TB6-03803

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 : TB6-03803 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 28, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Roslyn Ahara Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Dariusz Wroblewski Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who is a citizen of Ukraine, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), denying her claim for refugee protection. She has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal, and she is asking the Refugee Appeal Division to allow the appeal. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant was born in East Ukraine, which was then a part of the Soviet Union. In 1956, she left Russia to find work in Kharkov, Ukraine. She found work, later married and continued to live and work in Kharkov. [4] In 2002, the Appellant's daughter immigrated to Canada, having been sponsored by her husband. Although her son-in-law wanted to sponsor her, the Appellant felt no need to leave Ukraine as it was her home. However, unfortunately in 2004, the Appellant's husband suddenly died from a stroke. [5] In 2006, the Appellant's daughter invited her to visit in Canada and the Appellant obtained a six month visitor's visa. When her daughter asked her to stay an additional three months, she was granted an extension. She returned to Ukraine in 2007, and her life was happy. [6] However, in 2014, the Russian/Ukrainian conflict started to affect the Appellant directly. On May 1, 2014, during a national holiday, the Appellant's neighbor XXXX XXXX met the Appellant in her building lobby. He had been drinking and grabbed the Appellant and slapped her face and shook her. He told her that she was a Russian bitch and that she should return to Russia and leave Ukraine. [7] Thinking it was an isolated incident, the Appellant was not concerned, until XXXX XXXX, 2014, when taking out her garbage, XXXX and his friend threw her garbage all over the street; both were drunk and they tormented the Appellant. The police were called; however, given that it was a holiday celebration, they too were drunk, and when they recognized XXXX XXXX, they told the Appellant to return home. [8] Later, the Appellant observed these individuals wearing armbands in the national Ukrainian colours as many Ukrainian nationalists and Neo-Nazis do. She later learned that they belonged to the self-proclaimed nationalist group called "Cleaners". [9] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Appellant took a bus to the police station, met with the officer in charge and tried to explain what had happened to her. However, the Appellant alleges that she was totally ignored. On the following day, the Appellant returned to the police again in the company of a friend and neighbor. On this occasion, the officer listened to the Appellant and filed her complaint. [10] However, when the Appellant returned home, she found her apartment door covered in feces, and XXXX yelled at her that his brother works for the police and her file would disappear. This was followed by the words "soon you will go for a walk and a rock will fall on your head." 1 Out of fear, the Appellant remained in her apartment for days. [11] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, she saw XXXX again at the grocery store, where he was verbally abusive. Following this, the Appellant relied on a friend to do her shopping. [12] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Appellant had to go outside to attend a doctor's appointment. However, after the appointment she met XXXX with two of his friends, at the bus stop. She was held and one of his friends put something in her ribs and threatened to kill her if she didn't leave Ukraine. On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the appellant attended a walk-in clinic. The doctor indicated that she would contact the police; however, the Appellant begged her not to call, but the doctor didn't heed her advice. [13] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, XXXX brother, XXXX, a Kharkov police officer, opened the Appellant's door by kicking it and divulged that he was aware of her visit at the walk-in clinic. [14] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, XXXX observed the Appellant's neighbor giving her food from her balcony. He slapped her and threw her on her floor and again threatened her life. The Appellant's neighbor called an ambulance and she spent one week in the hospital. [15] Upon release, the Appellant called an old work friend, who told her she could stay with her for two months. In XXXX, she went to her apartment to get warmer clothes, her door was unlocked and her window was broken. On her wall was painted "Russian bitch go home". Again, she was grabbed and threatened by XXXX; however, she was able to escape when his cell phone rang. Nevertheless, she was hospitalized for three days. [16] When the Appellant returned to her friend's home, she was told that her daughter was arriving, and that she should find somewhere else to go. She was able to find another friend where she was given a room in the shed, and a wood stove to keep warm. [17] The Appellant attends monthly in Kharkov to receive her pension. In XXXX 2014, when returning to her friend's house, someone threw a rock through her window; the rock was wrapped with a note saying that this will happen every night when "you hide a Russian bitch." The Appellant's neighbor went to the village police and told them what happened; however, since no one observed the incident, there was nothing that could be done. [18] At that point, the Appellant called her daughter, who went to her MP XXXX XXXX, and pleaded for help. It was suggested that she come to Canada, and in March 2015, she received her visa application and subsequently her Canadian visa. ROLE OF RAD [19] The Appellant has made no submissions on the Role of the RAD. However, the RAD finds that the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,2 provides us with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. The justices stated at paragraph 103: [103] I conclude from my statutory analysis that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) such as the one involved here, which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. Having done this, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination. No other interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions is reasonable. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [20] The Appellant requested an extension to file her appeal, which was granted. She has now filed the following new evidence pursuant to Rule 29 of the RAD Rules: * Psychiatrist's report from Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated April 14, 2016, in which it indicates that the Appellant is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).3 * Affidavit from XXXX XXXX, a friend and neighbor to the Appellant, attached to which are pictures of the Appellant's apartment door, in which a message has been written by XXXX, telling her to stay away from Ukraine.4 [21] Rule 29 of the RAD Rules states: 29 (1) A person who is the subject of an appeal who does not provide a document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record must not use the document or provide the written submissions in the appeal unless allowed to do so by the Division. (2) If a person who is the subject of an appeal wants to use a document or provide written submissions that were not previously provided, the person must make an application to the Division in accordance with rule 37. (3) The person who is the subject of the appeal must include in an application to use a document that was not previously provided an explanation of how the document meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act and how that evidence relates to the person, unless the document is being presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister. (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) the document's relevance and probative value; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record. [22] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim on February 17, 2016. Following the hearing, the Appellant was able to make arrangements for a psychiatric assessment. The assistant to the Appellant's counsel submits in her affidavit that the Appellant was diagnosed with severe PTSD which impaired her memory and concentration. It is submitted that this is a key piece of evidence that would clearly explain the reasons for Appellant's difficulties during her refugee hearing. [23] With respect to the affidavit from the Appellant's neighbor, and attached photographs of messages on the Appellant's apartment door, it is argued that this demonstrates ongoing pursuit on the part of the perpetrator/s. [24] The RAD finds that the medical report meets the statutory requirements, in that it was obtained after an appointment with Dr. XXXX, following the rejection of this claim. Upon review of the audio recording of the proceedings, the RAD notes that counsel alluded to the lack of medical evidence from Canada, as the Appellant was not entitled to this level of health care. Accordingly, the RAD admits this evidence; however, the appropriate weight will be assigned to this report. [25] For the most part, the Appellant's neighbor re-iterates incidents which were already before the RPD. However, she alleges that the photographs are new in that they were taken on March 13th, 15th, and 17th, 2016. Moreover, she states that she met the perpetrator in March 2016, and he told her that people from his organization had written the messages on her door, and that she should stay away from Ukraine or "she will seriously die." [26] The RAD does not admit the affidavit and attached photographs from the Appellant's neighbor. The RAD finds that the affidavit indicates that the Appellant had asked the neighbor for any future defamation on her door after the initial one was erased by the neighbor. The RAD finds that it was incumbent upon the Appellant to follow-up as it is indicated in the Affidavit that they had been in touch via Skype. Had she done so, these photographs would have been submitted to the RAD in a more timely fashion. However, even if the RAD has erred in this regard, the RAD finds that these photographs do not overcome the credibility findings made by the RPD. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT * Did the RPD err in assessing the Appellant's credibility? * Did the negative credibility finding lack an overall assessment of the evidence before it? * Did the RPD fail to consider, misconstrue or misunderstand evidence and rely on that evidence in coming to its decision? Psychiatric report [27] The RAD notes that Dr. XXXX indicates in his report that the Appellant fulfills the diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, DSM-5. Dr. XXXX indicates that he conducted an assessment interview with the Appellant on April 14, 2016 using her daughter as an interpreter. Dr. XXXX further relied on the RPD's Reasons and Decision, and the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. [28] In the affidavit provided by the process server, who also acts as an assistant at the offices of counsel for the Appellant, she indicates that "Unfortunately, due to her inability to recall all details of her ordeal, the panel member made negative credibility inferences and gave no weight to supporting documents." 5 The author goes on to indicate that the Appellant arranged for a psychiatric assessment and was diagnosed with severe PTSD which impaired her memory and concentration, and this clearly explains the reasons for the Appellant's difficulties during her refugee hearing. [29] Moreover, it is argued that the RPD completely ignored the Appellant's testimony about her psychological trauma and its effect on her memory and cognitive abilities. It is further argued as it was in submissions, that the Appellant had limited medical coverage and no access whatsoever to services considered non-essential by the Ontario Health Plan. It is submitted that being unable to afford this assessment, is unfair to marginalize refugee claimants, such as this Appellant. [30] The RAD notes that the RPD was particularly cautious when considering the Appellant's testimony, given her age of seventy-seven. However, it found that the Appellant was sophisticated and articulate. Furthermore, the RPD at the outset verified that the Appellant's hearing impairment did not impede her ability to respond to questions and was very clear in indicating that if there were any problems, to so advise the Member. More importantly, the RPD found that the Appellant was able to recall very detailed information when asked, including exact dates, and she was able to describe in great length events that were alleged in her BOC. Having said this, the RPD commented that there was no medical report to suggest that the Appellant is suffering from any medical ailment that would explain the contradictions or omissions. The RPD further found that the Appellant's vision and hearing impairments, did not impact on her memory or ability to answer questions consistently. [31] The RAD cannot assign much weight to the foregoing psychiatric report in terms of it being submitted to support memory problems, when the psychiatrist himself does not indicate such a problem. He simply writes two paragraphs other than information which was self-reported by the Appellant: In my opinion, Ms. XXXX fulfills the diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. This Disorder is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's, "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," Fifth Edition, better known as DSM-5. In my opinion, if Ms. XXXX were returned to the Ukraine, she would suffer from an overwhelming exacerbation of her Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. ... which could cause her to contemplate suicide. [32] The RAD finds that the latter paragraph is based on the facts of the claim, as described to the doctor by the Appellant, and therefore, is self-reported. [33] With respect to the diagnosis of PTSD, the RAD notes that the Doctor has not provided any information that would suggest memory impairment, Moreover, the affidavit in which it states "difficulties during her refugee hearing", could only be analyzed following a review of the audio recording, which has not been conducted by the doctor. [34] The RAD is guided in this regard by the decision of the Federal Court Molefe 6 in which the Court stated that "Expert opinion reports should not be given exalted status in administrative proceedings simply because they are prepared by a licensed profession." In Molefe, Mr. Justice Mosley cites the Court's decision in Czesak7 in which Mr. Justice Annis warned of the dangers posed by expert reports submitted to administrative tribunals. Moreover, I am of the view that decision-makers should be wary of reliance upon forensic expert evidence obtained for the purpose of litigation, unless it is subject to some form of validation. This remark would apply to the report of Dr. XXXX which went as far as to advocate on the applicant's behalf in the guise of an opinion on the very issue before the panel. [35] A psychiatric report does not serve as a cure-all for deficiencies in a refugee claimant's evidence.8 The RPD may discount such evidence where a doctor simply repeats what a patient claims to be his reasons for stress, and then reaches a medical conclusion that such factors have indeed caused the stress. 9 [36] The RAD acknowledges the diagnosis of PTSD, however, finds that does not indicate the problems that are stated in the affidavit put forward by the Appellant. Moreover, the RAD is satisfied, after listening to the audio recording of the proceedings, that the RPD was, indeed, extremely sensitive to the age and any impairments borne by the Appellant. The RAD concludes that the psychiatric report cannot overcome the credibility findings made by the RPD. Omission of medical attention for XXXX XXXX, 2015 incident from the Appellant's BOC [37] The RPD noted that the Appellant testified that she required medical attention for two or three days following the incident in which she was attacked by her neighbor, XXXX XXXX. Since this information was omitted in the BOC, the Appellant was asked to explain. When the Appellant indicated that her memory was not that great, the RPD rejected this explanation, given that it was her BOC and not her testimony where this omission occurred. In rejecting this, the RPD considered the fact that the Appellant not only had the assistance of competent counsel and her daughter, but she also was given the opportunity to remember her claim at leisure. Moreover, the RPD considered the fact that the Appellant did not omit in her BOC the other times she sought medical intervention. [38] The RAD concurs with the RPD that this omission is material evidence and the fact that it was omitted from the BOC, has little to do with her ability to recall incidents due to alleged memory impairment. Contradictions, Inconsistencies and Omissions as it relates to XXXX XXXX [39] The RPD cited the Appellant's BOC in which she states that XXXX XXXX, brother of the perpetrator is a policeman, and he was the one who told his brother that the Appellant had attended the walk-in clinic, which led to a police complaint. However, at the hearing, when questioned by the RPD if the perpetrator had a brother who was a police officer, she responded that this is what she was told; however, she did not know for sure. Moreover, the Appellant was unaware of the brother's name, nor the station where he worked or his rank in the police force. Finally she stated that this individual is the perpetrator's cousin and not his brother. Given the fact that the Appellant refers to him as "brother" in her BOC, she was asked to explain the discrepancy, to which she responded that she didn't really know him. However, the RPD noted that this explanation is contrary to the Appellant's BOC where she states that she did see him when he came to her home and kicked in her door and therefore the RPD rejected the explanation. [40] Furthermore, the RPD asked the Appellant why in her BOC she stated his name was XXXX XXXX, but in oral testimony, she did not know his name. Her explanation that she was only dealing with him for a short time in XXXX 2014, was rejected by the RPD. When the Appellant became agitated and evaded the questions, even when it was repeated and rephrased, finally the Appellant stated that she knew nothing, that she did not know the perpetrator's brother at all. The RPD concluded, based on the foregoing, that the Appellant's explanations only tainted the evidence even further by adding additional layers of contradictions and omissions. It concluded that the events alleged in the BOC with relation to XXXX XXXX to be material and therefore, it drew a significant negative inference from the problems identified at the hearing. [41] The Appellant submits that the RPD's findings with respect to XXXX relationship with the perpetrator, namely, brother or cousin was microscopic in that all close relatives are referred to as brothers; however, she knew that they were closely related, they had the same family name and socialized with each other. [42] The RAD concurs with the Appellant with respect to the relationship between XXXX and the perpetrator being microscopic, given the fact that in other countries, the words "brother" and "cousin" are interchangeable. [43] Having said this, upon review of the audio recording, and the RPD's credibility findings with respect to the perpetrator's relative, XXXX, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the testimony surrounding this issue was fraught with many inconsistencies and contradictions. Accordingly, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the events alleged in the BOC with relation to XXXX XXXX are lacking in credibility and are material to this claim. The RAD further finds that XXXX profession as a police officer is called into question. Inconsistency with relation to medical visit on XXXX XXXX, 2014 [44] The RPD notes that in the Appellant's BOC she alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, after returning from a doctor's appointment, she was approached and assaulted by XXXX and his friends. She described being in so much pain in her kidneys and her ear that the doctor understood that she was beaten and as a result the doctor indicated that she would contact the police. This evidence was corroborated by a medical certificate10. However, at the hearing, the Appellant testified that she had not, in fact, sought medical intervention. Nevertheless, she stated that she had sought medical attention for her eye and she was on her way home from a doctor's appointment when XXXX and his friends attacked her. The RPD found this very different from medical attention for the injuries sustained during the attack. The RPD further noted that the medical note submitted indicates that she sustained significant injuries, requiring the attention of a surgeon. Therefore, the RPD found that this significant event ought not to have been omitted from her testimony, and also calls into question the validity of the medical document itself. This document is dated July 23, 2014, which is a month after the date alleged in the Appellant's BOC and testimony. When confronted with this discrepancy, the Appellant stated that she recalled it was in the month of June. The RPD concluded that this explanation did little to overcome the inconsistency and given that the Appellant originally did not even recall this visit, the RPD was convinced that this evidence lacked credibility. [45] The RAD finds, given the contradictory evidence surrounding this incident, that the Appellant's credibility has been impugned. While specific dates can be discounted, the Appellant herself stated in her BOC and in her testimony that this incident occurred one month prior to date of the medical document. The RAD finds that this either calls into question the contents of the Appellant's BOC or it calls into question the validity of the document. Concerns regarding the police statement [46] The Appellant provided a police statement written by Inspector XXXX.11 She had asked a friend to obtain this letter. The RPD found the contents of the letter to be unusual for the following reasons: it is undated, it does not indicate which station or militia is responsible for its contents, the individual named has no badge number, nor are there any identifying features. However, since the Appellant knew little about this document, this was not put to her to provide an explanation. [47] In terms of the content of the statement, the RPD also found it to be highly unusual in that the letter states that the Appellant appealed to his department on both XXXX XXXX, 2014 and XXXX XXXX, 2014; however, the BOC and the Appellant's testimony indicate that in XXXX she reported to the station in Kharkov and in XXXX to a village station twenty minutes outside of Kharkov. Moreover, the Appellant had alleged that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, she had spoken directly to Mr. XXXX police officer brother and he did not take a report. The RPD concluded that if it was to believe that no report was taken, then it is unclear how this Inspector is aware of the XXXX XXXX report, thereby undermining the credibility of the letter. [48] Furthermore, the RPD found that it was also unclear how Inspector XXXX came by the information he references in the letter, such as the exact statements made by Mr. XXXX on XXXX XXXX. The statement also refers to the goals of the "Cleaners" and their ability to organize based on the "presidential policy". However, this information is not referenced. Accordingly, the information contained therein and the manner in which it is written was found by the RPD not to be in line with a report that one would expect from a police officer, claiming to have no evidence with which to initiate a criminal investigation. The Appellant alleged that she was telling the Inspector the information contained in the report. Given the aforementioned credibility findings, the RPD found the letter to be unusual and therefore suspect. It further noted the prevalence of fraudulent documents. 12 [49] The RPD concluded that given the credibility concerns surrounding the document and the events which triggered the issuance of the document, that it lacked credibility, and therefore undermined the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. In light of the major omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies between the Appellant's oral, written and documentary evidence, the RPD found the Appellant not to be a credible witness and, therefore, did not believe the allegations which purported were the reasons for her refugee claim. [50] With respect to the letter from Inspector XXXX, and the finding by the RPD that this document is not genuine, it is submitted that the RPD completely failed to consider socio-economic and political realities of the country where documents were created; a country with a much lower standard than any western country. [51] With due respect, the RAD cannot agree with the Appellant. Upon review of the audio recording, the RAD finds that either the document is not genuine or the testimony is not credible. Either way, the RAD finds that the Appellant's credibility is impugned in this regard. Credibility findings [52] In terms of specifics, the Appellant submits that she submitted uncontroverted medical evidence corroborating multiple attacks, in which she was repeatedly injured. [53] It is further submitted that the Appellant was harassed, molested, intimidated, threatened and physically assaulted over a period of a year. It is argued that she has sustained serious injuries both physical and psychological and while she might have the ability to recall many of the details with perfect clarity, she also has difficulties in remembering the others. Moreover, it is argued that the Appellant attended hospital and local clinic on several occasions, was hospitalized for several days on one of them, and from her perspective it was difficult for her to recall exact days and other details of these visits. [54] It is submitted by the Appellant that in order for the RPD to reject the claim on grounds of credibility, it must state that ground clearly and it must give its reasons for that finding. It is argued that the RPD ignored the Appellant's testimony, and disregarded extremely relevant evidence which corroborates both subjective and objective elements of the Appellant's well-founded fear of persecution. Further, it is submitted that the analysis of the objective component of the Appellant's claim is speculative and without an appreciation of the testimony and documentary evidence as it concerned the Appellant's fears and risks in Ukraine. RAD'S CONCLUSION [55] The RAD finds that the RPD was clear in its credibility findings. There were a significant number of such findings, and some went to the material aspect of the Appellant's allegations. The RAD finds that the RPD was sensitive to any known disabilities that might affect the Appellant's ability to present evidence. However, after conducting an independent assessment of the entire record, the RAD finds that the credibility findings by the RPD are absent of any error. Moreover, the RAD concurs with the RPD that there was insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to support the Appellant's allegations. [56] While the RAD acknowledges that Ukraine is going through difficult times, it is incumbent upon the RPD to assess each claim on its own merits with respect to the specific individual. In the absence of credible evidence, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [57] Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Roslyn Ahara" Roslyn Ahara June 28, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 24, Basis of Claim Narrative, para. 13. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application, Exhibit A. 4 Ibid., Exhibit B. 5 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application, Affidavit of XXXXX XXXXX. 6 Molefe, Nana Joy v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-8071-13), Mosley, March 12, 2015, 2015 FC 317, para. 31. 7 Czesak, Maria v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-09539-12), Annis, November 14, 2013, 2013 FC 1149, para. 37. 8 Avagyan, Nelli v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2596-13), LeBlanc, October 22, 2014, 2014 FC 1003, para. 60. 9 Rokni, Mohammad Mehdi v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6068-93), Muldoon, January 27, 1995, paras. 10-11; Danailov (Danailoff), Vasco (Vassil) Valdimirov v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-273-93), Reed, October 6, 1993, para. 2. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 186-190. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 195-196. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ukraine (July 31, 2015), item 3.7. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-03803