Date: 20000530
Dossier : IMM-1371-99
Ottawa, Ontario, ce 30e jour de mai 2000
En présence de M. le juge Pelletier
ENTRE :
NAVANEETHAN MARUTHAPILLAI
Partie demanderesse
- et -
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L"IMMIGRATION
Partie défenderesse
MOTIFS DE L"ORDONNANCE ET ORDONNANCE
[1] La Section du statut de réfugié (ci-après Section du statut) a conclu que le demandeur a été victime de persécution de la part de l"armée sri-lankaise. Cependant, malgré cette conclusion, la Section du statut a décidé qu"un refuge interne à Colombo, territoire contrôlé par l"armée sri-lankaise, était possible pour le demandeur. Pour en arriver à cette conclusion, la Section du statut a trouvé des contradictions dans les propos du demandeur. Il reste à voir si ces contradictions sont réelles ou illusoires.
[2] Le demandeur est un jeune tamoul du nord du Sri Lanka, plus précisément, de Jaffna et de ses environs. La Section du statut, ne questionnant pas la crédibilité du demandeur quant à l"expérience qu"il a vécue au nord du Sri Lanka, a conclu qu"il ne pouvait retourner à cet endroit sans risquer d"être persécuté. Voici les faits tels que décrits par la Section du statut :
| Mr. Navaneethan Maruthapillai alleges that after his father returned from Saudi Arabia where he worked as a driver, the Tigers were extorting money and the claimant"s father was forced to pay 25,000 rupees in March 1992. |
| The Tigers later demanded more money. The claimant"s father refused to pay and thus was arrested and detained from October 1992 to November 1992. He was released in poor physical condition and died in December 1992. |
| The claimant also alleges that starting in November 1993, the Tigers took him with them so that he could work in their camps. In May 1995, Mr. Maruthapillai refused to join them. Because of this refusal, he was assaulted and detained for three days. |
| The claimant"s mother had to pay into the Tigers war fund on two occasions in order to avoid to be harassed by them. |
| The claimant"s family moved to Meesalai in October 1995. In April 1996 they returned to their village (Nayanmarkaddu-Nallur) where the claimant began to work as a mason. |
| Mr. Maruthapillai alleges that he was arrested by the Sri Lankan army four times: August 1996 (two days detention), November 1996 (released after one day detention), September 1997 (four days detention) and April 1998 (two weeks detention). |
| In June 1997, the claimant alleges that a soldier humiliated his sister during a house to house march operation. After his last release, Mr. Maruthapillai moved to Colombo with his mother where he was arrested twice by the Sri Lankan police. |
[3] La conclusion que la Section du statut a tiré de ces derniers faits est la suivante : "The panel found him credible and therefore believes there is more than a mere possibility that Mr. Maruthapillai would face persecution should he go back to Jaffna." La question qui se pose, considérant que le demandeur serait, semble-t-il, sujet à la persécution, est de savoir qui est l"agent de persécution. Les faits, tels qu"énoncés par la Section du statut, révèlent que les Tigres ne ce sont pas acharnés sur le demandeur depuis 1995 et qu"entre le mois d"août 1996 jusqu"à la date du départ du demandeur vers Colombo en avril 1998, les forces armées l"ont arrêté et détenu à quatre reprises. Ainsi, il est loisible de croire que si le demandeur serait victime de persécution, il le serait de la part des forces armées.
[4] Contrairement à ce qu"il a été conclu par rapport à l"expérience qu"a vécue le demandeur au nord du Sri Lanka, la Section du statut a jugé que le témoignage de celui-ci en ce qui concerne son expérience vécue à Colombo n"était pas crédible. Effectivement, contrairement à ce que soutient le demandeur, la Section du statut a décidé qu"il n"avait pas été arrêté à deux reprises et qu"il n"était pas sujet à une persécution par les forces armées à Colombo.
[5] Cette dernière conclusion fait maintenant l"objet d"une demande de contrôle judiciaire car, selon le demandeur, la Section du statut ne pouvait pas conclure à la possibilité d"un refuge interne à Colombo lorsque l"agent de persécution constituait l"État et que l"État contrôlait le lieu de refuge.
[6] La possibilité de refuge interne implique une protection étatique effective. Mais lorsque l"agent de persécution est l"État ou bien une agence de l"État tel que les forces armées, comment peut-on parler d"une protection étatique effective sur le territoire national lorsque l"État lui-même est complice à la persécution?
[7] C"est cela le sens de la décision de la Cour d"appel fédérale dans l"affaire Canada v. Sharbden [1994] F.C.J. No. 371. Le juge McKeown en est arrivé à la même conclusion dans l"affaire Balasubramanian v. Canada [1994] F.C.J. No. 1452. Dans les deux cas, la Cour statua qu"une victime de persécution de la part de l"État ne pourrait trouver un refuge interne sur le territoire national, à moins qu"il y aurait preuve que la persécution ne continuerait pas dans la place de refuge interne. En l"instance, telle preuve n"existait pas.
[8] Le présent cas est d"autant plus curieux parce que le demandeur a témoigné qu"il a été arrêté par les forces armées à deux reprises à Colombo, l"endroit que la Section du statut pronait comme lieu de refuge interne.
[9] La Section du statut a semblé reconnaître cette difficulté car elle s"est efforcée de démontrer que le témoignage du demandeur quant à ses arrestations à Colombo, territoire où on a jugé qu"il y avait une possibilité de refuge interne, n"était pas crédible. C"est-à-dire, la Section du statut a reconnu que le témoignage du demandeur allait à l"encontre de ce qu"elle prônait. Ainsi, elle s"est adressée à cette question et elle a fini par conclure que le demandeur, trouvé crédible par rapport à son expérience vécue dans la région de Jaffna, n"était pas crédible lors de son témoignage concernant son expérience dans la région de Colombo. Dans un système où on conclut rapidement à un manque de crédibilité lorsqu"on se retrouve face à des contradictions ou à des invraisemblances, il est assez rare qu"on juge un revendicateur à la fois crédible et non crédible.
[10] La conclusion d"absence de crédibilité est fondée sur trois éléments qui relèvent des deux arrestations du demandeur à Colombo. Voici ce que mentionne la Section du statut à ce sujet :
| When asked to specify the time of his first arrest in Colombo, the claimant gave different versions of the event. |
| At first, he said that he was arrested at noon time while he was going for lunch and that he was released that same day. He then later said that he was released the next day. When questioned further on the time of his arrest, Mr. Maruthapillai said that he was arrested while he was asleep in his bed at 10:30 P.M. and was released the next day at noon. In his Personal Information Form (PIF) the claimant stated that he was released on the same day. |
| When asked to explain the discrepancy, the claimant said that he had memory problems. These problems were not evident in other parts of his testimony. |
| The panel does not feel this to be a satisfactory explanation. |
[11] Cependant, voici ce qu"a déclaré le demandeur dans son témoignage :
| A. On the day of my arrival I registered my name with the police, and the following night I heard a knock at the door. Then somebody said those who were inside the room should come out of the room. When we came out of the room we saw three policemen outside the room. They asked for the identity card. After I gave my identity card, after examining the card, one of them said that he was suspicious of me and I was dragged by one of them. My mother told them that we had duly registered our names and that her son didn"t do anything bad. They said they were doing their duty and she come to the police station and speak to them later. |
...
| Q. Sir, I"m concerned with your first arrest, sir. You say that you were arrested, I don"t know, the day after your arrival in Colombo? |
| Q. And you were released a day after you say? |
| Q. What time you were arrested, sir? |
| A. It was noontime when I was about to go for my lunch. |
| Q. At what time you were released, sir? |
| A. Between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. |
| BY REFUGEE CLAIM OFFICER (to person concerned) |
| BY PRESIDING MEMBER (to person concerned) |
| Q. And you were released the next day? |
...
| BY REFUGEE CLAIM OFFICER (to person concerned) |
| Q. So you said that the first time you were arrested it was around lunch time you"re about to go for lunch, is that right? |
| A. No, I said ... I told you the first time that after finishing my meal I was going, it was night when I heard knock on the door. |
| BY PRESIDING MEMBER (to person concerned) |
| BY REFUGEE CLAIM OFFICER (to person concerned) |
| Q. The first time was at night and you were about to go to bed, okay. |
| BY COUNSEL (to refugee claim officer) |
| - When he was released it was at noon. |
| BY REFUGEE CLAIM OFFICER (to person concerned) |
| Q. Okay, and you were released when? |
| A. The following day between 11:30 and 1:00. |
| Q. Okay. Sir, you"ve said a few different things now. When I first asked you about the circumstances of your arrest, the first arrest, you said you"re in a lodge. You"d registered. And the following night you heard a knock on the door. Okay. Now, that corresponds to what you just said now a minute ago. Okay. So when the presiding member asked you at what time of the day were you arrested, at what time were you arrested, you answered that you were arrested at noontime when you were about to go for lunch. And you were released the following day. Sir, you"re not listening, you"re talking. |
| A. What I meant was, I was released at that time from policy custody the following day. |
| Q. Sir, the question was very clearly, at what time were you arrested? At noontime when you were about to go for lunch. And then you were released the following day between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. |
| A. What I told you was after having our dinner, my mother and I were sleeping and then we heard a knock on the door. And I was released the following day at noontime. |
| BY COUNSEL (to person concerned) |
| Q. What time was it? Do you remember when you were arrested? |
| A. I was fast asleep and it could have been 10:30, 10:45. |
[12] Pour commencer, la Cour constate que le demandeur n"a pas d"abord déclaré qu"il s"était fait arrêté à midi tout en allant déjeuner. Au contraire, il a premièrement témoigné qu"il avait été arrêté dans sa chambre le lendemain soir de son arrivée. Ce n"est que plus tard, tout en répondant à une question, qu"il a témoigné pour la seule et unique fois qu"il s"était fait arrêté à midi. Par contre, lorsque l"agent, chargé de la revendication, est revenu sur la question, le demandeur a confirmé son premier témoignage.
[13] L"appréciation de la preuve est au coeur de la compétence de la Section du statut. Ce n"est pas à la Cour de substituer son appréciation de la preuve à celle du tribunal. Cependant, lors de son appréciation de la preuve, la Section du statut doit respecter le témoignage du demandeur. La Section du statut ne peut pas fausser le témoignage du demandeur et par la suite, en tirer une conclusion de manque de crédibilité. En l"espèce, le demandeur n"a pas d"abord déclaré qu"il s"est fait arrêté à midi pour ensuite témoigner qu"il s"est fait arrêté le soir de son arrivée. Le procureur du Ministre argumente qu"il n"en demeure pas moins que le demandeur a bel et bien donné deux versions différentes en ce qui concerne sa première arrestation à Colombo. Même si le tribunal s"est trompé à cette égard, la conclusion de fond reste valable. La Cour serait d"accord serait-ce la seule occurrence de cette espèce. Mais il y en a d"autres.
[14] Effectivement, le tribunal reproche au demandeur d"avoir changé l"histoire par rapport à un autre aspect de son récit:
| ... Then asked how his mother had found out about his arrest, the claimant said that she became worried because he was out for a long time and asked the lodge owner to make inquiries about the claimant"s whereabouts. The lodge owner later told her that the claimant had been arrested. |
| The panel pointed out to the claimant that his mother knew that he was with the agent and thus found her concern implausible. |
| The claimant then changed his story and said that the agent called the claimant"s mother an hour after the arrest and informed her that he had been detained by the police. |
[15] Voici le témoignage du demandeur tel qu"on le retrouve dans la transcription :
| Q. So, at the police station when you were released the second time you were arrested did you see the lodge owner? |
| Q. Okay. How does he know where you were? |
| A. Because when my mother told him that I didn"t show up for a long time, then the agent had the ... The agent who was taking me he informed him and the lodge owner had (inaudible) police station. |
| Q. The agent informed them of what? |
| A. That when I was going with him I had been taken by the police. |
| Q. So did the agent go right to your mother when this happened, or did your mother have to wait around for a long time to see that you didn"t show up? |
| A. My mother told me only after an hour he informed her of my arrest because the agent had to finish his work before informing my mother. |
...
| Q. So, when you were taken from the bus, how were you released? |
| A. Because at the time the agent was with me, so he went and told my mother, then my mother approached the lodge proprietor. So through him I was released. |
| Q. The agent was with you when you were arrested? |
| Q. And can you tell me how the agent would have known where the police took you? |
| A. He"s very older man, he just passed by. He was little far from me. I am the youngest one so they stopped me. |
| Q. Yeah. My question was, how would he have known where the police station they were taking you to? |
| A. Yeah, because later on he told me that at the time he just passed and he was watching us where I was taken, because I was taken by foot. So he was watching us where I was taken. |
| BY PRESIDING MEMBER (to person concerned) |
| BY MEMBER (to person concerned) |
| Q. So everybody went walking, including the police, when walking to the police station? |
| A. It"s very close where I was arrested at the police station. |
[16] Encore une fois, malgré le fait que le témoignage du demandeur est tout à fait uniforme, la Section du statut lui a reproché d"avoir changé d"histoire. Ainsi, la Section du statut ne peut pas exiger que la présente Cour respecte son appréciation de la preuve si elle ne s"en tient même pas à la preuve au dossier.
[17] Également, afin de pouvoir trouver le demandeur non crédible, la Section du statut s"est appuyée sur la question à savoir qui l"accompagnait sur l"autobus lors de sa deuxième arrestation. Le demandeur aurait d"abord déclaré que la personne qui l"accompagnait était l"agent qui devait le conduire hors du Sri Lanka. Par la suite, il aurait précisé qu"il s"est rendu compte que ce n"était pas l"agent lui-même qui l"accompagnait, mais plutôt un associé ou bien un employé de celui-ci. En raison de ceci, la Section du statut a conclu qu"il existait une autre contradiction dans le témoignage du demandeur. Selon la Cour, arriver à une telle conclusion ce serait d"accorder au terme "agent" une précision dont il ne pourra jamais avoir dans le contexte de personnes qui effectuent le trafic des humains. Il n"existe pas de programme d"accréditation des agents; les agents n"ont pas un statut particulier. Le demandeur était entièrement justifié de croire que celui qui l"accompagnait était l"agent, tout comme il était justifié de reconnaître à un moment donné que celui-ci suivait les instructions d"un autre. On ne peut douter que c"était en toutes circonstances la même personne dont parlait le demandeur. La Section du statut a effectué dans le présent cas une analyse microscopique de la preuve plutôt que de tenir compte l"ensemble de la preuve.
[18] Il appert donc que la Section du statut avait tort de conclure à un manque de crédibilité de la part du demandeur. La conclusion qui en suit est que le demandeur n"avait pas de possibilité de refuge interne à Colombo.
[19] Pour tous ces motifs, la décision de la Section du statut est annulée et la demande du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention du demandeur est renvoyée devant la Section du statut pour réexamen par un tribunal différemment constitué.
ORDONNANCE
La décision de la Section du statut de réfugié en date du 3 mars 1999, dont les motifs sont datés du 17 février 1999, est renvoyée devant la Section du statut pour réexamen par un tribunal différemment constitué.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
Juge