(I) A Tamil female single head of household residing in the former conflict zone of Northern and North Eastern Sri Lanka may be at risk of sexual abuse and exploitation perpetrated by members of police, military and paramilitary State agents.
(II) The existence and measurement of this risk will be an intensely fact sensitive question in every case. The case-by-case assessment will be informed by the presence or absence of positive risk factors and decreasing risk factors .
(III) The positive risk factors are living in isolation from others, low socio-economic status, dependence upon the distribution of Government aid or the provision of other services by the security forces and a perception of former LTTE membership, links or sympathies. These positive factors do not necessarily have to be satisfied cumulatively in every case: context will invariably be everything.
(IV) The countervailing factors are higher socio-economic status, little dependence on Government aid or services and the support of male relatives or neighbours. The context of the particular case will dictate the force and weight of each of these factors, individually or cumulatively, in any given case. These too will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
(V) Experts’ reports and evidence must comply fully and strictly with the Senior President of Tribunal’s Practice Direction.
(VI) The methodology of every expert witness should always be patent on the face of the report. If not, it should be provided via a supplement, accompanied by a full and frank explanation of the omission. Experts and practitioners are reminded of the decisions of the Upper Tribunal in MOJ and Others [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC), at [23] – [38] and MS (Trafficking – Tribunal’s powers – Article 4 ECHR) Pakistan [2016] UKUT 226 (IAC), at [68] – [69].
Citations:
[2017] UKUT 117 (IAC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Immigration
Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.588791