13.06.2014 Lawsuit: administrative country assessment versus personal experience

Humphreys (2014) reports on a trial in Canada on the occasion of an asylum application of a Hungarian Romany family. At the centre of interest lies the case of the Rrom Mario Gyula Varga. While the mother and the half-brother of the man were able to present to the court convincingly that they were victims of domestic violence by the father of Varga, a violent pimp, and were persecuted by neo-Nazi groups, the application of Mario Varga himself was rejected as implausible. From the perspective of the judge, the applicant could not demonstrate convincingly that he was indeed a victim of violence in Hungary. Instead, he had argued with the general persecution of the Rroma in Hungary. This general discrimination against Rroma the judge ruled improbable: ““It seems to me that [Mr. Varga’s lawyer’s] submission is that the only reasonable assessment of country conditions in Hungary is that each and every one of its 200,000 to 500,000 citizens of Roma background has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, and that on the balance of probabilities, each and every one’s life is at personal risk, or that each and every one is at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. If it be so, then Hungary is a failed state. Yet it is not”, Justice Harrington wrote in his ruling last week.” The case shows that evidence for individual asylum applications is extremely difficult to prove. Official governmental countries analyses are juxtaposed with subjective experiences, which usually are express only orally, but cannot be verified. Then, the credibility of the argument is an important criterion. The verdict is therefore also associated with the assessment of the conditions in a country and related value judgments. The estimation of compliance with the rights of minorities in Hungary is far from evident, as can be read in the critical, Hungarian press. Violations of minority rights and rights against discrimination repeatedly occur. Therefore, the verdict of judge Harrington that Hungary is a failed state, if the arguments of the applicant are true, is not that far-fetched.