|
|
PLEASE SUPPORT KIBRE KEBEDE Below is the summary of Kibre Kebede’s case
provided by her lawyer. Please
read the summary and the letter which the Commission has sent to the
Minister. You are welcome to
use the letter as a basis for writing your own letter, but please remember
to write your letter in your own words and that there is a very short time
in which to do this. SUMMARY OF CASE OF MS KIBRE MAMMO KEBEDE FOR INTERVENTION OF MINISTER UNDER S 417 MIGRATION ACT 1958 · Relevant documents supporting Ms Kebede’s claim of continuing physical and sexual abuse were she forced to return to Ethiopia, and supporting material of why she would not be provided protection by the authorities of Ethiopia: q Commonwealth statutory declaration of Ms Kibre Mammo Kebede dated 1 March 2005; q Social worker’s report by Donata Rossi, B.Soc. Wk. Hons, (registered social worker) dated 2 August 2004 q Medical report by Dr Dominica Bartlett, MB.BS (Hons), BA, relating to an examination of Ms Kebede dated 16 August 2004; q Further medical report by Dr Dominica Bartlett, MB.BS (Hons), BA, dated 19 January 2005; q Psychological report by Ms Jane McDowall Dorey, BA (Hons) MAPS, (Consultant Psychologist) dated 8 September 2004; q Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) decision dated 24 March 2004 relating to the decision of another young Ethiopian woman, for whom we assisted in her claim of persecution under the 1951 Refugees Convention. This decision is relevant to the facts of Ms Kebede. · Ms Kebede is a young woman from Ethiopia. Ms Kebede has been present in Australia since 1998, when she first arrived as a student. She is a refugee claimant who is seeking protection from the Australian Government. Ms Kebede had previously made her claims of persecution under the 1951 Refugees Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) in Australia, for reasons of imputed political opinion, based on her father’s previous political background and her own small involvement as a supporter with the All Ethiopian United Party (AEUP). Ms Kebede’s claim that she would face persecution were she to return, based on these facts, was refused both at the Department level and at the Refugee Review Tribunal. · Ms Kebede subsequently sought the Minister’s intervention under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958, asking the Minister to exercise his (as it was at the time) discretion to substitute a more favourable visa for Ms Kebede on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. On the 16 March 2004, the Ministerial Intervention’s Unit advised that the case had been referred to the Minister under s 417 but that the Minister had decided not to exercise her power in this case. · Subsequent to this response, a further submission was sent to the Minister on the 6 May 2004, outlining new and additional information that had arisen from the facts as mentioned above, pursuant to s 417 and s 48B Migration Act 1958 (which enables the Minister to exercise her power to waive the statutory bar preventing a person from lodging a further protection visa application in Australia after an initial refusal). The response from the Ministerial Interventions Unit on the 21 June 2004, was that this matter would not be referred onto the Minister for her consideration under s 48B. · On the 3 August 2004, a further submission was forwarded to the Minister via her office on the basis of new additional information that had arisen (sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her ex-fiancé), and which was significant in nature. In this submission the Minister was asked to exercise her powers under s 417 and s 48B of the Migration Act 1958 on the basis of this new information. This new information was never brought up at the Department level or at the Refugee Review Tribunal. It was not information that was presented to the Minister previously. This was so because Ms Kebede had been the recipient of sickening sexual abuse at the hands of her fiance at the time, who still presently works as a civil public servant (Engineer) in the capital of Addis Ababa, and who has connections with certain persons within the relevant enforcement agencies. · Ms Kebede has provided information that she was raped by her fiancé in a house with at least one military person looking on. The nature of the rape was horrendous in its telling. Ms Kebede further tells her story of being taken by her ex-fiance and two military friends to a bridge and then tied up. Ms Kebede recalls that her ex-fiancee, as well as these same two military persons, together bound her hands and then tied her hands to the bridge in Addis Ababa. She recalls that there were another two military persons looking on. Ms Kebede tells the story that she passed out while she was on the bridge and only recalls waking up later on the ground off the bridge with her hands untied and seeing two people standing over her. She cannot recall any of the events that may have taken place on the bridge. · Sexual abuse under any circumstance is a traumatic experience. The facts of this rape and sexual abuse that took place for Ms Kebede becomes even more significant in that Ethiopia is a patriarchal society that shifts the blame on the woman rather than blaming the man. Moreover, relevant supporting material outlines the culture of serious and endemic sexual abuse in Ethiopia and the very limited protection that women have with the judicial and legal system there (See RRT decision, pp 7-9). Moreover, relevant supporting material outlines the culture of sexual taboos that exist in Ethiopia and the fact that a woman who has been sexually abused will be ostracised, discriminated and made an outcast in a male dominated patriarchal society, with very limited support provided to her by the legal and judicial system (See RRT decision, pp 7-9) ·
Ms Kebede’s story is outlined and diagnosed in a social
worker’s report (the social worker has had 15 years experience working
with culturally diverse people), a clinical psychologist’s report (the
psychologist has had 20 years experience and has had extensive experience in
assessing and treating children and women who have been sexually abused),
and a medical report detailing signs consistent to sexual abuse. All reports conclude that, in their experience, sexual abuse
has taken place against Ms Kebede and that she is suffering as a result of
this. The delay in providing
this information at the beginning of the making of her claims of persecution
is explained in the clinical psychologist’s report.
Two medical reports have also been provided for Ms Kebede as well. · On the 24 September 2004, the Ministerial Intervention’s Unit advised that the relevant “Guidelines” were not met for them to refer the matter up to the Minister for consideration under s 48B. On the 11 February 2005, the Ministerial Intervention’s Unit advised that the relevant “Guidelines” were not met for them to refer the matter up to the Minister for consideration under s 417 as a further request. In the words of the Department, “The additional information provided, in combination with the information provided previously, does not bring the case within the Minister’s Guidelines. Therefore, no further action will be taken in respect of this request.” · Ms Kebede is now faced with the fact that she must have a ticket for travel back to Ethiopia by 17 March 2005. Ms Kebede cannot return to Ethiopia as there is a very real chance that her ex-fiance will “reclaim her” as his fiance, physically and sexually abuse her again at his whim, and possibly retaliate (out of fear of what she might say) by harming her, without being made accountable under an inadequate Ethiopian justice system. There is also the added fear that Ms Kebede will face the real prospect of being permanently ostracised from her town and surrounding areas, as well as being severely discriminated against by these same people due to cultural norms. Ms Kebede may be forced to marry this man under Ethiopian law even if her former fiance was taken to court (See RRT decision, p 9) ·
It is significant to
note that Tribunal Member Ms R Macklin, in a recent Refugee Review Tribunal
decision, which found in favour of our client who was a young Ethiopian
woman, stated that there exists in Ethiopia a particular social group,
within the meaning of the Convention, comprised of “young women and
girls”. There is a distinct and recognisable group, whose distinguishing
attributes and characteristics exist independently of the manner in which
they are treated. Young women
and girls in Ethiopia are subjected to a range of human rights abuses,
including sexual and physical violence, against which the state authorities
fail to provide adequate or effective protection. The Tribunal Member found
that this failure of the state to protect young women and girls is for
reason of their membership of this group, because of a combination of
cultural, religious and social factors which govern the manner in which
women and girls are perceived. The
Tribunal Member found that evidence clearly indicated, and that she was
satisfied, that systematic discrimination against women and girls,
particularly victims of sexual abuse, is embedded in legislation, social and
religious practices, and, most notably under the criminal law, where police
“ignore” complaints, and even more significantly, where a rapist can
avoid prosecution by marrying the victim.
The Tribunal Member, referring to relevant country information,
stated that such information indicated that women and girls in Ethiopia are
considered as not possessing the same social, legal and human rights as men.
They are treated differently as a group.
The protection of the state, in certain circumstances, is
“consciously withdrawn” from them.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal Member find that young women and
girls in Ethiopia are a cognisable group, and that it is as members of this
group, that they are, in effect, denied protection by the state in relation
to sexual violence (See RRT decision p.14) · The situation is that the Minister has not been given the opportunity to consider this matter properly, as it has not been sent up to her for proper consideration. This matter entails the highest priority and requires the Minister’s intervention to substitute a more favourable decision in order to prevent Ms Kebede to be sent back to a situation of continuing physical and sexual abuse and possible harm. |