1901138 (Refugee)

1901138 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2322 (6 May 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Carina Field (MARN: 2016135)
CASE NUMBER: 1901138

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Ethiopia
MEMBER:Peter Haag
DATE:6 May 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 06 May 2022 at 4:01pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ethiopia – political opinion – Unity for Democracy and Justice supporter – Coalition for Unity and Democracy member – Ginbot 7– financing terrorism – detention – torture – fear of killing – access to medication – chronic health conditions – illegal departure – recovering seized assets – political activities in Australia – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 November 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants applied for protection visas on 9 February 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) and is not a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations and who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant (s 36(2)(b) and s 36(2)(c) of the Act).
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 26 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal received oral evidence from the primary applicant and [name], the spouse of the primary applicant and a secondary applicant in this review. The remaining applicants, being the children of the primary applicant and his spouse, did not give evidence in this review. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic (Ethiopian) and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Applicant’s identity
The applicant claims to be an Ethiopian citizen, born on [date] in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. He states that he is Christian and of Amharic ethnicity. He can speak, read and write Amharic, English and French.[1]
[1] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant was married to the second named applicant in Addis Ababa [in] October 2000. At the time of application, the applicant had [specified family members]. One [sibling] was [Country 1] citizen and residing in [Country 1]. The rest of [the family] were living Ethiopia. Both of his parents were deceased.[2]
[2] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant lived outside Addis Ababa until [year]. He lived in Addis Ababa from [that year] to 1986, then in [City 1], from 1986 to 1988. He then lived in Addis Ababa from 1988 until 2015.[3]
[3] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant listed his occupation as ‘[Occupation 1]’. He was employed as [an Occupation 2] for the [Employer 1] in Eritrea/Ethiopia from 1986 until 1988. He was then self-employed as a ‘[Business 1]’ in [Town 1], Addis Ababa from 1988 until 2015.[4]
[4] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant attended elementary school in Ethiopia, and then he attended secondary school from [year] to [year] in Bahir Dar. After completing his secondary school education, he attended [College 1] from [year] until [year].[5]
[5] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicants provided the Department with certified copies of their passports and birth certificates.
The documents provided by the applicants are consistent with their evidence to the Tribunal in relation to their identities. There is evidence to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter [Country 2] temporarily on a visitor visa. After considering the terms of the visa and the current circumstances of the applicant and the other review applicants, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would be permitted to enter [Country 2], whether temporarily or permanently as the holder of the visitor visa, or that he has a right to enter any other country, whether temporarily or permanently. (The Tribunal will return this issue later in this decision.) Therefore, based on the information provided by the applicant, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Ethiopia, and as such his protection claims will be assessed against Ethiopia as the country of reference and ‘receiving country’ respectively.
Second named applicant
The second named applicant claims to be an Ethiopian citizen, born on [date], in Addis Ababa. She states that she is Eritrean Tigre, and Christian. She claims to speak, read and write Amharic and Tigrina, and to read English.[6]
[6] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
She married the applicant in Addis Ababa [in] October 2000. At the time of application, the second named applicant’s parents, [and specified family members] were living in Eritrea. She lived in Addis Ababa from [year] until 2015.[7]
[7] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
She stated her occupation as ‘[Occupation 3]’. She was owner and director of [Business 2] from 2000 until 2015.[8]
[8] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
She attended [a named] School from [year] until [year], then [another named] School from [year] to [year].[9]
Third named applicant
[9] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The third named applicant claims to be an Ethiopian citizen, born on [date], in Addis Ababa. He is of Amharic ethnicity and Christian. He can speak, read and write Amharic and English. He lived in Addis Ababa from birth until 2015, where he attended kindergarten and elementary school.[10]
Fourth named applicant
[10] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The fourth named applicant claims to be [a Country 1] citizen by birth right. She was born on [date], in [Country 1]. She is of Amharic ethnicity and Christian. She can read, write and speak Amharic and English. She attended kindergarten and elementary school in Addis Ababa from [year] to [year].[11]
Fifth named applicant
[11] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The fifth named applicant claims to be an Ethiopian citizen, born on [date], in Addis Ababa. She is of Amharic ethnicity and Christian. At the time of application, she could speak Amharic and English.
Migration history
The applicant stated that he departed Ethiopia illegally [through the] border [in] November 2015. He arrived in Australia [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa issued in Nairobi [in] June 2015.[12]
[12] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant had visited [Country 3] for one month in 2005; he spent [number] days at a trade show in [Country 4] in November 2006; he spent nearly two months in [Country 1] in 2006, flying via [another country]; he spent four days in [Country 5] at a trade show in late 2008; he attended a workshop in [Country 2] for seven days in November 2013; he visited [Country 6] for 10 and a half months in 2015; he then travelled to [Country 7] and Australia in late 2015 via [Country 8].[13]
[13] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
At the time of application, the applicant stated that he had the right to enter [Country 2]. He provided a certified copy of a [Country 2] visa valid from [September] 2013 to [September] 2023 to the Department.[14] He indicated in the application that he had not applied for protection in any other country.[15]
[14] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176212.
[15] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The applicant and dependants applied for XA-866 Permanent Protection visas on 9 February 2016. They were granted associated bridging visas.
Second named applicant
The second named applicant departed Addis Ababa [in] December 2015 on an Ethiopian passport, arriving in Sydney [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa.[16]
[16] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
She had previously travelled to [Country 3] in 2005, [Country 1] in 2006, [Country 5] in 2014, and [Country 6] in 2015, all for vacations. She gave birth to one of her children while [Country 1].[17]
Third named applicant
[17] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The third named applicant departed Ethiopia [later in] December 2015 on an Ethiopian passport, arriving in Sydney [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa. He had previously travelled to [Country 3] in 2005, [Country 1] in 2006, [Country 5] in 2014, and [Country 6] in 2015, all for vacations.[18]
[18] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
In his application for protection, where details are required regarding the right to enter and reside in another country, the third named applicant stated that he had a ‘[pass to another country]’.[19]
Fourth named applicant
[19] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The fourth named applicant departed Ethiopia [later in] December 2015 on a [Country 1] issued passport, arriving in Sydney [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa. She has previously travelled to [Country 5] in 2014, and [Country 6] in 2015.[20]
Fifth named applicant
[20] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
The fifth named applicant departed Addis Ababa [in] December 2015 on an Ethiopian passport, arriving in Sydney [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa. She has previously travelled to [Country 5] in 2014, and [Country 6] in 2015.[21]
[21] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176201, Part C – Application for a protection visa.
Applicant’s evidence
As part of his application for a protection visa, in a statutory declaration dated 17 January 2017,[22] the applicant made the following claims:
[22] Department file [Number], Doc ID 5176215.
2. I am an asylum seeker from Ethiopia. I arrived in Australia [in] December 2015. I am seeking protection from the Australian government. My application includes my three children ([names and dates of birth]) and my wife, [named] whose date of birth is [date].
3. I am from the Amhara ethnic group. I was born in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. I am Ethiopian citizen currently stateless.
4. I attended [a named] Primary School and [a named] Secondary School. I attended [College 1] and graduated with [Qualification 1].
5. I worked for two years for [Employer 1] in Eritrea (when Eritrea was part of Ethiopian territory). I left my employment to commence my private business as [an Occupation 1]. For over 26 years, until I fled Ethiopia to safety, I operated my own company as [an Occupation 1].
6. I have also participated, at a leadership level, in voluntary capacity in various community activities and self-help community organizations.
7. I was a member of [Association 1] in the [District 1] area for six years. [Association 1] is a self-help unincorporated association setup by communities in Ethiopia. An [Association 1] can have as many as 2,500 households. The households contribute money on a monthly basis. The committee manages the funds of the [Association 1]. When a member of the household of the [Association 1’s] financial member passes away, the money is used to purchase food and drinks to serve guests of the bereaving family. The committee organizes people who purchase the food and drinks and who prepare and serve them to the guests.
8. I was a member of the coordinating committee that took the initiative to mobilize center [District 1] residents to contribute money band build the roads in the area. These roads were already designed by the city council. There were [number] access roads altogether with a combined length of about [length] KM. unfortunately the government claimed that because it has no funds for the roads, it will not build them in the foreseeable future. Once we came to know that the government was not ready to build them in the foreseeable future, we decided to mobilize the local residents to contribute funds and build the roads ourselves. I was a member of the [related] committee for the area. This is a volunteer position. While we did not lay asphalt on any of the roads, we built all the [number] roads within about a year.
9. My wife is from Eritrean parents who lived in Ethiopia. She was born and brought up in Ethiopia. She is an Ethiopian citizen and currently stateless.
10. I was detained by the TPLF-led government of Ethiopia first in September 2009 and later twice in April 2015 and in October 2015.
11. In 2009, I was detained for lending my family car ([Brand 1]) to Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) (referred to in Amharic as Kinijit) to collect signature for the election from Ethiopian regions.
12. I was a member of the opposition political party known as the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD).
13. As far as the Ethiopian public sentiment is concerned, CUD won the 2005 national election. However, the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia refused to concede defeat at the ballot. Two days after the election date, the ruling EPRDF party declared itself the winner.
14. Three weeks after the government stole the people’s vote and declared it the winner, the Ethiopian public that voted for the opposition protested on the streets. The elected opposition parliamentarians refused to accept the 109 seats that the ruling party claimed the opposition won. When they refused to accept the results (and take their parliamentary seats) the government detained the top leaders of CUD. Those detained include Engineer Hailu Showel (CUD President), Professor Berhanu Nega (CUD Secretary General), Judge Bertukan Medeksa, Mr. Andualem Arage and among others, Engineer Gizachew Shiferaw. Judge Bertukan Medeksa, Mr. Andualem Arage and Engineer Gizachew Shiferaw were members of the polite bureau of the CUD. These top leaders were released after about two years of detention.
15. After CUD leaders were detained by the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia, some of the constituent parties of CUD left the party. This led to the collapse of the CUD (Kinijit) as an opposition coalition party.
16. In Ethiopia, parliamentary elections are held every 5 years. In preparation for rigging the next election results, after releasing the detained CUD leadership, the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia established a political party with the same name as CUD and filled its leadership positions by people who worked for the government and registered the party as a legitimate political party.
1 7. The government established the CUD party to confuse the CUD constituency and mislead the supporters of the legitimate CUD party to vote for the politicians that the government had filled the fake CUD positions with and eventually to deceive the international community (particularly the donor countries and organizations) that the Ethiopian people voted for the TPLF-led EPRDF government. To avoid this from taking place, in June 2008, the true CUD party leaders established a completely new umbrella opposition political party known as Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ).
18. I was in close contact with some of the key members of the top UDJ leaders before the party was officially launched. My contacts were [Mr A] who was the [Position 1] of UDJ and [Mr B]. As a result, I was aware that the new opposition political party was going to be launched. Judge Bertukan became the President of the party.
19. [Mr A’s] wife is [Dr C]. [Dr C]'s maternal grandmother and my biological father are [related]. [Dr C] and her husband ([Mr A]) and their two children ([named]) visited with us regularly for family get-together. We also visited with them regularly. Beyond our family relationship, we also shared the same grand political vision for Ethiopia. [Mr A] and I also met for coffee after work often and discussed politics. UDJ headquarters was within [distance] of houses from my house where my family and I lived. This was in [specified location]. I became a member of UDJ in July 2008, about a month after the party was established and started to support the organization financially immediately after I became a member of the party.
20. The TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia detained the UDJ Chairperson Judge Bertukan Medeksa about six months after UDJ was established. The Ethiopian government released Judge Bertukan Medeksa after the 2010 parliamentary election. UDJ therefore went into election without its popular leader
What led to my first detention
21. UDJ had been preparing to participate for the 2010 parliamentary election since it was established. The party needed to collect signature of its supporters to officially participate in the election. They needed to travel to Bahir Dar and Gonder (the two heartland cities of Ethiopia that are backbones of Amhara coalition political parties).
22. I was born in Bahir Dar. I travelled back and forth many times to Bahir Dar for my business to tender for projects. My extended family (siblings, cousins, uncles and their respective families) live in Bahir Dar and the vicinity. As a result, I was fully aware that UDJ had an overwhelming support and backing from the peoples of Bahir Dar and Gondar. I visited the UDJ headquarters regularly (sometimes weekly when I didn't ravel outside Addis Ababa for project work or for tender).
23. At the beginning of August 2009, when I visited the UDJ Headquarters, I was requested to lend my car to UDJ officials who were planning on travelling to Bahir Dar and Gondar for the purpose to collect constituency signatures. I happily obliged. They returned my car to me after about 20 days.
24. Two days after I received my car back from UDJ officer who had borrowed it, three officers came to my house (at about 7:00 AM on the day) and told me that I was wanted to attend [Police Station 1]. The officers commanded to accompany them. Two of the officers were uniformed policemen. One of them was in civilian clothes. They had police car parked outside my house. They took me to [Police Station 1].
25. At the [Police Station 1], the officers that detained me asked me why I gave my car to the opposition political group that wanted to unseat the Ethiopian government. I told them that since the party was officially registered, I had no way of knowing that I was not permitted to lend them my car. I told them that I was unaware that I was not allowed to lend the party my car.
26. The officers further asked me where I stored written materials that I was given by UDJ party officials to distribute to the members of the public on behalf of the party to generate support for the party. I told the officers that I received no written materials from the party and that I did not take part in distributing written materials on behalf of UDJ. I reiterated that all I was asked to do was to lend them my car and that I had neither a possession nor knowledge of any written materials that they were referring to.
27. The officers also asked me to give the list of businesses and persons who were involved in the same activities as I did on behalf of UDJ. I told them that I knew no business or any person who was involved in distributing UDJ political materials. The officers did not believe me and felt that I was deliberately concealing the information they were asking for from them. They tortured me severely on three separate days. But I did not have any new response to provide them with. The officers detained me in solitary confinement in a dark room for all the fifteen days that I was detained.
28. Fifteen days later they called me to the office and told me that they found no previous record of my involvement in politics against the government of Ethiopia and that they were prepared to let me go back to my work and family if l agree not to take part again in political activities against the government. They prepared a document for me to sign which I signed to gain my freedom again. I was released in September 2009.
How I became a member of Ginbot 7
29. After he was released from detention, Professor Berhanu Nega, left Ethiopia for the USA. While in USA (in May 2008), Professor Berhanu Nega and his political colleagues established a political party known as Ginbot 7 Movement for Justice, Freedom and Democracy (in short referred to as Ginbot 7). The party has since merged with Ethiopian People’s Patriotic Front on January 2015. The merger is called the Patriotic Ginbot 7. In August 2016, Patriotic Ginbot 7 and Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) established a working group to carry out the struggle for political change in Ethiopia. I was accused of being a member of Ginbot 7 before its merger with Ethiopian People's Patriotic Front. In this statement, by Gin bot 7, I am referring to Ginbot 7 Movement for Justice, Freedom and Democracy that was established by Professor Berhanu Nega and his colleagues in May 2008.
30. Ginbot 7 means May 7 in English. In the English calendar, this converts to May 15. May 15 is the day in 2005 when the Ethiopian people voted for the government of their choice (CUD - Coalition for Unity and Democracy). Professor Berhanu Nega was the CUD Secretary General. The Ethiopia people ' s vote was later overturned by the TPLF-led government of Ethiopia which refused to concede electoral defeat.
31. Ginbot 7 was established to give continuity for the Ethiopian mass political movement of 2005. The party's political program is also a continuity of the CUD political program. Professor Berhanu Nega is the founding and current Chairperson of Ginbot 7. I was a member of CUD because I was inspired by the party’s political program and its leaders such as Professor Berhanu Nega. I was very happy that CUD ' s political program and vision for Ethiopia did not collapse with CUD as a political organization.
32. I became a member of Ginbot 7 in October 2009, while I was visiting in [Country 1], with my family. I was still a member of UDJ at the time I became a member of Ginbot 7. While I supported the efforts UDJ political leaders within Ethiopia, I was fully convinced that the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia would not allow lawful democratic election to take place. This is why I was convinced that, despite supporting UDJ financially, it was the right decision to be a member of Ginbot 7 and to support it, too, financially. The fact that the founder of Ginbot 7 is Professor Berhanu Nega (CUD Secretary General during the May 2005 Parliamentary election) and that the party’s political vision remained the same as that of CUD ' s encouraged me further in my decision to take up membership of Ginbot 7.
33. My family and I had booked hotel in [Hotel 1]. We stayed at the hotel for about two weeks.
34. During our stay at the hotel, I met with an Ethiopian political colleague who I had known closely in Ethiopia during the 2005 Ethiopian parliamentary election. He was a member of the CUD also. He was [an Occupation 4]. Initially, I met him when I had visited the [company] to buy [an item]. I bought [items] from [that business] in 2004. He was the [staff member] I dealt with.
35. During the parliamentary election of 2005, I met with him in the CUD headquarters office. We were both excited to know that we were supporting the same political party. We would meet afterwards and discuss about Ethiopian politics.
36. I had not met with the Ethiopian fellow CUD member again since 2005 until I met him [working] in [Hotel 1] in [City 2] in October 2009. My family and I were leaving for the day. I left my family in the bar area and returned to our hotel room to pick up some item I had forgotten. This is when I saw the Ethiopian fellow CUD member. We said hello and chatted briefly. We met again on appointment and discussed at large. He told me about Ginbot 7 and introduced me to Ginbot officials who live in [City 2]. I made contacts with the officials and registered as a member in October 2009 (while I was visiting in [Country 1]). I gave my contact details to the UDJ officials that registered me as a member. When I was asked during the registration process for consent I agreed to the UDJ officials' passing on my contact details to their colleagues in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. I began supporting Ginbot 7 financially. I continued to support the organization financially. I always gave the money to the same Ginbot 7 official in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
What led to my second detention
37. I was detained on [date] April 2015. I was detained from my family home in the morning about 7:00. My normal routine for work days is to leave the house with the children to at 7:00 AM. I dropped my children to school and went to work afterwards.
38. On the morning of [date] April 2015, our maid came and told me that there were two people at the gate who want to speak with me. I asked her who they were and she told me that she had not seen them before. I went to the gate and saw two people who introduced themselves as Federal Police and showed me their ID badge. They were in civilian cloth. They told me that I was required at [Police Station 1]. At this stage, my children, who were already ready for me to drive them to school, had followed me to the gate and were standing very close to me.
39. I asked the police to show me warrant of arrest. They told me that they do not require warrant of arrest to arrest me. I told them that the Ethiopian constitution states that without warrant of arrest it is illegal to arrest anyone. I told them that I require them to produce warrant of arrest before they can arrest me.
40. As soon I told them that I require them to produce warrant of arrest before they can arrest me, one of the civilian police punched me on my nose. My nose bled which caused me to hold my nose. As I held my nose, I was punched on my stomach and kicked in my left shinbone. I saw three uniformed policemen come toward me. One of the uniformed policemen hit me with them the wood end of his rifle in my left chest (just below my left shoulder blade and above my heart area). I was falling backward from the impact and was held by one of the civilian policeman. All my three children and my wife were standing next to me and witnessed what the policemen did to me. The policeman who hit me with the bottom end of his rifle loaded his rifle, pointed at me and asked me if l am going with the to the police station or not. I told them "yes, I will go". They handcuffed me immediately and took me to the back of my house where they had parked [their] vehicle. On the side was written "Federal Police". They entered me into back raw cabin and sat me in the middle seat. Two uniformed policemen sat each on my side. One of the uniformed police was the driver. The two policemen who were in civilian clothes sat on the right side of the uniformed police driver.
41. They handed me over to the [Police Station 1]. Two policemen took me to the investigation room. In the investigation room, there were six policemen; some were dressed in civilian clothes, others were in uniform.
42. All the six policemen interrogated me. Often interrogation questions were thrown at a number of the policemen at the same time. They asked me specifically to tell them when I became a member of Ginbot 7; to give them the list of people who were members of Ginbot 7 like me; to tell them how much money I gave to Ginbot 7. They pointed to me that I was arrested once for lending my car to UDJ officials and that was helping the party financially. I told them that I did not help Ginbot 7 financially and that I was not a member of the party at all. They did not accept my response and started to torture them.
43. All six of the policemen joined in to punch me and kick me. I fell down. They turned me over. One of the policemen sat on my bottom and lifted my legs up. As he held on to my legs pulling it tightly, another policeman continued to beat me high voltage transfer cable. They beat me up until I was barely conscious. They carried me and dropped in a room.
44. The next time, I saw anyone or where in the police station particularly was when I was woken up by the policemen. There had heavy duty flashlight in their hands. I saw two flashlights. I assume from this that there were two policemen who came to the room I was in. They told me to ring my family and request them to bring me clothes and food. They handed me a mobile phone. When I had the mobile phone in my hand, I noted that the time was about 5:00 PM. I realized then that I was detained a dark room and by myself. I could not see the numbers on the handset key pad. I also could not move my fingers steadily on the key pad to press the numbers. I gave the handset to the policeman and requested him to dial the numbers for me. I told the policemen my wife's number. One of the policemen connected me to my wife. I told my wife that I was at the [Police Station 1] and asked her to bring me warm blanket, food and clothes. Approximately two hours after I spoke to my wife, one of the guards brought into my room to me blanket and clothes.
My first court appearance during my second detention and the outcome
45. I was presented to [a court], on [date] April 2015 (two days after I was detained). The prosecution filed charge stating that I was a member of Ginbot 7 which they claimed was a terrorist organization and that I supported the organization financially.
46. The parliament of the Government of Ethiopia has prescribed in 2011 Ginbot 7 is a terrorist organization. Anyone who has been found to be a member of Ginbot 7 will be given either a life sentence or a death sentence.
47. In Ethiopian public's view, Ginbot 7 is a genuine Ethiopian opposition political organization that is struggling to bring democratic change to Ethiopia. The TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia does not tolerate political dissidence.
48. The government outlaws all political organizations that have mass political support that could unseat the TPLF-led EPRDF government from power if it were to allow democratic elections.
49. If the government had found sound evidence that established that I was a member of Ginbot 7, the Court would have sentenced me a death or to a life sentence.
50. I denied the charges that were read to me at the court. I denied being a member of Ginbot 7. I also denied having supported the political party financially. The judge asked the prosecution to present its evidence.
51. The prosecution stated that it was still carrying out its investigation and requested the court to be allowed 14 days.
52. The court granted the prosecution the 14 days of investigation that it asked for.
53. The [Police Station 1] policemen that were at the court with the prosecution team took me back to the [Police Station 1].
My second court appearance during my second detention and the outcome
54. A day after I attended the court, the investigating police came to my cell and took me to the investigation room where they tortured me severely. They were the six policemen that interrogated me and tortured me the day I was detained.
55. During the investigation, one of the officers claimed that they now have a list of people who were members of Ginbot 7 and who were financing Ginbot 7 in which, according to his claim, my name appears. He showed me a stapled document which had a list of names. He did not give me the list for me to read or put it close enough to me for me to look at it.
56. I told the investigating policemen that I had no new information for them. I stated that I was not a member of the organization and that I had never supported the organization in way or format including financially. At this stage, one of the policemen got up and punched me on my right eye demanding that I tell them the information. Immediately, another policeman hit me with bottom end of his rifle on my teeth. One tooth from my bottom left jaw fell out into my mouth and I immediately started bleeding. I spat out my uprooted tooth into my hand. I told them that they removed my tooth.
57. The policemen threatened me that they will pluck out my eye and pull out my nails, also, one by one by set of pliers. They threatened me that then I will be forced to give them the information they were looking for.
58. The policemen sat me on a chair and chained my legs tightly with metal chain to the chair. They then flipped the chair over. They continued to beat me up in my feet and my legs by high voltage transfer cable. Eventually I felt completely numb in my legs and my feet that I felt as if l had no legs on my body. They kept interrogating and torturing me. They finally unchained me and three of them carried me to the dark cell in which I was detained. I have scars of the metal chain on both of my legs on my shin bones.
59. Five days after I was presented to the court, five policemen came to my cell and pushed me into a Federal Police four-wheel pickup vehicle and took me to my house. They did not tell me where they were taking me. When we reached within about 50 meters of my house, I asked them whether they were taking me to my house. They told me that they were taking me to my house to search the house. One of the policemen stated that I have no right to ask where they were taking me.
60. We arrived at my house. The maid was in the house. She is the one who opened the gate and the house door for us. They explained that they have come to search the house. They said that they needed to have two witnesses and called two area guards. Our house is in located in Addis Ababa city within [a named location]. Within [this location], it is located in an area called [District 1]. There are many entrances to the [District 1]. At each entrance are stationed two guards at any one time. The guards are paid by contributions that the residents make monthly to the managing committee. The closest [District 1] entrance was within about 20 meters of my gate. The policemen went over to the entrance and called the two guards that were on duty.
61. With the two guards witnessing the policemen started to search my house. The house has ground level and two stories. They started at the ground level. They found nothing that was important to their search and moved on to the first level. They searched the first floor and found nothing that was important to them.
62. My house has [number of bedrooms].
63. The policemen searched all places. They also lifted the mattresses and cut the fabric with a knife to search if we had hidden anything of their interest in the mattresses. They found nothing of their interest.
64. The store room on the second level was locked. They demanded to search it. This is when I asked the maid where my wife was. She told me that she had gone to the [Police Station 1] to take food for me. The keys are with my wife. They forced me to open it. With their permission, I kicked the door open for them to search it. They searched the store one by one, including all documents that we kept in the store. They found nothing that is of interest to them.
65. After completing their search, the police officers completed a form they brought with them. On the form, one of the officers wrote stating that they had carried out the search and did not find the evidence they were looking for. The police officer then listed names of all the police officers who attended the search. He also listed the names of the guards who witnessed the search. Further, he wrote my name on the list. We all signed the document. The police officers signed the document first and passed it on to the guards to sign it. After the guards had signed it, they gave me the document for me to sign it. They returned me to [Police Station 1].
66. Two days after they searched my house and found no material of their interest, two police officers (both men) came to my dark cell and took me to the investigation room. They took me to the investigation room where the six interrogating police officers were waiting. The police officers claimed that the reason they did not find the materials they were looking for at my house during the search of my house was because I had kept the materials at a different location. They demanded that I tell them the whereabouts of this place. I told them that I had no new information for them. I stated specifically that I am not a member of Ginbot 7 and that I had not supported the political organization at all. The interrogated and tortured me for a long time. I succumbed to the torture and reached a stage where I could not respond to the officers verbally. My third court appearance during my second detention and the outcome
67. The officers presented me to the court for the second time, as per the appointment.
68. Every time I was transported away from [Police Station 1], I was handcuffed. This included the time I was taken to my house for the search. My handcuff was removed only when I was presented before the judge.
69. At the court, the prosecution claimed that it has not completed its investigation and requested a further 14 days to complete its investigation. I argued to the court that prosecution had searched my house and found no evidence to support its case and requested the court to free me. The court upheld the prosecution's request and granted it a second 14 days of investigation period.
70. The policemen that took me to the court returned me to the [Police Station 1]. The investigating police officers took me from my cell and brought me to the investigation room. They beat me up severely. One of the police officers showed me hot chilies on a plate. The tips of the chilies were cut out. He picked one up and threatened me that he will insert them into my anus if I did not give them the information they were looking for. The parliament of the Government of Ethiopia has prescribed in 2011 Ginbot 7 a terrorist organization. Anyone who has been found to be a member of Ginbot 7 will be given either a life sentence or a death sentence. While I was aware of the scale of their threat of being tortured by hot chilies in my anus, I knew that the proclamation relating to Ginbot 7 would give the court the power to sentence me to death or life sentence if I were to admit my membership of Ginbot 7. Further, they would torture me severely to give them list of names of people I knew who were members of Ginbot 7, including name of the person I gave my Ginbot 7 financial contributions to. The knowledge of severity of the threats that I faced, were I to confess my membership of Ginbot 7 (and my financial contributions to the organization), and discouraged me from telling the investigating police officers the information they were looking for.
71. The investigating policemen removed all my clothes including my underwear. They stood me naked facing a chair. The bent me down and pushed my head through the middle rail and the bottom rail of a chair. With my head sticking out under the middle rail, they locked my hands to the chair legs with handcuff my right-hand to the left leg of the chair and my left-hand to the right leg of the chair. In my completely helpless position, they beat me up in my backside with a high voltage transfer cable. They then inserted into my anus chili twice. They inserted one chili first and I cried loudly because of the unbearable pain it caused me. They then told me to give them the information they were looking for. I told them that I had no information to give them. I denied membership of the Ginbot 7. I also denied giving the organization any money. The police officer removed the first chili and inserted another one. After he inserted the chili into mu anus, they kicked me everywhere including in my face (with my face sticking out through the middle and lower rail of the chair). They also kicked with their boots in my bottom and everywhere. They also beat me up with the high voltage transfer cable. They degraded me insulting me as an Amhara. They could not get any information from me. At each stage, I denied my membership of Ginbot 7. I also denied having made any financial contribution to the organization. They gave me my clothes and told me to dress up. They supported me to stand on my feet and walked me to my cell (supporting along the way as I could barely stand).
72. The torture I suffered included denial of the [specified] medication that I was prescribed by my doctor and which I should have been taking on daily basis. I had been detained for 30 days at that stage. I told the court that I was denied my rights to take my prescribed medication for all the duration I was in detention.
73. Every time, I requested the investigating police officers to allow me access to my medications, they would tell me that it is only after I have admitted to the charges of Ginbot 7 membership and financing of the organization that they would allow me to take my medication. Each time I was to be brought to the court they would tell me that they will allow me access to my medication after I return from the court. They would also warn me not to tell the court that I was denied my medications. Fearing the investigating police officers torture, I did not tell the judge during the two court appearances.
74. After the second lot of 14 days had lapsed, the [Police Station 1] returned me to the court as per the appointment. The prosecuting police officer requested the court a further 14 days to complete its investigation.
75. I told the court that my illnesses: [specified]. I also told them that for all the duration I was detained, I was denied all my medications and that I was gravely worried about my health. I also told the judge the police officers that investigated me had subjected me to ongoing severe torture. The judge granted the prosecution a further 5 (five) days within which to complete the investigation.
76. I was returned to the [Police Station 1] and detained in the dark cell. This time, they did not torture me or interrogate me. But I was very weak physically. I could barely eat. My medical conditions also deteriorated.
My fourth court appearance during my second detention and the outcome
77. The [Police Station 1] returned me to the court as per the appointment. The prosecution requested a further 14 days of investigation time for the third time. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-1" is copy of the letter written in Amharic by the [Police Station 1] requesting the court addition 14 days to complete its investigation.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-2" is a translation into English of the copy of the letter written in Amharic by the [Police Station 1] requesting the court addition 14 days to complete its investigation.
78. I told the court that the investigating team had investigated thoroughly and has found no evidence to support its case. I told the court again about my illnesses and the fact that the investigating police officers have continued to deny me access to my medications. I also told the judge that I was gravely worried about my health. I requested the judge to release me. I also begged the judge to consider the plight of my young family which I needed to work and support. I requested the judge to accept my evidence and to set me free.
79. The judge ruled that I be released from detention with two conditions: on a bail of [amount] Ethiopia Birr - to pay as a surety - and with prohibition from leaving the country.
80. I payed the Ethiopian Birr [amount] as a surety and was released [in] May 2015.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-3" is certified copy of the receipt (C.P.O No. [number]) I was given by the [Bank 1] when I paid the financial surety that I was ordered to pay by the [court].
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-4" is the receipt issued by the [court] (Amharic version) based on the receipt ("BE-3") I submitted to the court.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-5" is the translation into English of the receipt written by the court in Amharic document ("BE-4").
81. I had three [work] projects that I was working on when I was detained [in] April 2015. The two projects were [specified] that I contracted from individuals. The third project was my own [project]. This [project] is located within [distance] of the central business district. [Project details]. I am the owner Managing Director of my company known as [Business 1]. [Business name explained].
82. I do the bill of quantity for our family company. I also do the cash flow and work schedule. My wife is the [specified role]. She also pays wages. I have a site supervisor for each of the three project sites. These three projects were active when I was detained. After I was released from detention [in] May 2015, I returned to my work immediately.
83. I submitted a court application [in] July 2015 for the court revoke the prohibition from travel outside Ethiopia. After 45 days has lapsed the court permits the applicant to have the application for revocation of the prohibition be considered. As per its normal procedure, the court wrote to the Ethiopian Federal Police to comment on my application to have the revocation of the travel prohibition to be considered. After receiving the Federal Police comment in writing (copy of which I have attached herewith with copy of the translation into English), the court advised me the Ethiopian Federal Police has sent to the Central Prosecution for decision. After the court advised me that it is waiting for the Central Prosecution's action, and while I have been waiting for this action through the court, the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia detained me.
84. I made application to the [court] on [date] July 2015 requesting the court that the prohibition placed against me by the court from leaving Ethiopia be lifted so that I can go overseas for treatment. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-6" copy of the application that I submitted to the [court] to lift the prohibition the court placed on me from leaving Ethiopia. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-7" is an English translation of copy of the application I submitted to the [court] to lift the prohibition the court placed on me from leaving Ethiopia.
85. I had explained to the court that I was not permitted during my detentions in April and October 2015 access to my medications that my health conditions had deteriorated significantly. The court asked the [Police Station 1] to comment on my application. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-8" is copy of the letter the [court] wrote, dated [in] July 2015, to the [Police Station 1] asking them to provide their written response to my application by [date] July 2015. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-9" is a translation into English of copy of the letter from the [court] wrote, dated [in] July 2015, to the [Police Station 1] asking them to provide their written response to my application.
86. The [Police Station 1] responded in writing [in] July 2015 stating that it had completed its investigation and passed it onto the Department of Prosecution.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-10" is copy of the letter written by the [Police Station 1] (in Amharic) to the [court].
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-11" is the translation into English of the written response from the [Police Station 1] to the [court].
What led to my third detention
87. I was detained again on [date] October 2015. I was ready to leave my house for the day. My usual routine is during school season is to drop my three children to their schools. The school is from nursery to high school. My youngest daughter was about [age] at that stage. She attended the [specified] program. I heard a loud knock of the gate. The maid opened the gate. She came to me and told me that there were people at the gate wanting to speak to me. I went out to see them. I saw two uniformed policemen and two who were in civilian clothes. The fifth policeman (who was the driver and stayed in the car) was also in uniform. They told me that I was required for questioning at the [Police Station 2]. I asked them to show me warrant of arrest. They told me that they do not need warrant of arrest to take for questioning. I knew that if I continued to demand of them to produce warrant of arrest, they would torture me again in front of my family. To avoid this, I agreed to go with them to the police station. They immediately handcuffed me and took me with them to the [Police Station 2].
88. They interrogated me immediately after they took me to the [Police Station 2]. I was interrogated at the police station by four uniformed policemen. They were not the [Police Station 2] policemen that arrested me [in] October 2015. They were not the policemen that investigated me at the [Police Station 1] either. They were different policemen. They stated to me that they have evidence that I was a member of Ginbot 7 and that I support the organization financially.
89. The policemen claimed that another member of Ginbot 7 member had confessed to them that I am active member and financier of the organization. They threatened to kill me and my family if I did not confess to them. I told them that I was not a member of the organization. I also them that I had never given the organization any money. They continued to threaten to kill me and my family if I did not confess to them. I told them that I was detained for the same charges at the [Police Station 1] in April 2015. I also told them that I was presented four times to the [court]. I told them that I was eventually released on bail. The investigating policemen at the [Police Station 2] did not care about the fact that I was released on bail for the same changes. When they threatened to kill my family, I believed that they would do this to get confession from me and to list to them names of fellow Ginbot 7 members and the Ginbot 7 representative to who I gave my financial contributions.
My first court appearance during my third detention and the outcome
90. The policemen removed me from the investigation room and took me to a detention room where there were other detainees. We were 15 detainees in the room. The following day, three of the four policemen who interrogated me at the [Police Station 2] took me to [court]. The police filed a charge accusing me of being a member of Ginbot 7 and supporting the organization financially. The court read the charges to me and asked me to respond. I denied the charges. I told the court that I was not a member of the organization and that I did not contribute money to the organization. The prosecution asked the court to be granted 14 days to investigate me. The court granted the prosecution's request. I was returned to the [Police Station 2] immediately.
91. Three days after I was returned to the police station from the [court], two of the investigating policemen came to the detention room and removed me and took me with them to the investigation room. When I arrived in the room, the two investigating policemen were in the investigation room. They told me to sit and gave me a chair. They said to me that they have evidence of my membership of Ginbot 7 and that I support the organization financially. They asked me to admit these. I told them that I was not a member of the organization. I also told them that I have never supported the organization financially.
92. During the interrogation, one of the policemen slapped me across my eyes violently. In a state of dizziness, I stood up and held my eyes as a reflex to protect my eyes from further beating. Immediately, I was punched, again violently, on my stomach. I staggered backwards and hit the wall. I was ordered to kneel down and stretch my arms. I did as ordered. They started hitting me and kicking me. They continued to hit me and kick me. One of the policemen kicked me from the back on my shoulder and smashed me to the floor on my face. I remained flat on my stomach on the floor and could not look because I was exhausted from the torture.
93. I heard the door close. It gave me the impression that all of the investigating policemen had left the room. I still remained in the same position as I did not have the energy to even sit.
94. I heard the room open about an hour later. The four policemen carried me from the floor of the investigation room and took me to the detention room. I
95. In the detention room, I saw other detainees after they have been returned to the detention room. Some were subjected to electric shocks. They have literally very little control of their body. They can’t even sit upright. They urinate on themselves. I met one detainee who was accused of being a member of Ginbot 7 who had been left in the investigation room from 9:00 PM up to about midday the following day. He said he was suspended with his hands tied together. He also said that while he remained suspended, they tied a two litre plastic bottle filled with water to his genital and suspended it throughout the time he was held in suspension. He could not stand up when he was brought back to the room. He cried out continuously as if he were dying any minute.
My second court appearance during my third detention and the outcome
96. The investigating policemen returned me to the court and asked for a further 14 days of investigation. The prosecution told the court that I had been detained for the same case and presented to the [court] and that I had been released on bail. The prosecution argued that despite the fact that [the court] had released me on bail, there is a need for them to carry out further investigation on me while I was still under detention.
97. The court gave me the opportunity to speak. I told the court that I was detained and investigated for the same charges and had been released on bail and that the matter had not been closed. I also told the court that the [Police Station 1] prosecution had presented me three times to the court and that they had searched my house. I told the court that I was innocent of all the charges that were presented against me by the prosecution. I told the court further that I was prohibited from leaving the country. I implored the court to release me so that I could return to my family and work.
98. The judge addressed the prosecution and stated that there was already in place unclosed case against me being handled by [Police Station 1] prosecution team at the [court]. The judge ruled that I be released on bail on a surety of [amount] Ethiopian Birr ([amount] Ethiopian Birr) and that the prohibition placed against me from leaving the country still stands.
99. I accepted the judge's ruling and paid the prescribed [amount] Ethiopian Birr ([amount] Ethiopian Birr) in surety at and was released [in] November 2015.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-12" is certified copy of the receipt (C.P.O. No. [number]) I was given by the [Bank 1] when I paid the financial surety that I was ordered to pay by [the court]. Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-13" is the receipt issued by the court] (Amharic version) based on the receipt (marked "BE-12") I submitted to the court.
Attached hereto and marked with letters "BE-14" is the translation into English of the receipt written by the court in Amharic document ("BE-13").
Why I continued with my work and life in Ethiopia when I had the opportunity to flee to safety after my despite the political persecution that I suffered
100. I was interrogated and tortured during my first detention in 2009. But I was still able to return to work and to support my family and my community. I had no reason to leave Ethiopia permanently despite my detention and torture in 2009. I had travelled to a number of countries since 2009. I had travelled with my family in September 2009 (about ten days after I was released from my first detention) to [Country 1]. My family and I had a two-year visa to [Country 1] issued in June 2008. I had travelled to two [specified] countries ([Country 9] and [Country 5]) in February 2012 for business. I had travelled to [two other countries] in June 2013 for business. I had travelled to [Country 2] in November 2013 for one week for business purpose. My visa to [Country 2] was for ten years. I had a one year visa to [Country 9] issued to me [in] August 2014. Despite the detention and torture that I suffered during my first detention, while we had plenty of opportunities to leave Ethiopia, my family had never had the thought of leaving our country Ethiopia for good.
101. After I was released from my second detention, I was prohibited from leaving the country. I was still hopeful that the prosecution would not find evidence of my membership of Ginbot 7 and my financial contribution to the organization.
102. I submitted an application to [court] to lift the travel restriction placed on me. I anticipated that the court would grant my application to lift the travel restriction.
103. Every year after the long vacation, students of my children's school are required to make presentation on their holiday activities. My family travelled in August 2014 (without me) to [Country 5]. My son had a project to present on his trip activities to [Country 5]. During the beginning of the third term of 2015 (which in Ethiopian academic year is February 2015), my son had pledged (after receiving confirmation from us) that he will present on kangaroo and Australian national parks when he starts the new academic year in September 2015.
104. My family and I accordingly planned to visit Australia during my children's long school holidays. The long school holiday in Ethiopia is from 1 July to 15 September every year. It is during this period that we had planned to visit Australia.
105. We applied for a visitor's visa to the Australian Embassy around June 2015. The embassy granted us visa on 26 June 2015. If the court had lifted my travel restriction, I would have had confidence, despite the detention, torture and suffering I experienced, to continue to expand my business and wealth in Ethiopia.
106. The [Police Station 1] responded in writing [in] July 2015 stating that it had completed its investigation and passed it onto the Prosecution (I refer attachments marked with letters "BE-10" "BE-11").
107. Although the document marked with "BE-10" (and its translation "BE-11") implies that the [Police Station 1] does not support my application to have the travel restriction lifted, I was encouraged by the revelation stated in the letter that the investigating policemen had completed their investigation. If the investigating policemen had established evidence of my membership of Ginbot 7 and my financial contribution to the organization, they would have detained me immediately. The fact that I was not detained following their completion of their investigation indicated to me that they have not found the evidence they were seeking. This is what encouraged me and caused me to continue with my life in Ethiopia following my release from my second detention (even after my application to have my travel restriction was not approved).
Why I fled Ethiopia to safety in November 2015
108. I had been tortured severely. I had been denied access to my medication while in detention. My medical condition had deteriorated seriously.
109. I had told the [Police Station 2] policemen that detained me [in] October 2015 that the [Police Station 1] investigating policemen had detained me in April 2015 for the same charges.
110. I also told the [Police Station 2] policemen that the policemen had carried out their investigation, searched my house and presented me to the court four times for the same charges.
111. I told them further that I was eventually released on bail.
112. I further told them that the [Police Station 1] had written to the [court], stating, in clear terms, that they had completed their investigation and have referred the matter to the prosecution.
113. The investigating policemen at the [Police Station 2] did not care about the fact that I was released on bail for the same changes. They continued to detain me and subject me to severe mental and physical torture.
114. I lost hope in the Ethiopian justice system.
115. I also began to fear that the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia can get the evidence about my membership of Ginbot 7 either from me, if they were to act on their threat to kill my family, or if they subjected to torture another fellow Ginbot 7 member who knows my membership and my financial support for the organization.
116. I was convinced that if l stayed in Ethiopia any longer, I faced imminent death sentence or life imprisonment, or worse, realistic threat of death on my children and wife.
117. I decided then that I should utilize the next opportunity that came my way to flee the country to safety to save my life and that of my family.
How I fled Ethiopia to safety in November 2015
118. I fled Ethiopia to protect my life via [the] Border in November 2015. I crossed the border to [Country 8] on [date] November 2015. The Ethiopian border town that I crossed is called [town name], I crossed the border on my foot for about three hours to reach Immigration of [Country 8]. The [Country 8] border town that I crossed to is called [Town 2]. I stayed the night of [date] November 2015 in [Town 2]. I left [Town 2] in a bus to travel to [City 3, in Country 8], on [date] November 2015. I left [Town 2] at about 5:30 AM on [date] November and arrived the same day at about 6:00 PM in [City 3]. I stayed [number] nights in [that city] in hotel and left [there] for [Country 7] [in] December 2015. I arrived in [Country 7], at about midday on [date] December 2015. I immediately booked a hotel room and contacted my wife and informed her that I have safely arrived in [Country 7].
The political situation in Ethiopia
119. Opposition political activity in Ethiopia was weakened by the TPLF-led EPRDF Government of Ethiopia.
120. The government relentlessly pursued and detained opposition political leaders and their key supporters and journalists. In addition, despite the Ethiopian public's vote for opposition political parties during elections (both General Elections and Local Elections), the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia continued to steal the people's votes and declare its nominees victors. In the 2010 election the opposition won only 2 of the 547 parliamentary seats. In the 2010 election they the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia, despite the people voting for opposition parties, declared itself winner of over 99% of the parliamentary seats.
121. In the 2015, election, the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia declared itself winner of 100% of the Ethiopian parliamentary seats. This means, the government, despite the Ethiopian public overwhelmingly voting for opposition political parties, declared itself winner of 547 of the total 547 seats.
122. In 2014, Mr. Andargachew Tsige (secretary general of Ginbot 7) was kidnapped during transit in Yemen by Ethiopian security forces. Mr. Andargachew Tsige was traveling from London to Eritrea at the time. The TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia sentenced Mr. Andargachew Tsige to death sentence. The whereabouts of Mr. Andargachew Tsige is not known including to his wife.
123. The fact that the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia continued to detain and torture opposition political party politicians and the fact that the Ethiopian people could not have their rights to elect the leaders and the government of their choice respected by the current government of Ethiopia (which has been in power since 1991) has discouraged opposition political parties.
124. There is currently no room in Ethiopia for alternative national government. To remain in power TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia is prepared to detain, torture, where it believes that it will secure its grip on power, kill as many people as it has to.
My asylum application
125. I am a political refugee that suffered mental and physical torture under the current TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia.
126. Due to these violent attacks and ongoing detainment my physical condition has deteriorated, due to the above stated incidents. I currently suffer from mental and physical ailments due to the torture I have faced. Due to the withholding of my medications whilst detained I have been exposed to further kidney problems, and as a consequence I am currently undertaking dialysis.
127. I have stated in my statement the nature and scale of the torture that I faced because of my political opinion. I have also stated the threat I faced that my family and I faced if we had continued to live in Ethiopia.
128. About a month after my family and I arrived in Ethiopia, I contacted my family friend. We grew up together. We continued to our friendship after our high school time. When his wife passed away, his son lived with us to give him a family environment. My friend spent about 2-3 days every week with us. This gave him the opportunity to interact with his son in a family environment while his son was growing up. His son graduated from [a named institution] (with Diploma) and started living on his own. Our friendship with my friend continued to grow. Just before I fled Ethiopia to safety, I arranged with his to look after my property for me if I succeed to leave Ethiopia and if my family also joins me. I could not give him the power of attorney for many reasons: it would have taken time which would have compromised my safety and my chance of fleeing Ethiopia to safety. My wife and my children were still living in Ethiopia and if anything happened to me I wanted them to continue to have ownership of the property. Additionally, he would have feared for his own safety and would not have accepted official power of attorney. If I and my family flee Ethiopia successfully, my friend accepted to continue to come and stay at our house indefinitely.
129. About a month after my family and I arrived in Australia, I contacted my friend on his mobile phone and asked him how everything was going on. He told that the police had come to the house and asked for me. He said he told them that I had gone to [Country 6] for business. He also told me that they asked him about my wife and the children and that he told them that the while family travelled together. He told me that they questioned how I could have left the country and removed the number plates on our car and took with them.
130. About a week later, I telephoned him and asked him if there was anything new that I needed to know. He told me those three days after they came and took the number plates of the car, the same policemen returned and asked if l had returned. He said to me that when he informed them that we have not, they had the cars towed and removed from the property to the [Police Station 1]. He also told me that they took him to [this station] and questioned him also. He told me that he feared for his safety and instructed me to not call him again.
131. My family and I fled Ethiopia only as a last resort. If we had our political rights respected, we would not have left our country.
132. If we are forced to return to Ethiopia, I would be detained on arrival due to my travel prohibition ordered by the courts. The courts would rule against me as my escape from Ethiopia would be seen as an admission of guilt and I would be charged with membership with the Ginbot 7 political party, leading to the death penalty or a life imprisonment.
133. If I was to be killed or imprisoned I could not imagine the pain it would cause my family. I need to be there to support them and if I was forced to return, my family would be in grave danger.
134. After my family and I left Ethiopia, the TPLF-led EPRDF Government of Ethiopia sent its policemen to come to my house. My friend who at that stage was staying in my house told me that they asked for me. He told me that he told them that I was away in [Country 6] for business. They took number plates of our two family cars. They returned three days later and towed the cars away. My friend instructed me not to contact him again stating that he fears for his safety. I am convinced that if I was in my house at the time the policemen came to my house; they would have detained and tortured me. They would also have killed me and family since they threatened to do this. I therefore fear the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia and its security personnel. For this reason, I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the TPLF-led EPRDF government of Ethiopia.

On 22 February 2018, the applicant’s then representative provided in support of the application to the Department the following attachments to the statutory declaration made on 17 January 2017:
a)BE-1 – copy of the letter written in Amharic by the [Police Station 1] requesting the court grant an additional 14 days to complete its investigation into the applicant’s support of Ginbot 7;
b)BE-2 – a certified translation into English of BE-1;
c)BE-3 – certified copy of a receipt (C.P.O No. [number]) dated [in] May 2015 from the [Bank 1] for ‘[amount]’, relating to when the applicant paid the financial surety ordered by the [court];
d)BE-4 – receipt for bond money dated [in May 2015] for [amount] Eth Birr. Applicant describes this in the statutory declaration as the receipt issued by the [court] (Amharic version) based on the receipt (BE-3) submitted to the court;
e)BE-5 – a certified translation into English of BE-4;
f)BE-6 – a copy of the application dated [in] July 2015 submitted to the [court] to lift the prohibition to leave Ethiopia placed on the applicant;
g)BE-7 – a certified translation into English of BE-6.
h)BE-8 – a copy of the letter the [court] wrote, dated [in] July 2015, (according to the applicant’s description) to the [Police Station 1] asking them to provide their written response to the application by [date] July 2015;
i)BE-9 – a certified translation into English of BE-8;
j)BE-10 – copy of a letter written by the [Police Station 1] (in Amharic) to the [court] [in] July 2015 stating that it had completed its investigation and passed it onto the Department of Prosecution;
k)BE-11 – certified translation into English of BE-10;
l)BE-12 – certified copy of a receipt (C.P.O. No. [number]) dated [in] November 2015 from the [Bank 1] for ‘[amount]’, which the applicant describes as the financial surety that he was ordered to pay by [the court];
m)BE-13 – a receipt issued by the [court] (Amharic version) based on the receipt (marked BE-12) submitted to the court;
n)BE-14 – certified translation into English of BE-13.
On 11 July 2019, the applicant’s then representative submitted to the Tribunal a request for priority processing, and submitted the following documents:
a)Statutory declaration of [the applicant] dated 9 July 2019, stating, inter alia, that:
i.There was an error in his protection visa application: where he had stated that he was in [Country 6] from [January] 2015 until [date] November 2015, this should have been until [date] February 2015. This was due to a mistake in translating the Ethiopian calendar to the Gregorian calendar;
ii.Clarification on his travel to [Country 5] in 2008 by himself for a trade exhibition; his family travelled to [Country 5] for a holiday in 2014 without him;
iii.The political situation in Ethiopia had not improved despite the change in government; some political prisoners were still in prison; the new government favoured Oromo people and ‘goes after Amhara people with a vengeance’;
iv.The government still represses opposition;
v.The applicant is strongly opposed to the system of ethnic federalism, and will continue to support opposition parties that challenge this system;
vi.The applicant was under a court order not to leave the country and will be detained if he returns;
vii.The applicant has serious health conditions and cannot work; he also will not be able to receive the treatment he requires in Ethiopia, including [specified treatment].
b)Written submissions from the applicant’s representative dated 11 July 2019, re-iterating the claims the applicant made in the statutory declaration of 9 July 2019, and stating that:
i.if returned to Ethiopia, he will be arrested, detained and tortured by reason of his political opinion and because he breached a court order; and
ii.there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Ethiopia, there is a real risk he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, will be tortured or will suffer severe physical and/or mental harm due to his chronic health conditions and his inability to access the medical care needed to treat these conditions in Ethiopia.
c)Medical report of [Dr D], [Registrar], [Hospital 1], dated 10 January 2019;
d)Medical report of [Professor E], [Consultant], [Hospital 1], dated 22 January 2019;
e)Medical report of [Professor E] dated 12 February 2019; and
f)Report of [Ms F], Senior Social Work Clinician, [Hospital 1], dated 15 May 2019.
On 23 April 2022, the applicant submitted the following documents to the Tribunal:
a)Pre-hearing submission in support of review of decision to refuse protection dated 23 April 2022, stating that:
i.The applicant fears that if he is forced to return to Ethiopia he will be arrested, detained and tortured by reason of his political opinion;
ii.His experiences of arrest, imprisonment, and severe torture that he previously underwent because of his political opinion and involvement with anti-government political parties provide objectively reasonable grounds for this fear;
iii.If he is forced to return to Ethiopia he will be arrested, detained and tortured for leaving the country in breach of orders of the Court granting him bail and prohibiting him from leaving Ethiopia;
iv.If he is forced to return to Ethiopia and is arrested and detained, he will again be denied the medication and ongoing treatment for his kidney disease upon which he is dependent for survival, and he will die;
v.There are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned to Ethiopia, there is a real risk he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, will be tortured or will suffer severe physical and mental harm due to his chronic health conditions and his inability to access the medical care needed to treat these conditions in Ethiopia;
vi.The applicant’s son, [named], fears returning to Ethiopia due to his Amharic ethnicity, imputed political opinion due to his father’s involvement in opposition politics and his father’s resulting political profile, membership of particular social groups, including as a family member of a person of interest to authorities, university students from an ethnic minority and young male returnees from Western countries/returnees with Westernised attitudes, speech, mannerisms and appearance;
vii.The applicant’s daughters, [named], are at risk of harm due to membership of particular social groups including being female (noting women and girls in Ethiopia are at risk of a range of harm including Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), forced marriage, rape and other sexual assault and intimate partner violence), women from an ethnic minority group who intend to pursue tertiary education, and young female returnees from Western countries/returnees with Westernised attitudes, speech, mannerisms and appearance.
b)    Statutory declaration and Annexures of the applicant dated 22 April 2022, stating, inter alia, that:
i.The Abiy government has turned against Tigray and Amhara people, Amhara people can only live and work in Amhara and Amhara people are being displaced from Addis Ababa in favour of Oromo people;
ii.His children can’t speak the language of any other region and university students are being taken and killed;
iii.He has been politically active while in Australia; he has received threats after posting online and his sister in Ethiopia was visited by someone identifying himself as a government official and told the applicant needed to stop protesting or she would be killed;
iv.He will be arrested if he goes back to Ethiopia because there is still an outstanding case against him, and because of his political opposition;
v.He has had [specified treatment] and requires ongoing medical support and medication to maintain kidney function, suffers from ‘claudication’ that could result in the loss of his feet if he doesn’t receive surgery, has a heart condition and suffers from depression; he would not be able to get the treatment he requires in Ethiopia, particular at this time, due to the conflict.
vi.Annexure BE-1 – article dated 16 March 2020, ‘Ethiopia's missing students: Families' pain and the unsolved mystery’;
vii.Annexure BE-2 – photo of the applicant at a rally in 2017 in front of [a location];
viii.Annexure BE-3 – letter of support dated 9 April 2022 from [named office bearer] of [Community Organisation 1];
ix.Annexure BE-4 – four photographs of the applicant at a rally against persecution of Amhara;
x.Annexure BE-5 – social media posts by the applicant dated [in] April 2021;
xi.Annexure BE-6 – social media post dated [in] April 2022 in Amharic with certified translation showing account restriction due to community standards;
xii.Annexure BE-7 – letter of support from [Dr G], [Consultant] [Hospital 1], detailing the applicant’s medical issues, treatment and medications;
xiii.Annexure BE-8 – Report dated 14 August 2022 from [Mr H], Senior Practitioner Counsellor Advocate, [Agency 1].
c)    Statutory declaration and Annexures of [the applicant’s wife] dated 22 April 2022, providing details regarding: her background; the arrest of the applicant in 2009 and 2015, and taking food, blankets and medication to the prison, paying bail for his release, and his poor physical and mental condition on release, including evidence of beatings after the second arrest; her fear that the applicant will be arrested again if returned to Ethiopia, and that she and her children will face serious harm if that happens; their property and business being ‘blocked’ by the government; and the risk of harm to her daughters from sexual assault or FGM. Annexure SB-1 is a photo showing a missing tooth and two photos showing a lower leg with scars;
d)    Statement of [the applicant’s daughter] dated 22 April 2022, providing details of her background and fears of returning to Ethiopia, including her safety as a girl, the risk of forced marriage and FGM;
e)Statement of [the applicant’s son] and Annexures dated 23 April 2022, providing details on his personal circumstances, studies, future plans, experiences in Ethiopia, and fears of returning to Ethiopia because of the conflict, his Amhara ethnicity, his father’s safety and political profile, and his inability to support himself. There is an email from [University 1] dated 19 July 2021 accepting the applicant into [a specified] program, as well as messages from the Administration Officer, [of an educational institution] regarding [his course].
f)Letter of support from [Dr I], the applicant’s GP, dated 20 April 2022, detailing the applicant’s medical issues;
g)Letter of support from [a named office bearer], [Community Organisation 2], dated 2 April 2022.
After the hearing the applicant submitted to the Tribunal a medical report on letterhead of the Nephrology Department of [Hospital 1] with the date [in] April 2022. The report is addressed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The report is signed by [Dr D], Nephrologist. This document is a copy of a document provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the record of the delegate’s decision that was made on 30 November 2018. The Tribunal has read that decision.
Conditions in Ethiopia have changed relevantly and materially and to a substantial degree since the Minister’s delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. The changed circumstances in Ethiopia since the time of the delegate’s decision constitute relevant and material considerations.
The determinative issue
After considering the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively and the evidence, the claims crystalise into the following overarching issue, which is the determinative issue at the time of decision, being, whether:
·Due to the political opinion imputed to the applicant, that is, that he believes he is right to finance and otherwise support opposition political groups and armed insurrection for the purpose of ousting the government, if he judges that government to be discriminatory and corrupt.
The Tribunal accepts:
·The applicant is an ethnic Amhara;
·The applicant was a prosperous business owner in Ethiopia;
·The applicant owned and operated a [business] in Addis Ababa;
·The applicant owned his own home and other real estate including the land from which the [business] was conducted;
·The applicant owned [business] equipment including a number of trucks;
·The applicant joined the Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) party in 2008. When the UFD amalgamated with the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) in 2010 he joined the CUD. He was actively involved in both political parties, particularly as a financier of the parties;
·The applicant was not a member of and did not support the political party that governed Ethiopia, namely the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF);
·The applicant joined the UDJ and the CUD and actively supported them because he believed the federal government was corrupt and that it governed primarily to serve the interests of Tigrayans and people aligned with the EPRDF, rather than governing without discrimination for all Ethiopians irrespective of their ethnicity;
·The applicant’s admission that he financed Ginbot 7 (G7); and,
·The state security apparatus was of the opinion the applicant was a political activist who supported political groups and funded armed militants, namely G7, for the purpose of ousting the government and advancing the interests of competing political groups.
The applicant’s political profile
The applicant has provided to the Department and Tribunal detailed evidence about his political activities in Ethiopia. He corrected various discrepancies such as date discrepancies. The Tribunal is of the view that the discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence about the timing of events in Ethiopia are minor and immaterial to the decision in this review.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant lent his [motor vehicle] to officials in the UDJ party in 2009 for the purpose of enabling them to travel from Addis Ababa into the regions to gather signatures related to the party’s electoral ambitions. The applicant was not personally aware of the nature of the activities the party officials were involved in during the 20 days the [vehicle] was in their possession.
Shortly after the vehicle was returned to the applicant, he was arrested by uniformed police and state security officials. He was detained and interrogated at the notorious [Police Station 1][23], which is situated close to his residential address. He was accused of aiding a political party that opposed the government, by allowing officials of the UDJ to use his motor vehicle.
[23] DFAT country information report.
The applicant claims state security officials and police assaulted him on three different days shortly after he was detained. Their objective was to obtain the names of other businesspeople who were providing material and financial support to the UDJ. The applicant was held for 15 days and then released. The applicant made no admissions. He was told he was being released because he had no prior history of opposition to the government, and he was a businessman.
The treatment of the applicant by security forces is consistent with the DFAT country information report (12 August 2020) about the rising tide of widespread opposition to the governing party at that time, and the treatment by torture of some opponents of the ruling party by the state security apparatus, as a means of obtaining information about opposition groups.
In 2009 the applicant visited [Country 1] on medical advice by doctors treating his wife, [named], during her pregnancy. They advised that her health concerns were such that adequate medical treatment was not readily available in Ethiopia.
According to the applicant’s evidence, the applicant and his family stayed in [Hotel 1] in [City 2] for about two weeks. In the hotel he met a person he had met in Ethiopia through his membership of the CUD. This person introduced the applicant to members of G7 who lived in [City 2]. The applicant agreed to provide financial support to G7 and he did so in [Country 1] and when he returned to Ethiopia.
The applicant has demonstrated in his written materials[24] and other information, detailed knowledge of G7, its founders, history, political opinions and objectives. Considering the Tribunal’s assessment of the general reliability of the applicant as a witness in this review, and the applicant’s unusually detailed evidence about G7 and his role in it, in the context of the DFAT country information report about the restrictions placed on political dissent, media and civic freedoms and political affairs in Ethiopia by the EPRDF in government, the Tribunal accepted the applicant was a secret financial supporter of G7. In this regard, the Tribunal also accepts: the applicant actively opposed the EPRDF in government; he wanted to defeat the EPRDF because in his opinion, it led a corrupt and ethnically divisive government; and, he thought G7 would assist in ousting the government.
[24] By way of example, his statutory declaration dated 17 January 2017: Department file and Tribunal file.
The applicant said in evidence that he was violently arrested at gunpoint by federal police without a warrant at his family home in Addis Ababa [in] April 2015. He was severely beaten in custody and accused of being a member and financial supporter of G7.
The applicant was presented to court where the authorities successfully applied for an order to detain the applicant for an additional 14 days for the purposes of their investigation. According to the applicant’s evidence the court was informed the applicant was believed to be a member of G7, a terrorist organisation, membership of which carried the death penalty or life imprisonment.
The court ordered the applicant be detained for 14 days for the purpose of carrying out further questioning and investigation of their suspicion. The applicant describes being subjected to harsh beatings by state security officials using heavy electricity transfer cables. According to his evidence, one of his teeth was knocked out with a rifle butt. The applicant demonstrated to the Tribunal the absence of [a tooth]. The applicant asserted that he was chained to a chair and his legs were permanently scarred by the chains and the heavy beatings delivered to his legs.
The applicant was taken from detention and transported to his house so that the police could search it. The applicant lived in an affluent gated residential community of houses. Two of the residential community’s private security contractors witnessed the search, according to the applicant’s evidence. No incriminating evidence was found in his house. The applicant described in his statutory declarations the formal procedures the police adhered to at the completion of the search.[25]
[25] Statutory declaration dated 17 January 2017.
The applicant asserts the torture was resumed at the [Police Station 1]. The applicant denied financing G7 and he provided no information about other businesspeople financing G7.
At hearing the applicant gave detailed evidence about the methods of torture federal agents used on him. The applicant, whilst in detention, was also denied access to his prescribed diabetic medication.
Considering the expert medical reports that arise from medical treatment the applicant received in Australia, which indicate that the treatment was necessary a matter of months after he arrived in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was suffering from diabetes at the time he was in detention in Ethiopia in 2015. Further, considering the DFAT country information report about the use of torture in Ethiopia for the purpose of obtaining information about political opposition to the government, the Tribunal is satisfied it is likely his medication was intentionally withheld.

The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s medication was withheld while he was in detention.
According to the applicant, he was returned to court. The prosecution applied for an additional 14 days in which to continue their investigation. The applicant complained to the court about torture and being denied access to medication. The court refused to grant the 14 days, but it did allow a further five-day detention. According to the applicant’s evidence, he was not tortured during that period.
The applicant was again returned to court. The court refused to grant the investigating officials a further 14-day detention. The court concluded the suspicion that the applicant was a member and financier of G7 was not established and ordered the applicant be released, subject to payment of a financial surety, and on condition the applicant agree not to leave Ethiopia. The applicant agreed to those conditions. The applicant has provided in this review copies of the documents said to be copies of the relevant original court documents, and bank records consistent with the applicant paying a financial surety to the court.
The applicant has provided documents he claims demonstrate that he applied to the court to have rescinded the travel restriction which prevented him from leaving Ethiopia. The authorities resisted the application. While this application was pending before the court, without the knowledge of the Ethiopian authorities, the applicant applied for and was granted tourist visas for himself and his family to visit Australia.
The applicant said in his written evidence and evidence at hearing, that he was again arrested, detained and tortured in relation to financing G7. To summarise the applicant’s evidence at hearing, after being tortured but providing no evidence against himself or others, he was again presented to court. This time he was presented to [Court 1], whereas previously he was presented to [Court 2].
He told [Court 1] that he was being held on the same allegations that were before [Court 2], and that court had released him on certain conditions.
According to the applicant, [Court 1] stood down for the purpose of making inquiries with [Court 2] to verify the applicant’s claims. The court resumed and the applicant was to be released on payment of another surety and on condition that he remain in Ethiopia.
According to the applicant’s evidence he conferred with his wife and they decided to leave Ethiopia. The applicant believed the state security apparatus had targeted him. He was at risk of further persecution and being identified by others as a person who financed G7, and that could result in a death sentence for him or life imprisonment.
The applicant departed Ethiopia by crossing on foot into [Country 8]. From there he travelled indirectly to [Country 7] where he joined his wife and children. They had travelled without him from Ethiopia to [Country 7].
Considering the applicant’s travel history, including the international travel with members of his family and his capacity to privately fund international travel for himself and his family, the Tribunal is of the view it is likely the applicant would have departed Ethiopia with his family if he had been able to do so without risking arrest and torture because the state security apparatus had imputed to him political opinions and related activities that served to risk the longevity of the federal government.
The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant was a successful and wealthy business owner in Ethiopia; he owned substantial business assets, personal savings and [business] equipment located in Addis Ababa at the time he arrived in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant was detained by members of state security and he was tortured on the occasions he claims he was tortured because the authorities suspected he opposed the ruling party, and that he was lending his motor vehicles to an opposition party, financing it and also financing G7, an armed terrorist group .[26] In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has given regard to the applicant’s detailed, consistent, and inherently plausible evidence of his treatment by officers of the state security apparatus and the courts, as well as the country information about the widespread use of torture and the repressive nature of the EPRDF which governed Ethiopia at that time.
[26] DFAT country information report.
The forgoing conclusion is strengthened by the Tribunal’s assessment of the way the applicant gave his evidence during the hearing. He presented to the Tribunal, especially during the telling of certain parts of his evidence relevant to his treatment in custody, to be doing his best to give accurate evidence to the Tribunal.
At hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant about the state of his assets in Ethiopia. In substance he said that, in addition to his two motor cars being removed from his property by police, his business manager told him his [business] depot and equipment had been seized and that all his real estate, including his home, had also been seized by state security. The manager told the applicant not to contact him again because the applicant was endangering him.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s assets were seized by the authorities shortly after the authorities learnt he left Ethiopia. The Tribunal is also satisfied the applicant was under investigation in 2015 because he was suspected of financing G7; he opposed the governing party; he supported opposition political groups; and that he was politically disposed to doing all of that because he was of the opinion the government was discriminatory in nature and corrupt.
The applicant as a seriously unwell returning failed asylum seeker
The Tribunal has considered the country information the applicant provided to the Tribunal and the DFAT country information report of 12 August 2020. Where the DFAT report and the country information provided by the applicant differ in fact or emphasis, the Tribunal has decided to give greater weight to the information and assessments in the DFAT country information report.
The Tribunal accepts the DFAT country information assessment that returning failed asylum seekers face a low risk of harm on their return to Ethiopia, including persons such as the applicants, who sought asylum on political grounds.
DFAT reports and the Tribunal accepts that in 2018, and to foster national and interethnic unity under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, reformist Abiy Ahmed, and the EPP government, the parliament delisted G7 as a terrorist organisation and encouraged previously banned political groups and their members to join mainstream politics. Overseas Ethiopians were also encouraged to return; many did so and joined mainstream life and political life in Ethiopia.
Relevantly, the applicant provided country information that refers to several returnees who were politically active in Ethiopia, and after a period abroad returned and were imprisoned.
The applicant gave evidence that if he is forced to return to Ethiopia, considering his medical conditions, he would have no choice but to seek to recover his assets to sustain himself and his family. This evidence leads the Tribunal to consider in some detail the evidence relevant to the applicant’s health.
The Tribunal is satisfied the members of the Australian medical profession who provided written reports addressed to the Tribunal are medical experts. The Tribunal is also satisfied the medical opinions expressed in the reports about the applicant’s health are within the scope of the authors’ expertise.
The Tribunal has given significant weight to the medical report of [Dr D] at [Hospital 1]. The report has the date [in] April 2022, and it is addressed to the Tribunal for the stated purpose of consideration in this review. [Dr D] is one of the applicant’s treating medical specialists.
The applicant has been a patient of the nephrology department of the [Hospital 1] since 2016. Relevantly, the applicant arrived in Australia in December 2015 and according to his evidence, he was suffering from diabetes and he was denied his medication while he was in detention in Ethiopia. To a significant degree, the medical report supports the applicant’s evidence that he was suffering from diabetes in detention, and by inference, it is likely the diabetes required medical treatment during that period.
According [Dr D], the [treatment] is functioning well. The applicant continues to be treated by the [specialist] team in the Nephrology Department of the [Hospital 1]. He is taking 14 prescribed medications daily. He is being closely monitored by the [specialist] team at the hospital. The import of the medical opinions and treatment regime that is described by [Dr D], is that the applicant is subject to a present and continuing risk of [symptom] and death due to kidney failure.
[Dr D] also informs the Tribunal that the applicant has diabetes, [and specified conditions]. The applicant is awaiting vascular surgery to address his ongoing symptoms of [another condition].
Analysis
The evidence is sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the existence of a real chance the applicant would come to the attention of the authorities upon his arrival at Bole International Airport, Addis Ababa, the port to which the applicants would return, or shortly after his return to that port, for these reasons:
·The state security personnel at the airport, who would process the applicant upon arrival at the airport, are likely to be informed by their record systems that the applicant departed when state security was investigating him because they suspected he was financing terrorism for the purpose of ousting a government he opposed.
·The applicant’s post return endeavours to recover his seized assets to sustain himself and his family.
The Tribunal is of the view that once the authorities in Ethiopia engage with the applicant, there is a real chance he would be taken into custody due to him being a person of interest who was previously imputed with the opinion that he is justified in financing terrorism to oust a government he regards as discriminatory and corrupt. According to the applicant’s evidence, he is of the opinion the current government is discriminatory and corrupt.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence, supported by documentary evidence, that he has been politically active in Australia, including attending a high-profile anti-government [rally] in April 2021. This rally protested that Prime Minister Abiy must stop the killing of Amhara people in Amhara State in Ethiopia. The applicant’s attendance at the rally was the subject of social media postings.
According to the applicant’s evidence, he was informed by his sister in Ethiopia, after the protest, that his opposition to the present government was made known on social media and state security officials attended her house and threatened to kill her and her family if the applicant did not cease his public opposition to the government. In this regard, it is relevant to note the DFAT county information reports that Ethiopia has a highly capable domestic intelligence system.
Further, according to the DFAT report, the government also operates a separate cyber-intelligence and security organisation that investigates threats to national security.
The Tribunal is satisfied of the existence of a real chance that the applicant’s anti-government political activities in Australia are known to the security services in Ethiopia.
Currently, Ethiopia is undergoing widespread interethnic violence, with armed conflict between competing ethnic militia groups, the federal armed forces and allies, and the resurgent Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) and its army and allies, and political rivals. This conflict has been widely reported in international media and it is regarded by the Tribunal as a matter of common knowledge.
In their endeavours to restore order, and to defeat the TPLF and allies, the state security services and federal armed forces and their allies, are systematically supressing persons and groups they regard as having the potential to pose a risk to the longevity of the federal government and social stability.
Considering further the prevailing conditions of armed conflict, general violence, the continuing challenge to the legitimacy of the federal government in Ethiopia and that, despite the current ceasefire, the conflict remains unresolved, it is reasonable to apprehend the applicant would suffer discriminatory treatment in that, again, he would be deprived of essential medication, and he would also be deprived of close monitoring by a specialist [kidney] team in Ethiopia, if he is taken into detention.
In assessing the residual risk of detention in Ethiopia the applicant faces due to being imputed with the political opinion that he is a person who secretly finances terrorism to displace a government he regards as discriminatory and corrupt, combined with his public expression in Australia of hostility towards the current government in Ethiopia,[27] it is reasonable to apprehend the existence of a real chance the applicant would be detained after he returns to Ethiopia, when he inevitably engages with the authorities for either or both of the reasons stated in this decision at paragraph 85.
[27] The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s political activities in Australia were not undertaken for the purpose of achieving a favourable visa outcome.
Furthermore, in the context of the prevailing general state of violence in Ethiopia, and the DFAT country information report to the effect that medical services in Ethiopia are substantially inadequate, and the current state of hostilities and civil unrest, the evidence and country information are sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the existence of a real chance that the applicant in custody would be deprived of essential medication and specialist medical treatment.
Finding
Considering the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied the evidence is sufficient to establish, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal: the existence of a real chance the applicant would be subjected to systematic and discriminatory conduct involving serious harm for the reason of his imputed political opinion, being his suspected propensity to finance armed opposition to the federal government if he is against that government; and, the existence of a real chance he is known to the authorities to be against the present federal government.
A present right of entry to [Country 2]
The applicant’s passport discloses the relevant authority in [Country 2] issued the applicant with a tourist visa, without work rights, [in] September 2013, valid [until] September 2023. It is evident the purpose of the visa is limited: it is to allow the applicant to cross the border for one purpose only, tourism.
The Tribunal proceeds on the expectation the applicant would tell the truth to the [Country 2] border officials.
The evidence demonstrates the applicant’s family members have a close relationship, and if the applicant is removed from Australia, they would leave Australia together.

100. If the applicant arrived at the [Country 2] border, he would present to the authorities as a very unwell person who is seeking asylum.
101. The facts would disclose to the border protection officials that he is not seeking to enter [Country 2] temporarily and for the limited purpose permitted by his visa, being tourism.
102. Instead, he would present to the border officials as a person requiring sophisticated and expert medical attention, who is seeking to reside in [Country 2] permanently as an asylum seeker. That purpose is not the intended purpose for which the authorities issued the visa. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the applicant’s tourist visa would not give him a right to enter and reside in [Country 2] either temporarily or permanently if he attempted to use the tourist visa to enter [Country 2].
103. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds s 36(3) of the Act does not operate to remove any protection obligations owed by Australia to the applicant.
The fourth named applicant’s [Country 1] citizenship
104. [The applicant’s daughter], the fourth named applicant in this review, is [age] years of age, and she is a fulltime student in Australia. She lives with her parents and she is financially dependent on them for shelter, food, and her upkeep. She looks to them for protection and psychological guidance and her parents provide that support to her.
105. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a member of the same family unit as her father, the primary applicant in this review. Accordingly, s 36(3) does not apply to [the fourth named applicant] because she is seeking protection in Australia due to her being a member of the same family unit as her father, a person upon whom she is financially, emotionally and psychologically dependent, and he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.
Finding
106. On the basis of the totality of the evidence, including the relevant country information, and having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant is a person who satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act and in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
107. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the other applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) or (aa). However, the Tribunal is satisfied that [name] (wife), [name] (son), [name] (daughter) and [name] (daughter) are dependent, as defined, on the first named applicant and that are they members of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s 36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of their application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.
DECISION
108. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
i.that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
ii.that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Peter Haag
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2022] AATA 2322

6 May 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies