![](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb0x.gif)
![About the IRB](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb01_1-e.gif)
![Organization Chart](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb06_1-e.gif)
![Biographies](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb03_1-e.gif)
![Tribunals](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb04_1-e.gif)
![Transparency and Accountability](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb07b_1-e.gif)
![Employment Opportunities](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb07c_1-e.gif)
![Publications](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb14_1-e.gif)
![Legal and Policy References](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb30ref_4-e.gif)
![Act and Regulations](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbact_1-e.gif)
![Policy](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbpolicy_3-e.gif)
![Procedures](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbproced_1-e.gif)
![Legal References](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtblegal_1-e.gif)
![Media Centre](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb08_1-e.gif)
![News](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb08a_1-e.gif)
![Press Releases](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb09_1-e.gif)
![Information Sheets](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb10_1-e.gif)
![Information Sheets](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbinfosheets_1-e.gif)
![Research](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb12_1-e.gif)
![Country of Origin Research](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb13_1-e.gif)
![National Documentation Packages](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/ndp_1-e.gif)
![Recent Research](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/recentr_1-e.gif)
![](/web/20061026022837im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb00e.gif)
|
|
Claimant(s): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date(s) of Hearing: 11 March 2003
Place of Hearing: Toronto
Date of Decision: 20 March 2003 (amended May 27, 2003)
CORAM: E.S. Schlanger
For the Claimant(s): Daniel Kingwell, Barrister and
Solicitor
Refugee Protection Officer: n/a
Designated Representative: n/a
Minister's Counsel: n/a
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX alleges that he is a 21-year-old citizen1
of Costa Rica. He claims to be a person in need of protection as a person
at risk of losing his life or being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment
or punishment in Costa Rica. He claims to fear Nicaraguan youth gang
members because he reported them to the police and consequently the gang
member that he identified was detained. He claims that state protection
would not be forthcoming if he returned to Costa Rica.
The claimant alleged that in mid-XXXX 2002, while
walking near a soccer field, he heard a woman screaming for help and as
he approached to inquire, he saw one young man and others behind him.
He alleged that one of them said that he should be killed. He alleged
that the one he spoke to pulled something from his pocket that may have
been a gun, and ran after him but lost him. He alleged that from the
woman's screams, it appeared that she was being raped. He alleged that
he reported the incident to the police, who took a report and said they
would investigate. He alleged that within a week, he learned that people
were arrested and he was able to identify at the police station the person
who had run after him. He alleged that towards the end of XXXX 2002,
he received a threatening handwritten note, saying that life was long
enough for them to see each other again. He alleged that as this had
frightened him, his father went to the police station to report the note,
but the police told him that it was insufficient to investigate since
no one had been physically attacked. He alleged that the police further
told his father that the charges against the men involved in the rape
had been dropped by the victim. He alleged that his father then consulted
a lawyer who told him that he could not help him (the claimant) because
those involved were minors, and the note was insufficiently serious to
warrant legal action. He alleged that the lawyer advised him to leave
the country. He alleged that around the beginning of XXXX 2002, his father
would sometimes see gang members going by their house. He alleged that
he is not aware of this recurring, and believes that the gang members
did not come by the house again. He alleged that he left Costa Rica for
Canada on XXXX, 2000. He alleged that he is afraid that the gang members
might take revenge against him and might want to hurt him, but he is not
sure whether they would look for him.
The determinative issue in this claim is whether state
protection would be reasonably forthcoming. In making the assessment,
the panel considered the claimant's oral and written evidence, counsel's
submissions, all the documentary evidence, particularly about youth gangs,
the police, the availability of mechanisms for lodging complaints about
police abuse or misconduct, and in general, the level of democracy in
Costa Rica.
The documentary evidence does not support the claimant's
allegations of lack of state protection. There are a number of recourses
available in Costa Rica for the assessment, prosecution and granting of
remedies resulting from failure of law enforcement agencies to conduct
their work.
The documentary evidence reveals that complaints of
police abuse of authority or misconduct have declined as the government
continued the implementation of the 1994 Penal Code and the
Law for Strengthening the Civilian Police which took effect on March
23, 2001.2
Furthermore, if police misconduct or abuse occurs, an effective mechanism
for lodging complaints exists through the Ombudsman's Office, which serves
as a recourse to citizens who have complaints about violations of their
civil and human rights, and about deficiencies in public and private infrastructure.3
It investigates complaints, and when appropriate, initiates suits against
officials.4 The Ombudsman is elected by the Legislative Assembly
for a four-year renewable term.5 His office is part of the legislative branch ensuring
a high degree of independence from the executive branch.6
The law provides for the functional, administrative, and judicial independence
of the Ombudsman's Office.7
Furthermore, the Constitution provides for the right to a fair trial,
and an independent judiciary vigorously enforces this right.8
According to the 2001 International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report9
for Costa Rica, Costa Rican law enforcement officials continue to demonstrate
growing professionalism and reliability in combating counternarcotics
offenses and ever-changing drug smuggling methods. It further states
that in December 2001, President Rodriguez signed into law the long-awaited
narcotics control legislation that criminalizes money-laundering and creates
a Counter-Narcotics Institute to co-ordinate the government's efforts
in the areas of intelligence, demand reduction, asset seizure and precursor
to chemical licensing.10
The primary counternarcotics agencies in Costa Rica are the Judicial Investigative
Police, under the Supreme Court, and the Ministry of Public Security's
Drug Control Police.11
The U.S. law enforcement
agencies consider the public security forces and judicial officials to
be full partners in counternarcotics investigations and operations with
little or no fear of compromise to ongoing cases.12
The National Drug Prevention Council (CENADRO)
oversees drug prevention efforts and educational programs throughout the
country, primarily through well-developed educational programs for use
in public and private schools and community centres.13
The documentary evidence also indicates that the Judicial
Investigative Police (OIJ), which has a 20 member anti-gang
division, is currently in the process of investigating the numerous San
José youth gangs and has profiled the alleged gang leaders.14
They further show that Costa Rica has a Law of Juvenile Penal Justice
which categorizes criminal penalties for young offenders into three types
of sanctions: educational sanctions, orientation and supervision sanctions,
and liberty deprivation sanctions.15
The extensive account16
of prosecutions of crimes in the various courts in Heredia, and the resulting
sentences indicate that criminals in Costa Rica are being punished. The
panel finds that all the above-cited documentary evidence indicates that
Costa Rica is making serious efforts to protect its citizens who are victims
of crime.
In the case at bar, the claimant reported the crime
that he encountered, and the threat to him because he had questioned the
perpetrator about what was going on. The police took the matter seriously,
investigated, caught one of the suspects, had him identified and charged
him. The charges were then dropped by the rape victim. There is no indication
that the police did not carry out their duties. The claimant did not
seek any police protection nor raise any concerns to the police when he
was asked to identify the suspected criminal. The claimant felt that
the police did not want to protect him when his father reported to them
the threatening note that he had received. The panel finds that since
the claimant was not satisfied with the police handling of the matter,
he ought to have pursued the matter by reporting to the Ombudsman. Ignorance
of the complaints mechanism is no excuse for the claimant's failure to
pursue the avenues available to him in Costa Rica, and taking the extreme
measure of seeking protection abroad.
Given that Costa Rica17
is a longstanding stable, constitutional democracy, with an independent
judiciary providing effective means to deal with individual instances
of abuse, the claimant bears the onus of establishing that state protection
would not be available. The claimant must do more than simply show that
he went to some members of the police force and that his efforts were
unsuccessful.18
The more democratic the state's institutions, the more the claimant must
have done to exhaust all the courses of action open to him.19
The panel finds that the claimant has not discharged
the onus of showing clear and convincing proof of the state's inability
or unwillingness to protect him.
As the panel finds that there is adequate state protection
available to the claimant in Costa Rica, it determines that he is not
a person in need of protection in that there exists no substantial grounds
to believe that he will be subjected personally to a risk to his life
or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Costa Rica.
The panel also considered the applicability of the
Convention refugee grounds and the protection grounds in section 97(1)(a)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). However,
in light of the fact that state protection is available to him, the panel
finds that he is not a person in need of protection under those grounds
either.
Accordingly, the panel rejects the claim of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
for refugee protection.
E.S. Schlanger
DATED at Toronto this 20th day of March,
2003.
- Exhibit M-1-Certified true copy of some pages
of the claimant's Costa Rican passport submitted by Immigration.
- Exhibit R-1-item 1, item 2.1, p. 32, U.S.
Department of State Report, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
2001, Costa Rica, March 2002.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Exhibit R-1, item 2.2, p. 41, International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 2002.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Exhibit R-1, item 1, RPD Information Package-Costa
Rica, item 3, p. 62, Response to Information Request CRI38217.E,
22 January 2002, DIRB, IRB.
- Exhibit R-2, Response to Information Request
CRI40571.E, 9 January 2003, DIRB, IRB.
- Exhibit R-1, item 1, RPD Information Package-Costa
Rica, item 3, p. 59 Response to Information Request CRI40288.E,
7 November 2002, DIRB, IRB.
- Supra, footnote 2.
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
v. Kadenko (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.).
- Ibid.
|