“The applicant – forced to leave her family home to escape her father’s violence after firmly opposing his will, which sought to make her the wife of his creditor, alone and without the support of her cohabiting mother, socially stigmatized – suffered forms of mistreatment sufficient to constitute a form of personal and direct persecution based on membership in a social group, i.e., women, in the form of ‘acts specifically directed against a particular sex’ (Article 7, second paragraph, letter f, Legislative Decree 251 of 2007). Furthermore, the asylum applicant – for having opposed, in the exercise of her fundamental right to self-determination, a forced marriage and consequently suffering acts of physical violence – faces a real risk of again suffering gender-based violence, also in light of the international sources cited above.”
“The Administration is required to conduct a thorough examination of the applicant’s personal, economic, and family circumstances, as well as of his or her conduct and lifestyle, which must demonstrate respect for the rules of civil coexistence within our legal system, in order to safeguard the public interest in the proper and stable integration of the foreign national into Italian society, without causing harm to it. Therefore, the Administration must not only take into account the criminally relevant facts explicitly indicated by the legislator (see Article 6 of Law No. 91/1992), but must also assess the broader sphere of their prevention and, more generally, the prevention of any situation of potential social danger.”
“Taking into account the principles of cooperation and the mitigation of the burden of proof, the facts presented by the applicant constitute a concrete fumus persecutionis pursuant to Article 2(g) of Legislative Decree No. 251/2007 and represent circumstances sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of suffering harm for one of the grounds protected by the Geneva Convention.
“Taking into account the principles of cooperation and the mitigation of the burden of proof, the facts presented by the applicant constitute a concrete fumus persecutionis pursuant to Article 2(g) of Legislative Decree No. 251/2007 and represent circumstances sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of suffering harm for one of the grounds protected by the Geneva Convention.
Physical and psychological violence inflicted on a woman to force her into marriage, far from being a purely private matter, represents, on the contrary, a paradigmatic case of gender-based violence.
“Persecution, a prerequisite for the recognition of refugee status, occurs when a woman, having refused to comply with the customary rules of her village that require, in the event of her husband’s death, to marry the deceased husband’s brother, is forced to leave her home and is deprived of all her property and parental authority over her children.”
“Acts of FGM may constitute an act of persecution on the grounds of membership in a particular social group pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 251 of 2007, Articles 7 and 8, where it is expressly provided that acts of persecution may take the form of physical or psychological violence (letter a), or acts specifically directed against a particular sex or against children (letter f).”
“Regarding the genital mutilations documented in the records, the Panel notes that these should be considered, also taking into account the low level of education which may partly prevent full awareness and understanding of one’s rights, especially in relation to traditional practices experienced at a young age and therefore not perceived by the woman as violations, although they should objectively be regarded as such. As the UNHCR specifies, harmful practices that violate the law and international human rights standards cannot be justified on historical, traditional, religious, or cultural grounds.
Any documentary evidence, even other than school or medical certificates, is admissible provided that it clearly demonstrates the applicant’s continuous residence throughout his or her entire minority. In particular, the judgment states: “The burden of proof has therefore been simplified for the aspiring citizen, who may prove continuous residence by any documentary means, as no fault or omission on the part of the parents or public authorities — which may have resulted in the absence of documentation proving the requirement in question — can be attributed to the applicant, thus allowing proof by any means.”
Cittadinanzattiva
Legal and administrative office
via Imera, 2 - (00183) Rome
Phone: (+39) 06.36.71.81
Email: mail@cittadinanzattiva.it
CILD
Legal and administrative office
Via dei Monti di Pietralata, 16 - (00157) Rome
Phone: (+39) 06.45.06.850
Email: info@cild.eu
Project funded by the European Union's Citizens,