- Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz
- Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD)
- Wiedner Hauptstraße 32, 1041 Wien
- T +43 1 589 00 583
- F +43 1 589 00 589
- info@ecoi.net
Dokument #1112731
ACCORD – Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (Autor)
In response to your above request we may provide you with the following information:
In its Country Report 2003, the UK Home Office states:
“Treatment of Returned Failed Asylum Seekers
6.80 The Cameroonian authorities are not informed when a failed asylum seeker is returned to Cameroon and such individuals are not routinely stopped, detained and questioned. There is no legislation in Cameroon that provides for the prosecution of individuals seeking asylum abroad even if the authorities were informed of the names of every returning failed asylum seeker.” (UK Home Office, October 2003, para. 6.80)
The source of this information (according to the UK Home Office report) is a report on a fact-finding mission to Cameroon by the Danish Immigration Service (DIS, December 2001). In a determination, the British Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) deals with the above quotation and believes it “is not a true representation of Section 8.1.2” of the Danish report (IAT, 19. August 2003, para. 13.3).
The full text of the section about the conditions of return to Cameroon in the Danish report is as follows:
“8.1.2 Arrival
A western diplomatic source believed that a rejected asylum applicant forcibly returned to Cameroon would not be at risk. He was not aware of the Cameroonian authorities detaining Cameroonian citizens who had been deported after their asylum applications had been rejected, simply because they had sought asylum abroad. He did not know of cases where a returned rejected asylum applicant had had problems with the authorities as a result of being deported. He pointed out that the authorities were not informed that people were rejected asylum applicants.
Gemuh Akuchu confirmed that rejected asylum applicants who returned to Cameroon voluntarily were not at risk of being detained by the police on their return.
A rejected asylum applicant who was deported in handcuffs and was accompanied by a foreign policeman who handed him over to the Cameroonian authorities at the airport risked detention by the police. This would be to investigate his background. If the Cameroonian authorities were aware that he had sought asylum abroad he would be suspected of having discredited Cameroon. If the authorities merely found that he had sought asylum for economic reasons he would be released. The editor of the Messenger also believed that asylum applications abroad were seen as damaging Cameroon’s image. The same source reported that in December 2000 a returning Cameroonian had been detained by the airport police in Douala because he was on a list of wanted persons. No official reason was given for his arrest, but it was probably on political grounds. The returning Cameroonian had been active in an English-speaking Cameroonian group in the USA. He was released after 12 hours. Such detentions were short, usually a day or half a day.
Several sources said that there were cases of Cameroonians coming over the land border from Nigeria to avoid the risk connected with arriving at airports.
T. Asonganyi reported that if the authorities knew that someone was a rejected asylum applicant they would arrest him as, by applying for asylum, he would be suspected of harming Cameroon’s reputation abroad. He would also risk being ill-treated or even tortured.
Akuchu said that the forcible or accompanied deportation of a rejected asylum applicant would not cause problems if the authorities were not informed that the individual was a rejected asylum applicant. The best way to deport a rejected asylum applicant was for accompanying policemen to wear civilian clothes as though they were travelling with any other person.
None of the diplomatic sources consulted by the delegation were aware of any cases in which the return of rejected asylum applicants had led to serious problems for those involved. Several sources said that no such cases had been mentioned by Amnesty International or by human rights organisations in the relevant western countries. They took this as a sign that there were no cases of rejected asylum applicants having problems with the Cameroonian authorities because of their asylum applications. One western diplomatic source reported that their local legal adviser had stated that there was no legislation in Cameroon providing for prosecution for seeking asylum abroad. However, in practice things could be very different. His country had known a number of cases of rejected Cameroonian asylum applicants marrying nationals while their asylum applications were pending. The rejected asylum applicants had then voluntarily gone home to Cameroon to wait for family reunification from there under existing rules. The source saw this as a sign that rejected Cameroonian asylum applicants were not persecuted when they returned home. If the contrary was the case, they would have been persecuted while they were in Cameroon waiting for their applications for family reunification to be processed. None of the individuals concerned had reported to the representation in Cameroon that they had been persecuted because of their asylum application abroad. The source added that rejected asylum applicants who returned voluntarily were not known to be such in Cameroon. The Cameroonian authorities would not be able to tell whether deported Cameroonians were rejected asylum applicants or had, for example, been deported because their visas had expired.
Another western diplomatic source reported that last year one European country returned nearly 200 people to Cameroon. They were escorted by police, and none of them had reported problems of a political nature in Cameroon. Some were rejected asylum applicants and others had committed minor crimes.
The same source commented that Cameroonians who had left on a false passport and been returned to Cameroon would not be punished as a result. Someone who tried to enter on a false passport would be able to do so without problems.
[...]
11. Individuals, organisations and authorities consulted
Afité, Madeleine, Representative, Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture (ACAT), Douala.
Akuchu, Gemuh, Executive Secretary, National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms/Comité National des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés (NCHRF/CNDHL), Yaoundé.
Asonganyi, T., Secretary General, Social Democratic Front (SDF), Yaoundé.
Bammel, Harald, Resident Representative, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Yaoundé.
Ché, Philippe, Administrator, National Executive Committee, Social Democratic Front (SDF), Yaoundé.
Faure, Genevieve, Representative, British Consulate, Douala.
Fokum, Kebila, Editor, The Messenger, Yaoundé.
Gwei, Solomon Nfor, Chairman, National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms/Comité National des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés (NCHRF/CNDHL), Yaoundé.
Hofmann, Katja, Consular Attaché, German Embassy, Yaoundé.
Kamga, Hilaire, President, Conscience Africaine (CA) and Nouveaux Droits de l’Homme (NDH) and Secretary General, Réseau Francophone des Droits de l’Homme (RFDH), Yaoundé and Paris.
Konkombo, Marie Claire, Promotion Officer, National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms/Comité National des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés (NCHRF/CNDHL), Yaoundé.
Lafon, Patrick, Abbot, Secretary General, Conférence Episcopale Nationale du Cameroun (CENC), Yaoundé.
McNulty, Mel, Senior Research Officer, Africa Research Group, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London (Yaoundé).
Muna, Akere T., Barrister-at-Law/Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des Avocats du Cameroun, Muna, Muna & Associés, Yaoundé.
Neill, Ken, Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission, Yaoundé.
Nja Kwa, Léolein, Mayor, Commune Urbaine d’Arrondissement de Douala 1er/ President, Social Democratic Front (SDF) Douala I, Douala.
Nkouendjin-Yotnda, Maurice, Lawyer, Docteur d’Etat en Droit, Yaoundé.
Ongmboune, Anastasie, Airport Police Officer, Yaoundé.
Pefok, Joe Dingo, Editor, The Post, Yaoundé.
Richardson, Karen F., Third Secretary, Canadian High Commission, Yaoundé.
Shira, Chinje B., Programme Manager, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Yaoundé.
Tarif, Pamela, Second Secretary, British High Commission, Yaoundé.”
(DIS, December 2001, para. 8.2.1)
It its decision mentioned above, the IAT concludes based on the DIS report that whether there was a real risk of serious harm on return to Cameroon depends on the circumstance of each individual case:
“13.4 On the objective evidence before us, we conclude that:
(a) rejected asylum applicants who voluntarily return to Cameroon are not at real risk of being detained on arrival or receiving serious harm (a term which we use to mean treatment amounting to persecution or in breach of Article 3).
(b) rejected asylum seekers who are forcibly deported but not escorted to Cameroon or who are escorted by officials in civilian clothes would not face a real risk of being detained on arrival or receiving serious harm, provided that the Cameroon authorities are not informed that they are rejected asylum seekers.
(c) if a rejected asylum seeker is escorted by police to Cameroon and the Cameroonian authorities are informed that the person is a rejected asylum seeker, such a person is at real risk of being detained.
This does not, however, mean that the individual would be subjected to treatment amounting to serious harm. In this connection, we noted that Mr. Akuchu s opinion is that the detention by Cameroonian police would be to investigate the deportees background, that if Cameroonian authorities were aware that he had sought asylum abroad he would be suspected of having discredited Cameroon but if the authorities merely found that he had sought asylum for economic reasons, he would be released.
The fourth paragraph of Section 8.1.2 refers to the detention of a returning Cameroonian who was on a list of wanted persons. He was released after 12 hours. This paragraph also states that such detentions are short, usually a day or half a day. On the other hand, there is evidence (paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the CIPU report) that the government s human rights record is generally poor, that government officials have committed numerous human rights abuses, that security forces arrest and arbitrarily detain various opposition politicians, local human rights monitors and other citizens, holding them for prolonged periods, often without chance for trail, and at times, incommunicado.
We therefore concluded that whether an individual falling within this category (c) would be at real risk of serious harm on return to Cameroon would be a question of fact in each case. Rejected asylum seekers are not, simply onaccount of being rejected asylum seekers, at real risk of serious harm on return to Cameroon.” (IAT, 19. August 2003, p.8-9)
Some reports that could be found on the topic of risk on return deal with the conditions of return of members of the Social Democratic Front (SDF). According to the German Foreign Office, members of the SDF returning to Cameroon are not believed to be at risk of persecution (German Foreign Office, 5 June 2002, p.1).
In contrast, Amnesty International Germany states in a letter to the administration court Oldenburg that individuals who previously were affiliated with the SDF and become politically active again upon return may be at risk of persecution by state agents (AI, 3 Apr 2002, p. 3, and AI, 15 July 2002).
Additionally, Amnesty International Germany states that persons returning to Cameroon who are identifiable by the authorities as refused asylum seekers regularly face detention at the airport. They often are released only after pressure by NGOs or family members and frequently have to sign an assertion forbidding them any oppositional political engagement in the future. Amnesty International Germany furthermore refers to reports of a not identified source stating that returnees lead a life in illegality and without fixed abode or employment. Finally, according to Amnesty International Germany the amount of risk upon return depends significantly on the political activity before leaving Cameroon and after the return (AI, 3 Apr 2002, p. 3, and AI, 15 July 2002).
In its decision 11 A 1226/00.A, the German High Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia states that - even if such persecution is not highly probable - it is impossible to ascertain that members of opposition parties would be protected from politically motivated persecution in Cameroon (High Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia, 10 April 2002, p.6)
Another report on security upon return is about the situation of women: the Swiss Refugee Council is answering the question whether or not a female asylum seeker can count on protection from forced marriage upon return as follows (Swiss Refugee Council, 8 January 2004, p.3): according to experts contacted by the Swiss Refugee Council a female returnee cannot be considered to be protected by the state from forced marriage.
This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the ACCORD within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.
ecoi.net wird vom Österreichischen Roten Kreuz (Abteilung ACCORD) in Kooperation mit dem Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration betrieben. ecoi.net wird durch den Asyl-, Migrations- und Integrationsfonds, das Bundesministerium für Inneres und die Caritas Österreich kofinanziert. ecoi.net wird von ECRE und UNHCR ideell unterstützt.
