Assessment of Individual Risk in Internal Armed Conflicts: Precedent from AM & AM Somalia CG ([2008] UKAIT 91)

Introduction

The case of AM & AM, heard by the United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on January 27, 2009, addresses critical issues surrounding refugee claims originating from Somalia, a nation embroiled in persistent internal armed conflict. The appellants, AM1 and AM2, fled Somalia due to well-founded fears of persecution, fearing threats from various armed factions. This judgment delves into the complexities of assessing risks in internally conflicted regions, particularly focusing on how individual risks are weighed against broader communal dangers.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tribunal examined the appeals of two Somali nationals, AM1 and AM2, who sought asylum in the UK. Both appellants had previously been denied asylum and faced removal orders. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal identified material errors in law made by previous Immigration Judges, particularly concerning the assessment of risks related to internal armed conflict in Somalia.

For AM1, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that he failed to demonstrate a real risk of persecution or serious harm upon return to his home area in Jowhar, Somalia. Conversely, AM2's appeal was allowed on asylum and human rights grounds, recognizing that due to his clan affiliation and the deteriorating security environment in Mogadishu, he faced a real risk of persecution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Tribunal extensively referenced previous landmark cases, notably Adan [1998] 2 WLR 703, which addressed the nature of persecution in Somalia's civil war context. Additionally, cases like HH & others (Mogadishu: armed conflict: risk) Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT 00022 and KH (Article 15(c) Qualification Directive) Iraq CG [2008] UKAIT 00023 were pivotal in shaping the Tribunal's approach to risk assessment in internally conflicted regions. The judgment also engaged with international law principles, including those from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal underscored the necessity of a case-by-case approach in evaluating asylum claims from conflict zones. Central to this reasoning was the differentiation between collective risks—inherent to civil wars—and individual risks that surpass ordinary dangers, potentially constituting persecution under the Refugee Convention. The judgment emphasized that for a refugee claim to succeed, the appellant must demonstrate a personal threat linked to specific persecution grounds, rather than general violence.

In interpreting Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, the Tribunal adopted a human rights-based approach, aligning with developments in international law that recognize severe human rights violations as valid grounds for asylum. The emphasis was placed on the concept of indiscriminate violence and its impact on personal safety, particularly in regions like Mogadishu where clan dynamics and armed factions exacerbate individual vulnerabilities.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future asylum cases involving internally conflicted regions. By clarifying the standards for individual risk assessment, the Tribunal provides a framework that balances the complexities of civil wars with the legal necessities of refugee protection. It reinforces the imperative for detailed, individualized evaluations over broad, general assessments of conflict-related danger.

Moreover, the judgment highlights the evolving nature of internal conflicts and the importance of updated country guidance in asylum decision-making processes. It signals a move towards more nuanced interpretations of international humanitarian law within domestic asylum systems.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Indiscriminate Violence

Indiscriminate violence refers to acts of violence where there is no distinction between combatants and civilians. In the context of asylum, if an individual's safety is compromised not due to their personal characteristics but due to the chaotic nature of armed conflict, it can constitute a basis for refugee protection.

Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive

Article 15(c) addresses the eligibility of individuals who face a serious and individual threat to their life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of internal armed conflict. It expands the protection scope beyond traditional refugee grounds by encompassing those affected by war-related violence.

Internal Armored Conflict

An internal armed conflict is a state of armed conflict occurring within a single country's borders, involving governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups. Assessing asylum claims from such contexts requires distinguishing between general dangers inherent to war and specific threats to individuals.

Conclusion