The applicant argued that returning him would expose him to serious risk. The Commission set out the test it applies — whether the applicant has convincingly demonstrated the likelihood of the risk — and found the material fell short. The data were maintained. The case is a useful illustration of how high that threshold sits in practice.
The standard the Commission applies
In carrying out an Article 2 analysis the Commission considers all relevant information to determine whether the applicant has convincingly demonstrated the likelihood that a violation would occur. Two words in that formulation do the work: convincingly and likelihood. It is not enough to show that a violation is possible, or that it happens to others.
The reason for the standard is the Commission’s position in the system. It reviews files rather than hearing evidence, and it has no way to test competing accounts. It therefore relies on material that has already been tested somewhere else.
Why the material fell short
- The submissions relied substantially on general reporting about conditions in the requesting state rather than on the applicant’s own position.
- Where individual circumstances were advanced, they were not supported by records that the Commission could examine.
- No authority in another country had refused to extradite, or made any finding about the risk to this person.
- The applicant’s own account of the risk was detailed but stood alone.
What this decision teaches
- General country conditions are background, not evidence. Almost every Article 2 argument that fails, fails here.
- The strongest single document is a reasoned refusal to extradite. Where another state has examined the risk and declined, the Commission has that examination to rely on.
- Medical, custodial and procedural records specific to you can substitute. They are harder to obtain but they are individual, which is what the test requires.
- Article 2 rarely wins alone. In both the published decisions and our own record it functions best alongside arguments about political character or the quality of the data.
Based on one of our own decisions. All identifying particulars — names, the requesting state, courts, places, dates — have been removed.
Before you rely on Article 2, sort your material into two piles: what concerns the country and what concerns you. If the second pile is thin, the argument is not ready, and it is usually better to build it than to file it. We will help you see which pile a document belongs in.
Proving risk under Article 2
What does “convincingly demonstrated” mean in practice?
That the material persuades on the balance of what is before the Commission, and that it addresses you rather than the general situation. Reports about a country establish context; they do not establish likelihood for an individual.
I have been granted asylum. Does that settle it?
It helps considerably, because it is a reasoned decision by a state authority about your personal risk. It is not automatically decisive, but it is exactly the kind of individual, tested material the Commission looks for.
Can I file medical records?
Yes, where they support an allegation of ill-treatment or of a risk that returning would create. Their value lies in being specific to you and contemporaneous.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.