TB6-04957

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-04957 TB6-04958 TB6-04959 TB6-04960 TB6-04961 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision July 26, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal D. Clifford Luyt Barrister & Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX ("male Appellant"), XXXX XXXX ("female Appellant"), XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ("minor Appellants") citizens of the Slovak Republic appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The male Appellant and the female Appellant are the parents of the minor Appellants. The female Appellant was appointed as the Designated Representative ("DR") of her minor children by the RPD and the Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") confirmed this designation. The Appellants are not submitting new evidence and they are not requesting an oral hearing. They request that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the RPD be set aside and the RAD find the Appellants to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellants state that they require refugee protection due to discrimination and persecution because of their Roma ethnicity. They say they were segregated in school; the male Appellant was verbally and physically abused by skinheads; the female Appellant and the eldest daughter, XXXX XXXX were almost hit by a car; the adult Appellants received poor health care; they never received government housing and there is no state protection for them in the Slovak Republic. [4] They fear returning to the Slovak Republic because they will be verbally and physically abused. They will have poor health care. They will need to live with extended family members and the minor claimants will have to attend segregated Roma classes in school. They also fear XXXX XXXX, who XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the Slovak Republic. ROLE OF THE RAD [5] The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica1 provides guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD, to decisions of the first-level administrative tribunal. [6] The Court stated that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard. Pursuant to s. 111(2)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD may refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination if it is "of the opinion" that it cannot make a decision confirming or setting aside the RPD decision without hearing the evidence presented before the RPD. This recognizes that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because those cases require an assessment of credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. It further indicates that although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant such restraint ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. [7] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its assessment of the RPD's decision on the basis of the principles outlined above. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [8] The RPD determined that the Appellants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection for the following reasons: (a) There is adequate state protection for the Appellants in the Slovak Republic; (b) It is not credible that the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to the Slovak Republic, as the discrimination they may face does not amount to persecution. Submissions [9] The Appellants submit that the RPD decision was based solely on the availability of state protection for the Appellants as Roma citizens of the Slovak Republic, and involved no issues of credibility. The RAD must determine whether the RPD was correct in its finding that state protection was adequate and that the Appellants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. [10] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in failing to adequately place the Slovak Republic on the "democracy spectrum" when it found the country was a "functioning democracy." The country needs to be assessed to determine its place on the "democracy spectrum" to determine what credible and reliable evidence will be sufficient to displace the presumption of state protection. This is necessary in order for the decision-maker to assess whether the state is unable (although willing) to protect its citizens, or that it was reasonable for the Appellants to refuse this protection. The Appellants further submit that it is only in "developed democracies" such as the USA and Israel, that an Appellant will bear the burden of exhausting all potential avenues of domestic protection before seeking refugee protection in Canada. [11] The Appellants state that the RPD did not find that the Slovak Republic was a "developed democracy". The Slovak Republic should be classified as one that is "developing" in the sense that it has very serious governance issues, particularly with respect to its Roma citizens. The RPD erred in stating that the Appellants had the onus of exhausting all avenues of potential domestic protection. The RPD made numerous errors in finding that the Appellants did not experience persecution and they had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. [12] The RPD erred in stating that the failure by the Slovak Republic to protect its Roma citizens was not systemic and widespread. This statement disregarded the evidence in the record that there was a countrywide pattern of inability and outright refusal on the part of the state to provide such protection. These were not just "local failures." [13] The RPD stated that the hierarchical nature of Slovak security forces allowed a person to complain to a higher authority. This may be true regarding ethnic Slovak citizens but does not apply to Roma. There are pronouncements, even by the Minister of Interior (the political head of the police in the Slovak Republic) that even when the Roma are beaten by the police themselves, there is nothing to investigate.2 [14] The RPD erred in stating that Roma women are segregated in Roma-only rooms after giving birth due to "levels of hygiene and adaptability." The RPD took this statement out of context and ignored evidence that this practice is state-wide. Documentary evidence states that there is discrimination in healthcare against Roma. The RPD erred in failing to consider this evidence. The RPD ignored the male Appellant's evidence that the doctor who "treated" him, falsely claimed the male Appellant was drunk when in fact he was suffering the consequences of a head injury from a racist assault. [15] The Appellants argue that the RPD failed to address the cumulative effect of discrimination and discriminatory measures that give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. The Appellants maintain that there is discrimination in every facet of life in the Slovak Republic, including lack of medical care, employment and housing, segregation of Roma into special schools and discrimination in public transit that amounts to persecution on a cumulative basis. The Appellants submit that the discrimination against Roma children in education results in the denial of proper education and can amount to persecution. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Slovak Republic violated Roma human rights by denying proper education to Roma children. The Slovak state has ignored this judgment. The existence of this judgment and the failure of the Slovak state to implement its findings were ignored by the RPD. The RPD erred in placing an onus on the adult Appellants to advocate for their children. The onus is on the state not to discriminate against or persecute its citizens. [16] The Appellants further submit that the RPD erred in speculating that the economic downturn, rather than racial discrimination, is responsible for the Appellant's inability to find work. There is evidence that Roma, in contrast to ethnic Slovaks, are 80-100% unemployed. [17] The Appellants also argue that the RPD erred in finding that the discrimination suffered by the Appellants did not threaten their fundamental rights, a finding which ignored the cumulative effect of systemic discrimination and discounted the personal experiences of the Appellants. The RPD focused on police corruption when this was not the issue. The issue is that, because the police act brutally towards Roma with impunity, the assertion that the police would protect Roma is improbable. [18] The Appellants state that they were consistent in maintaining that they feared the police and this fear was not addressed by the RPD. The RPD erred when it stated the documentary evidence showed that complaints against police were investigated. The same document noted that the investigating mechanism was not independent and was not very effective. The RPD did not note these comments but incorrectly found that the authorities were "taking steps" to address police misconduct. [19] The Appellants further submit that the RPD erred in misconstruing the nature of the Appellant's fear of the neo-Nazi party headed by XXXX, the XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX province. The RPD erred in saying that they did not live near the province where he was elected and they had no personal contact with him. His political party poses a direct threat to Roma throughout the Slovak Republic and the RPD erred in failing to recognize this fact. ANALYSIS [20] The RAD notes that the RPD did make certain findings of credibility in its decision. The RPD considered the female Appellant's contention that she did not receive adequate healthcare in the Slovak Republic. The RPD examined her statement that she was placed with other Roma women in a ward when she was waiting to give birth to her children. The RPD referred to documentary evidence that stated that this was hospital procedure for ensuring "levels of hygiene and adaptability, not race."3 The entire paragraph reads "NGOs reported persistent segregation of Romani women in maternity wards in several hospitals in the eastern part of the country, where hospital management accommodated them separately from non-Romani women and did not permit them to use the same bathrooms, toilets. Hospitals claim they grouped persons according to their levels of hygiene and adaptability, not by race."4 The RPD only considered the hospitals' response. [21] The RPD stated that the female Appellant gave evidence that, after the birth of her first child, she was required to take care of her daughter by herself, without any experience. The female Appellant then explained that the practice after the birth of the firstborn is to keep the mother in the hospital for four days. She acknowledged that she was kept in hospital for four days. The RPD considered this was indicative of ensuring that new mothers are maintained in the hospital environment to allow them to adapt to the responsibilities and requirements of taking care of their newborn. The RPD did not consider this to be discriminatory or persecutory. The RPD concluded that the female Appellant did receive adequate healthcare in the birth of her child and, therefore, her contention was not credible. [22] The RPD also considered the situation where the male Appellant was taken to the hospital after he was attacked by skinheads. He testified that the female Appellant arrived at the scene after his telephone call to her and she took him to the hospital emergency because the ambulance had not arrived yet. When the doctor saw the male Appellant, he stated that he thought the male Appellant was drunk. The doctor wiped his face and gave him medication. He was not admitted to the hospital and he was directed by the doctor to return the next day. He said that he was feeling "nauseous from the hit to his head." [23] He said that although he was feeling better the next day, he returned to the emergency. He was examined and was told to see his family doctor. The family doctor advised him to have a test done. The male Appellant stated that he had a broken skull and there was internal bleeding. He did not provide any corroborative evidence. He says that he was given further medication to take. He never returned to the doctor and he stated that his mother sends him the medication up to the present time "in an envelope" since they have the same prescription. The incident took place in XXXX 2012. [24] The RPD found that the oral evidence was that he had been seen by a doctor and, although he was accused wrongfully of being drunk, he was cleansed, provided with medication and told to return the following day. Upon his return to the hospital, he was directed to see his family doctor who suggested further testing. He was tested and diagnosed. He was given an initial prescription for medication he states was a painkiller, and he has never returned to the doctor. The RPD did not consider this evidence to be indicative of a lack of healthcare. [25] The RPD concluded from this evidence that the male Appellant did receive adequate healthcare. The RPD also found that there was no persuasive evidence that if the Appellants believed that the male Appellant was badly treated by the medical staff he encountered, he did not go anywhere to complain about the attention he received. The RPD found that the male Appellant's statement that he received inadequate medical care was not credible. [26] The RPD concluded that the adult Appellants were not denied adequate medical care. The RPD acknowledged that while the treatment may have been discriminatory, there was no denial of medical care and no evidence of improper care. The RPD found that the actions described by the Appellants did not amount to persecution. Although the RPD did not consider the entire paragraph in the documentary evidence, the RAD gives respect to the other findings in regard to healthcare received by the Appellants and agrees that the Appellants were not personally denied adequate healthcare. [27] The RPD stated that it considered the totality of evidence, including that the adult Appellants were not employed, they were receiving social assistance and that the male Appellant says that he was often refused employment due to his ethnicity. The RPD found that the denial by private entities to hire Roma is an act of discrimination. The RPD did not find that the refusal by a private enterprise to hire the male Appellant was persecution. The RPD referred to the objective evidence stating that authorities in the Slovak Republic have taken numerous measures to mitigate the discrimination faced by the Roma. Government has funded educational, health care, employment and improved living conditions for Roma. Despite these efforts by the Slovak government, the statistics indicate that Roma are still underemployed and less educated. In 2012, the labour offices provided a wide range of information and counseling services with respect to career choice, job selection and job seeking.5 Further, there are two national projects aimed at support of employment of persons from socially excluded communities, in particular from marginalized Roma communities. In almost 300 Slovak cities, there is the focus on the improvement of living conditions in Roma settlements and on the promotion of employment.6 [28] The RPD acknowledged that neither of the adult Appellants has worked in a conventional paying job. The male Appellant stated that to "feed his children" he worked with his cousins retrieving scrap metal from dumps. He also worked for the government, as required, to receive his social assistance. The RPD found that it was likely that part of the difficulty in locating work is that there is an economic downturn in Europe, which negatively affected the economy in the Slovak Republic and caused it to go into recession.7 The RPD concluded that the discrimination faced by the adult Appellants did not threaten their fundamental rights but rather affected the quality of their existence in the Slovak Republic. There was oral evidence that a social worker came to visit the family each month because they were receiving social assistance and had made suggestions as to various job openings. The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence outlined by the RPD in regard to the efforts made by the Slovak government to help Roma and other marginalized individuals to find employment. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the adult Appellants have faced discrimination in this area but it did not affect their fundamental rights. [29] The adult Appellants stated in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms that they fear the minor claimants will have to return to an ethnically mixed school where they say there is neglect from the teachers and bullying by the non-Roma students. The RPD acknowledged that educational segregation continues to happen in the Slovak Republic despite a government program to end the segregation of Romani children in schools in 2010, and the prohibition of such discrimination and segregation in Slovak law.8 The documentary evidence states that the problem lies in the implementation of the law as well as outright disregard for it in some school districts. The RPD stated that it found this evidence disturbing but that it did not indicate the denial of basic education but a problem in the quality of education. Documentary evidence stated this is not a problem in all municipalities and school districts and there is evidence that cases have been brought to court ordering schools to comply with the law.9 [30] Documentary evidence states that the Slovak government maintains that access to education is ensured systematically from both the financial and institutional point of view. This includes free pre-school education from the fifth year of age, zero class at primary schools, specialized classes at primary schools with compensation and development program (4-8 children per class), teacher's assistant, contribution for socially disadvantaged children, food subsidies and school things assistance for children whose parents are in material need, developing and standardization of relevant diagnostic tools. The School Act prohibits measures that would lead to the exclusion of Roma children from the mainstream school system and their placement in special schools and thus to lead to continuing segregation. Rights stipulated by the School Act are guaranteed equally to everyone in accordance with the principle of equal treatment in education as specified by the Anti-Discrimination Act.10 [31] The government has further adopted measures of inclusiveness by ensuring Romani language, literature and history may be included in school curricula subject to the interest of schools. Textbooks are available in both Romani in the Slovak language. Two of the projects are on inclusive education and improvement of access of Roma children to preschool and primary education are currently performed by the Methodology and Pedagogical Center.11 [32] The RPD concluded that the minor claimants would not face a denial of education amounting to persecution and that they would be entitled to an education. The RPD also stated that the onus is on the parents to advocate for the children when the time comes and there is no evidence that they would be unable to do this. The RPD concluded that any discrimination that the minor claimants may face does not amount to persecution. The RAD does not agree that the onus is on the parents to advocate for their children in this regard, but finds that, on the basis of the oral evidence and the documentary evidence, on a balance of probabilities, the children would be entitled to an education commensurate with their abilities. [33] The adult Appellants allege that they have to live with "extended family." They gave evidence that they applied and had been waiting for government housing since 2005. Up until their departure from the Slovak Republic they were not offered a home. The RPD concluded that living with one's family or lack of government housing is not persecutory. The RPD found that the adult Appellants had not provided persuasive evidence that they have been denied a home due to their ethnicity. The government of Slovakia's Revised National Action Plan for the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 for years 2011-2015 and the Strategy of the Slovak Republic for the Integration of Roma up to 2020 both indicate that integration of marginalized Roma communities is one of the government's goals for improving housing conditions for Roma.12 [34] The documentary evidence suggests that varying styles of social housing is being built under the program that "is funded by the central government through grants to municipalities that the local governments must apply for" and money comes from the state budget on an annual basis.13 [35] The Slovak government has addressed accessibility to affordable housing, but implementation is limited.14 The RPD stated that there is evidence that the Slovak Republic is addressing the demands for social housing. Subsidies are provided to municipalities and higher territorially units to construct rental apartments of regular and lower standard intended mainly for lower income groups, including socially excluded Roma communities. A subsidy of up to 30% of the cost is provided for apartments of regular standard (since 1 January 2014 up to 40%) and a subsidy up to 75% for apartments of lower standard. The RPD found that the Slovak government is addressing the housing inequities, though it will take time. The Appellants do have a home to return to in Smizany. The RPD found that this circumstance did not amount to persecution. The RAD agrees with this conclusion. [36] The RAD finds that the RPD did consider the cumulative effect of the discrimination against the Appellants and found that it did not amount to persecution. The RPD stated that the Appellants had housing and they received social assistance. The RPD found that the Appellants were legally able to study and work, in a democracy, and although there were problems in certain areas, such as housing, the government of the Slovak Republic generally respected the human rights of its citizens, including the Roma. The RPD found that the discrimination experienced by these Appellants did not threaten their fundamental rights but rather affected the quality of their existence in the Slovak Republic. [37] The RPD went on to state that it had considered the totality of the evidence including counsel's submissions as it relates to the Appellants' situation in the Slovak Republic, including the discrimination in education, employment and housing they alleged and the contention that these acts had risen to the level of persecution. The RPD found that the evidence presented by the adult Appellants did not amount to persecution. The RPD stated that it found that not every Roma in the Slovak Republic has experiences that amount to persecution. The RPD went on to review documentary evidence finding that the government has taken proactive steps to address the issues of discrimination and violence targeting minorities, in particular Roma: The National Roma Integration Strategy up to 2020 was adopted by the government in January 2012, in accordance with its obligations as a member of the EU, and focuses on four main areas: education, employment, health care and housing. According to the government, the goals of the strategy are "to help the segregation of Roma communities; to facilitate significant positive turn in the social inclusion of Roma communities; to foster nondiscrimination; and to change the attitude of the majority population toward the Roma minority". Sources indicate that Roma communities were consulted throughout the development process of the strategy. According to the United Nation's Development Program, the strategy includes a regular monitoring mechanism and the Slovak Republic regularly submits progress reports. [38] The RAD finds that the RPD considered the cumulative effect of the discrimination directed at the Appellants as well as the documentary evidence in regard to the general situation of Roma in the Slovak Republic and concluded that, in this particular case, the cumulative effect of the discrimination did not amount to persecution. [39] The RPD appears to have accepted the credibility of the male Appellant when he stated that in XXXX 2012, he was attacked by three skinheads. The RPD went on to consider the issue of state protection in regard to this matter. The male Appellant testified that they went to the police station to file a report on the attack "six or seven days later." The police officer did not take notes while the Appellants were explaining what happened. The police officer took the telephone number where the Appellants could be reached. Two weeks after the report, the female Appellant returned to the police station to follow up. She was told, after providing her identification, that the case was closed as the suspects were "unknown". The RPD found there was no persuasive evidence that the Appellants went to any higher authority if they believed that the police were ignoring the report. [40] In describing the attack, the male Appellant stated that three people attacked him, one had a hat and they jumped him. He said that it happened within a couple of seconds. He did not provide any specific identity details about the attackers. He said that it happened so quickly he could not really describe them to the police. [41] The RPD also considered state protection in regard to an incident where the female Appellant believed that a car was intentionally driven towards her and her daughter as they were headed toward school. The matter was never reported to the police or to anyone in higher authority. When asked why she did not report the incident, she responded that she did not see the licence plate nor any distinguishing features of the driver. She did state that the car was black. [42] The RPD correctly set out the test for state protection in its reasons. It included the presumption that the state is capable of protecting its citizens except in situations where the state is in a complete breakdown. A claimant who alleges that state protection is not available must persuade the Board that, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence establishes that state protection is inadequate. A claimant can rebut the presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability to protect. The onus is on the claimant to approach the state for protection in situations where state protection might reasonably be forthcoming.15 [43] No government can be expected to guarantee perfect protection of all of its citizens at all times, and the fact that the state is not always successful in protecting its citizens is not enough to justify a claim. This is particularly true when the state is in effective control of its territory and has military, police and civil authorities in place and is making serious attempts to protect its citizens.16 [44] The RPD acknowledged that the test of proving an absence of state protection is directly proportional to the level of democracy that exists in the state. The RPD found that the documentary evidence before it indicates that the Slovak Republic is a functioning democracy. It has functioning political and judicial systems in place and an official apparatus sufficient to provide a measure of protection to its citizens. There is an onus on the claimant to exhaust all courses of action reasonably available to him. The Slovak Republic is in control of its territory and has functioning security forces, both military and police, in place. There is no evidence of a total breakdown of state authority in the country. Therefore, the burden of attempting to show that one should not be required to exhaust all avenues of domestic recourse is a heavy one.17 [45] The RPD acknowledged, in its statement of the test for state protection, that the burden of proving an absence of state protection is directly proportional to the level of democracy that exists in the state. The onus is on the Appellants to give clear and convincing evidence that there is a failure of state protection in their particular situation. The RPD is not obligated to place the country on a democracy spectrum. [46] If a person does not try and access state protection, then a person must show why it is unreasonable for them to approach the state for protection. If a person states that there are deficiencies in a democracy that resulted in it being unreasonable for a person to approach the state for protection, the onus is on the person to provide clear and convincing evidence. [47] The RPD reviewed the situation where the male Appellant states that he was attacked by skinheads and found that he reported the matter to the police but the police concluded that the suspects were unknown. The male Appellant gave testimony that the entire incident happened in just a few seconds and he could not give a description of the assailants that would be helpful. The female Appellant never went to the police after the incident where she feels that a car intentionally drove at her and her daughter. She could only describe the car as having a black colour. The RPD did not have any other persuasive evidence in regard to these matters. The RAD agrees with the RPD that these personal circumstances do not rebut the presumption of state protection in the Slovak Republic. [48] The RPD found that the actions of the police in this matter were not clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection. There is documentary evidence that a number of cases of unlawful police violence have been reported in Slovakia, but the evidence also shows that the authority has taken steps to address the problem "The alleged criminal offenses and unlawful actions of the police are investigated by the Control and Inspection Service Section of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic".18 The RPD stated that the adult Appellants were required to exhaust all reasonably available means domestically before seeking international help. The RPD found, because they did not do this, they have not provided clear and convincing evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, state protection in the Slovak Republic is inadequate. [49] The RPD also considered the documentation before it and found that the evidence does not establish that all Roma face a serious possibility of persecution in Slovakia. It is for the Appellants to establish a link between their personal circumstances and the country conditions regarding persecution of some Roma.19 The RPD found that the Appellants did not establish any link. The RAD agrees with this conclusion. [50] Following the perfection of the matter, the Appellants submitted a decision of another RAD Member finding that members of a Slovak family were Convention refugees. Decisions of other RAD Members are not binding and each decision has to be decided on its own merits. However, in considering the facts in the submitted decision, it is different from the facts in the present matter. For example, in the submitted decision, among other findings, the RAD found that a female Appellant had been forcibly sterilized; corroborating medical evidence was submitted and the RAD found there were attacks by skinheads resulting in significant injuries; and the RAD found that a minor Appellant was placed in a special school for the deaf even though he was not deaf. The RAD found that the Appellants had rebutted the presumption of state protection with their personal evidence. The decision has no precedential value for this decision. [51] The RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellants will be persecuted if they return to the Slovak Republic or that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants will not be personally at risk to their lives or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture if they return to the Slovak Republic. DISPOSITION [52] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. . 'Ken Atkinson' Ken Atkinson July 26, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A.., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 2 RPD's Record, Exhibit 8, item 40. 3 RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, Slovak Republic-National Documentation Package, June 30, 2015, item 2.1 US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014, June 25, 2015. 4 Ibid. 5 RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, Slovakia - National Documentation Package (NDP), June 30, 2015, item 2.7. United Nations, Human Rights Council, National Report submitted in accordance with Paragraph 5 annex to Human Rights Council - Slovakia, January 27 - February 7, 2014. 6 Ibid. 7 RPD's Record - Exhibit 7, NDP, item 1.3, The World Factbook. 8 RPD's Record - Exhibit 7, NDP, item 13.4, Response to Information Request SVK104112.E. 9 Supra, footnote 5. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 RPD's Record - Exhibit 7, NDP, item 13.10, Response to Information Request SVK104920.E, Slovak Republic: Housing situation of Roma in Bratislavaa, Smizany, Levoca and Spisska Nova Ves; state programs related to housing for Roma (2011 -July 2014), August 1, 2014. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 RAD, Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p.2, RPD Decision and Reasons. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 RPD's Record - Exhibit 7, NDP, June 30, 2015, item 10.2, SVK104115.E, Police accountability and oversight mechanisms; procedures to file a complaint; state efforts to address complaints by Roma of police misconduct or abuse. 19 Uyucu v. M.C.I.- 2015 FC 404 - IMM 2743-14 - 2015-03-31 . --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (February 7, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-04957 TB6-04958 TB6-04959 TB6-04960 TB6-04961