TB1-06736

TB1-06736

For the excluded claimant the panel found on a balance of probabilities that he was complicit in crimes against humanity under Article 1F(a) due to his command role, duration of service, awareness of atrocities in the area where he was stationed, failure to leave or prevent crimes and continued support of the common plan to target and expel the Muslim population; exclusion under Article 1F(a) therefore applies. For the joined claimants the panel found their testimony credible but established discrimination did not amount to persecution, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Zagreb); accordingly their claims were rejected and they are not Convention refugees nor persons at...

Citation
TB1-06736
Parties
Claimant (excluded): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (included): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (article 1 F Exclusion and Inclusion Claims) / Decision Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Excluded: one claimant under Article 1F(a); Other claimants: claims rejected (not Convention refugees; not persons in danger of torture; not at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment).
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(a) Exclusion, Crimes Against Humanity, Complicity, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Human Rights Law Article 1 F(a) Exclusion Crimes Against Humanity Complicity Well Founded Fear of Persecution +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (excluded)

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (included)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (article 1 F Exclusion and Inclusion Claims) / Decision Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious reasons for considering the excluded claimant committed or was complicit in crimes against humanity under Article 1F(a)
  2. 2 Whether the joined claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds
  3. 3 Whether discrimination alleged amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

For the excluded claimant the panel found on a balance of probabilities that he was complicit in crimes against humanity under Article 1F(a) due to his command role, duration of service, awareness of atrocities in the area where he was stationed, failure to leave or prevent crimes and continued support of the common plan to target and expel the Muslim population; exclusion under Article 1F(a) therefore applies. For the joined claimants the panel found their testimony credible but established discrimination did not amount to persecution, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Zagreb); accordingly their claims were rejected and they are not Convention refugees nor persons at...

Court Disposition

Excluded: one claimant under Article 1F(a); Other claimants: claims rejected (not Convention refugees; not persons in danger of torture; not at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment).

Orders

  • Excluded claimant XXXX XXXX excluded from refugee protection pursuant to Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Convention
  • Claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX rejected; not Convention refugees and not at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; return to Croatia not barred by refugee protection