{"id":26240,"date":"2015-09-29T19:32:35","date_gmt":"2015-09-29T19:32:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.asile.ch\/vivre-ensemble\/v2\/?post_type=prejuge&p=24660"},"modified":"2023-07-04T14:59:15","modified_gmt":"2023-07-04T12:59:15","slug":"laudition-ou-lepreuve-du-recit","status":"publish","type":"prejuge","link":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/prejuge\/mensonge\/laudition-ou-lepreuve-du-recit\/","title":{"rendered":"The Audition, or the Test of the Narrative"},"content":{"rendered":"

The work of processing asylum applications relies on two hearings<\/strong> \u2013 a first on personal data, a second on grounds for asylum. They are presented as forms of interrogation. The information collected in order to rule on the asylum application constitutes the main means of proof on which the officials of SEM<\/abbr> (also called asylum specialists<\/em>) can base their decision. The burden of proof thus rests with the applicants.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the two hearings, asylum specialists must make a decision on granting or rejecting asylum, as well as on the execution of the return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the asylum hearing on the grounds for asylum, case officers test the different elements of the applicants' stories in order to check credibility<\/strong>. Indeed, it is these officials who are on the front lines of the task of judging the veracity of the narratives presented\u2014for which formal proof is often difficult to obtain\u2014and determining whether they can be considered plausible. They test the applicant's ability to present a narrative that appears coherent, logical, and probable in their eyes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In case of doubt regarding the veracity of facts, collaborators have a whole series of complementary measures at their disposal, such as linguistic analyses, country analyses, medical expertise, verification techniques for documents produced, or requests to the embassy. Several of these measures are controversial, such as\u00a0bone tests<\/a> performed to determine the age of young migrants and deemed neither ethical nor reliable, or even\u00a0Linguistic and Provenance Analyses \u00abLingua\u00bb<\/a>\u00a0aiming to identify the origin of an applicant and potentially leading to erroneous conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These procedures translate the strengthening of \u00abstress tests\u00bb<\/strong> to which asylum seekers are subjected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in practice, <\/strong>The assessment of likelihood presents nuances and challenges that go beyond its theoretical definition, as well as purportedly objective and neutral expert knowledge. The interview situation also represents an area of representations and subjective factors that influence decision-making. The assessment of the narrative is therefore based on a wide margin for appreciation and subjectivity <\/strong>From the people in charge of the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should also be noted that, on the part of the individuals interviewed, the ability to accurately recall the facts used to assess credibility is often impaired. Sociocultural origins, language barriers, and communication problems, post-traumatic stress<\/a>, stressful situation related to the hearing or mistrust of authorities: The many factors influencing the course of an interview and that can lead to contradictory and\/or inconsistent statements are numerous<\/strong>. This is compounded by the significant role of interpreters<\/a> also leading to misunderstandings. These numerous cultural, social, and psychological barriers thus make communication and understanding difficult during asylum seeker interviews. However, let's remember, the interview plays a predominant role in the outcome of the asylum request, that is, in Switzerland's decision to grant or refuse protection. The stakes can therefore be vital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n \n\n

Identify gender-based persecution during the hearing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Switzerland, persecutions specifically targeting women have been recognized by law since the complete revision of the LA si<\/abbr> in 1998, which established in Article 3, paragraph 2 that \u2019specific reasons for flight by women must be taken into account.\u00ab. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since then, the SEM has developed an internal practice for \u00abgender-related persecution\u00bb; a framework for interpreting legal texts analyzed by Jonathan Miaz in his article titled Gender-related persecution in Switzerland: questioning the borders of asylum law<\/a> (see also \u00ab Gender-based persecution, a slow recognition <\/a>\u00bb(in issue #162 of Vivre Ensemble). The following are now recognized as specific grounds for flight for women: the risk of genital mutilation, forced marriage, honor crimes, or other violations of bodily integrity due to the breach of social norms, as well as domestic violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, according to the\u2019OSAR<\/abbr><\/a>, a female asylum seeker generally encounters more difficulties in providing sufficient evidence of persecution, as well as the absence of protection in her country of origin; persecution acts generally taking place in the private and domestic sphere. As also highlighted by a report<\/a> from the NGO Terre des femmes, The verification of the credibility of asylum seekers' narratives during hearings is the main obstacle to the acceptance of asylum claims from women.<\/strong>, in that it leads to discrediting their testimony. By ignoring gender or sex as causes of persecution, the asylum procedure would thus not take into account the differentiated way in which women are affected by conflicts and wars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Neyma's Journey<\/a>, BD depicting gender-based persecution<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
LGBTQI Refugees and the Obstacle of Plausibility\n +<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n \n\n

In many countries, LGBTQI people \u2013 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex \u2013 face serious harm because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and\/or gender identity. The issue 42 of the journal Forced Migration<\/a> published in 2013 focuses specifically on violations of the rights of forced migrants who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, as detailed in the Queeramnesty Information Brochure<\/a>, the need to protect LGBTQI applicants is rarely taken into account when they file an asylum claim. These individuals are, for example, accused of having hidden or even changed their identity, opinions, or characteristics out of shame and\/or fear of persecution. It also happens that their claims are rejected as not credible because they are reported late to the authorities, even though it is often difficult for them to speak openly about their sexual orientation. Finally, the grounds for asylum put forward by LGBTQI individuals are rarely considered in their entirety (i.e., as an accumulation of events and psychological pressure becoming unbearable), but rather as isolated incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Switzerland too, the practice of authorities is problematic with regard to LGBTQI asylum seekers. In the absence of a specific ground for persecution in the Asylum Act and the Refugee Convention, they are considered to belong to a \u00abparticular social group\u00bb (Art. 3 para. 1 Asylum Act). Noting the little attention paid to the persecution specifically suffered by homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people, Amnesty International Swiss Section also asked Parliament in 2010 to take this into account in asylum legislation. Several information platforms, including humanrights.ch<\/a> or LGBT Asylum Geneva<\/a>, offer various tools and documents on this subject.<\/p>\n\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n
References and Documentation\n +<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n \n\n