Introduction

The IK (Returnees, Records, IFA) Turkey CG ([2004] UKIAT 00312) judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on December 2, 2004, addresses critical issues pertaining to asylum claims based on potential persecution in Turkey. The case involves a Turkish citizen, known as the Respondent, who sought asylum in the UK due to threats and ill-treatment by Turkish authorities linked to his alleged connections with the PKK. The Tribunal's determination delves into the complexities of Turkey's information systems, particularly the Government of Border Traffic System (GBTS), and evaluates the viability of internal relocation as a means to mitigate perceived risks.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tribunal examined the validity of the Respondent's fear of persecution upon return to Turkey, focusing on the extent and accessibility of Turkey's GBTS and other information systems. The Adjudicator initially found inconsistencies in the Respondent's claims regarding his detentions and the subsequent risks of persecution. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the initial determination and remitted the case for reconsideration in light of new Country Guidance (CG) by the Tribunal.

During the rehearing, additional evidence and expert testimonies were introduced, clarifying the scope of GBTS and other records maintained by Turkish authorities. The Tribunal assessed whether the Respondent's past detentions, his Kurdish and Alevi identity, and his family's history with the PKK substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conclusion that there remains a real risk of persecution should the Respondent be returned to Turkey.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several prior cases and country guidance documents that have shaped the Tribunal's approach to asylum claims concerning Turkey:

• Polat [2002] UKIAT 04332: Provided initial country guidance on Turkey, which was later superseded by A (Turkey) CG [2003] UKIAT 00034.
• A (Turkey) CG [2003] UKIAT 00034: Established comprehensive guidelines on assessing asylum claims from Turkey, particularly focusing on the GBTS and internal relocation possibilities.
• Subesh & Others [2004] EWCA Civ 56: Influenced the Tribunal's approach to reviewing Adjudicator findings, emphasizing the appellate burden to demonstrate that the original decision was incorrect.
• SK Croatia CG [2002] UKIAT 05613 and GH Iraq CG [2004] UKIAT 00248: Provided insights into evaluating expert witness testimonies, distinguishing between independent experts and advocates.

Legal Reasoning

The core of the Tribunal's legal reasoning hinges on the accurate assessment of the GBTS's scope and the potential risks associated with internal relocation. Key points include:

• Definition and Scope of GBTS: The Tribunal accepted that GBTS primarily contains records of outstanding arrest warrants, previous arrests, travel restrictions, draft evasion, refusal to perform military service, and tax arrears. Importantly, it does not record detentions without judicial intervention.
• Accessibility of Information: GBTS is accessible to border police at checkpoints, particularly Istanbul Airport, and to security forces within Turkey. However, other information systems exist, such as the Nufus registration and Judicial Record Directorate, which may contain additional data.
• Internal Relocation: The Tribunal reaffirmed that assessing internal relocation requires first determining whether an individual faces real risk in their home area. If so, relocation to a non-conflict area may mitigate this risk but does not eliminate the necessity for registration with local authorities.
• Impact of Turkish Reforms: Recognizing Turkey's legislative and institutional reforms aimed at improving human rights standards in pursuit of EU membership, the Tribunal acknowledged progress but remained cautious about the continued use of torture and ill-treatment.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future asylum cases involving Turkey:

• Clarification of GBTS: By delineating the exact contents and accessibility of the GBTS, the Tribunal provides a clear framework for assessing risks associated with returning asylum seekers.
• Internal Relocation Standards: The judgment emphasizes the importance of a nuanced evaluation of internal relocation viability, discouraging a one-size-fits-all checklist approach and promoting individualized assessments.
• Ongoing Assessment of Risk: Acknowledging Turkey's evolving human rights landscape, the Tribunal underscored the need for continuous review of country-specific guidance to reflect substantive changes.
• Expert Testimonies: The case highlights the critical role of expert evidence in asylum determinations and the necessity of evaluating the impartiality and independence of such witnesses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Government of Border Traffic System (GBTS)

The GBTS is a centralized computer database used by Turkish authorities to track individuals of interest. It primarily includes data such as open arrest warrants, previous arrest records, restrictions on travel, instances of draft evasion, and tax arrears. Notably, it does not record detentions where individuals were held without judicial oversight and later released without charge.

Internal Relocation

Internal relocation refers to the possibility for an asylum seeker to move from their home area of conflict to another region within Turkey that is perceived as safer. The viability of this option depends on whether the individual’s history and the specific risk factors associated with their home area would be the same or diminished in the new location.

Draft Evasion

Draft evasion occurs when an individual avoids compulsory military service. In the context of the UK asylum system, being a draft evader in Turkey can significantly impact the likelihood of an asylum claim being successful, as it entails specific risks upon return.

Non-Routine Investigation Stream

This refers to a heightened level of scrutiny that certain individuals may face upon arrival back into Turkey. If flagged by systems like GBTS, these individuals may be subjected to extended questioning and potential detention while authorities assess their background and any associated risks.

Conclusion

The IK Turkey CG judgment serves as a pivotal reference point in understanding the intersection of Turkey's internal information systems and the UK's asylum evaluation process. By meticulously defining the parameters of the GBTS and scrutinizing the feasibility of internal relocation, the Tribunal has reinforced the necessity for detailed, case-specific assessments in asylum claims. While acknowledging Turkey's strides towards enhancing human rights standards, the judgment underscores the enduring challenges posed by historical practices of detention and persecution. Consequently, asylum seekers must present compelling evidence of personal risk, beyond systemic issues, to substantiate their claims effectively.