4 May 2020
The Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta, with a judgment dated 04/14/2020, recognized subsidiary protection for the Gambian appellant by virtue of his alleged homosexuality.
The appellant recounted that he fled Gambia because he was caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with an English citizen.
Although declaring himself heterosexual, the client reported during his hearing before the Commission that he was unable to pay for his university studies due to the death of his uncle, who — until his high school diploma – had helped him financially to continue his studies.
One day he meets an English tourist named Alex who shows willingness to help him by supporting his university studies. The tourist asked for sexual relations in exchange. The appellant, eager to continue his studies, accepts.
One evening he and the English tourist are discovered by the police: the appellant manages to escape, while Alex is detained.
In the following days, the appellant discovers that he is wanted and, for fear of being persecuted, decides to leave his country.
In fact, in Gambia homosexuality is prohibited and homosexual relations constitute criminally relevant conduct, punished with imprisonment of up to 14 years.
Although for the Territorial Commission the appellant's story appears in some respects not credible or hardly credible, the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta recalls that regarding the subjective credibility of the applicant, allegations of facts not supported by evidence must nonetheless be considered truthful if: "a) the applicant has made every reasonable effort to substantiate the application; b) suitable justification has been provided for the possible lack of other significant elements, the statements made are coherent and plausible and correlated with general and specific information concerning his case; c) the applicant has submitted the application as soon as possible or in any case has had a valid reason for delaying it; d) from the checks carried out, the applicant is reliable.”
In the present case, according to the Court of Appeal, the appellant's account turns out to be sufficiently detailed.
And furthermore, the credibility of the account is also supported by what was reported by the psychologist of the C.A.R.A., where the appellant had been hosted.
According to the doctor, although the young man professes to be heterosexual “the psychological profile of the client is characterized by the presence of personality traits “Borderline” which manifest in neurotic ways, particularly affecting the sexual sphere. This “disorder” is fundamentally relational in nature and prevents the establishment of stable and lasting social relationships. Therefore, the guest has a confused background that has led him to have various sexual experiences, both homosexual and heterosexual, aimed at defining his own identity.
The latter is difficult to establish within a socio-cultural context oppressive, denying, and violent regarding the regulation of individuals' sexual sphere, such as that of Gambia […].
In light of the aforementioned, it is considered necessary to continue the stay of Mr. ****** to pursue a path that allows him to express himself fully as an individual and above all to feel respected as a person, given that both religious precepts and the laws of his country of origin, which in fact are bound by religious dictates, do not allow him to live his sexuality in full harmony with himself and with society, incurring severe financial penalties that significantly impair the dignity of the individual. A return to the country of origin would be psychologically, emotionally, socially, and relationally detrimental to him, putting his life in serious danger.”
To consult the judgment click HERE