns and — against peaceful protesters. Item 2.1 states that the government failed to take adequate steps to identify, investigate, prosecute or punished most officials who committed abuses and engaged in corruption, resulting in a climate of impunity.
[22] The objective evidence is therefore clear that the state will not provide adequate protection. In fact, the police forces, themselves, will be the agents of persecution against those who speak out against the government. I find that adequate state protection would not be available to the claimants in the circumstances.
Internal Flight Alternative
[23] Given the nationwide repression and the crushing of political dissent described in the objective evidence, I further find that there would be a serious responsibility of persecution for the claimants anywhere in Russia. Tab 14.1 of the NDP indicates that citizens must register their residence if they move and that new laws, signed into force in 2013, have made registration requirements stricter and imposed harsh penalties for not registering. So even if the claimants managed to relocate somewhere safely, they would have to register their new residence with the government. The government will, therefore, know where they are and risk being arrested and imprisoned or they may risk having to live unregistered and living illegally. And as well, being arrested and imprisoned for breaking those registration laws.
[24] Given the claimants — the principal claimant’s convictions against the Putin regime and the war in Ukraine, given his long history of political activism and his continued activism through the online forum founded by Gasparo (ph). I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant will continue to attract the negative attention of Russian authorities. That is to say, that their agents of persecution will always have reason and motivation to persecute them anywhere they may relocate in Russia. There is no safe internal flight alternative anywhere in Russia for the claimants.
CONCLUSION
[25] I, therefore, find that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution if they were to return to Russia, based on the political claimant’s political opinion and activism and the associate claimant’s membership in a particular social group, as the spouse of a known political opponent of the regime. I find that the claimants are Conventional refugees under Section 96 of the IRPA. Their claims are, therefore, accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———