One of the groups that seek international protection on the territory of our country are people of Pamiri nationality, coming from the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province (GBAO) (Republic of Tajikistan). They are members of an ethnic and a religious minority and all spheres of their life are targeted by the state authorities in their homeland. Their situation worsened after mass protests that occured in GBAO in November 2021 and May 2022.

In an official statement contained within the resolution of July 7, 2022 on the situation in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province in Tajikistan (2022/2753(RSP)) (2023/C 47/17), the European Parliament has called: "(...) on the Tajik authorities to immediately set up an effective and independent investigation into the violent clashes in the GBAO during and after the May 2022 and November 2021 protests, in particular into the use of force by law enforcement representatives, the deaths of civilians and the reports about the alleged acts of torture by the security forces, including alleged extrajudicial killings of peaceful protesters and regular residents of several GBAO villages, as well as the killing of Gulbiddin Ziyobekov that occurred on 25 November 2021, as peacefully demanded by the protesters; insists that all those responsible be brought to justice and that the victims be compensated".

A case of a Pamir national was processed, among others, on 29 July 2024 by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, case no. IV SA/Wa 870/24, that overturned the decision of the Refugee Board regarding the refusal to grant international protection.

The following findings of the court are crucial as they higlight the many regulation violations that the Board engaged in:

• ,,(…) incomprehensible, are the points made by the Board, pointing to the fact that the foreigner has left his country of origin without any issues or that nothing suggests that at the time of his departure from said state, was he met with any issues due to his involvement in domestic protests. It should be noted that in the light of art. 17 of The Act on Granting Protection to Foreigners, the foreigner may cite a well-founded fear of prosecution or a real risk of suffering serious harm, caused by events that occurred after he had left his country of origin."
• ,,(…) In the justification to the decision that was appealed, the appeal body failed to mention that the complainant had supplemented the appeal by, among others, an accusation of violations of Art. 42 of the AGPF, despite the fact that it was indicated in a letter dated April 21, 2023. It also failed to clarify whether it approved of the decision of the first instance body to not apply Art. 42 of the AGPF on the grounds of found irregularities, nor has it explained which of the circumstances unsupported by the evidence given to it by the complainant were deemed unproven due to failing to meet the requirements, listed under Art. 42 of the AGPF. A lack of a clear standpoint on this matter could have had a serious influence on the resolution of this case.”;
• ,,(…) The statement of the appeal body that the declarations made by the complainant had been intentionally evaluated over the course of the proceedings (...) should be preceded by allowing the complainant to put forward an additional explanation for either the inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony, which – according to Art. 44 of the AGPF – should take place during a hearing or before the complainant puts forward additional evidence that allows for the verification of the testimony made by him that claimed that he is under a threat of persecution due to events that took place after he had left his country of his origin”;

• ,,(…) it also isn’t immediately apparent that the interrogation took place using means of electronic communication (although this important circumstance was not mentioned in the interrogation protocol, it can be inferred from other documents that are part of the case file (...) According to a section of the protocol, some of the complainant’s statements were either imprecise, misheard or misunderstood which necessitated additional explanation during the interrogation, that according to Art. 44 of the AGPF should take place under circumstances that would allow the applicant to present the evidence for applying for international protection in a
comprehensive manner, as well as – what has already been mentioned – it should allow the foreigner to put forward additional explanations as to any discrepancies or contradictions found in his testimony, in order to establish the facts of the case”.

The court ruling is binding.