This COI Focus describes the risk in case of return, and in particular in case of forced repatriation, of Sudanese nationals to Sudan.
The first chapter offers a survey of repatriations documented in the international press and by a number of sources contacted by the CGRS, both inside and outside Europe. The second chapter examines the procedure returnees have to go through upon their arrival at Khartoum International Airport (KIA), and the risks they may run. This chapter also looks at cases reported by the press and other sources, in which Sudanese had problems with the Sudanese authorities after their return. The third chapter examines the jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) and of the British Upper Tribunal regarding repatriation to Sudan. The final chapter describes the powers and reputation of the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS).
The research is mainly focussed on the risk for Sudanese nationals who are voluntarily or forcibly repatriated to Sudan, whether refused asylum seekers or migrants who did not apply for asylum. Although the potential risk in case of return is also related to the general security and human rights situation, to the authoritarian character of the present government and to the overall political landscape in Sudan, these aspects will only be dealt with indirectly.
The CGRS does not describe in detail how third countries treated repatriated Sudanese nationals before their return, but focusses on the way in which the Sudanese authorities deal with returnees during the identification and return procedure, mainly after their return at Khartoum airport.
The policy implemented by the Commissioner General is based on a thorough analysis of accurate and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country of origin. This information is collated in a professional manner from various, objective sources, including the EASO, the UNHCR, relevant international human rights organisations, non-governmental organisations, professional literature and coverage in the media. When determining policy, the Commissioner General does not only examine the COI Focuses written by Cedoca and published on this website, as these deal with just one aspect of the general situation in the country of origin. The fact that a COI Focus could be out-of-date does not mean that the policy that is being implemented by the Commissioner General is no longer up-to-date.
When assessing an application for asylum, the Commissioner General not only considers the actual situation in the country of origin at the moment of decision-making, he also takes into account the individual situation and personal circumstances of the applicant for international protection. Every asylum application is examined individually. An applicant must comprehensively demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a clear personal risk of serious harm. He cannot, therefore, simply refer back to the general conditions in his country, but must also present concrete, credible and personal facts.
There is no policy paper for this country available on the website.