Is Arvind Kejriwal mentally unstable 1

dish

REASONS FOR DECISION:

I. Procedure

1. First procedure for international protection:

1.1. On June 19, 2007, the complainant submitted a first application for international protection at airport XXXX. On June 21, 2007, in the course of his interrogation by an organ of the City Police Command XXXX in the special transit of the airport XXXX, he stated that his father was mentally ill and that his uncle had wanted his mother to transfer agricultural land to him. However, his mother refused and there was an argument. His younger brother was killed in the process. Now he is threatened with killing and has therefore fled.

On June 27 and 28, 2007 the complainant stated in summary during his interrogations by the Federal Asylum Office that he had left his home country because of land disputes with his uncle and the resulting problems. The uncle had got his father, who was mentally ill and was therefore in a hospital, to give him agricultural land. Since his father was mentally ill, he did not know his way around and signed it. It was only when he wanted to go back to farming that he learned from his uncle that he could no longer do this. About a year ago the applicant, who was then still a minor, tried to work in the fields with his father, younger brother and other people, but the uncle informed the police and they were taken to the police station and stopped. The father was also beaten by the security forces.

Then there was another argument and his brother was beaten with an iron rod by the uncle's people and died of the injuries; the complainant's wrists had been broken; the father had been hit on the head by the people of the uncle, which made him sick and was taken back to the hospital in XXXX. However, the complainant and his father had previously been to the police. Some of the uncle's people had injured themselves and filed charges against the applicant and his father. The applicant's uncle had been released and finally acquitted after the applicant's father's youngest brother had paid a sum of money. The police did not respond to the complainant's family's complaints in this regard. The complainant was then threatened by his uncle with killing if he was found in the fields again. He was also attacked about a month before he left the country. The police did not help the applicant and his family, which is why he left his home village with his mother and went to his mother's brother. The latter had organized the complainant's departure from India. The applicant's youngest brother and mother are now with the maternal uncle. If the applicant returns, he is threatened with killing.

In a letter dated July 5, 2007, at the request of the Federal Asylum Office, the UNHCR gave its approval in accordance with Section 33 (2) Asylum Act 2005 (AsylG 2005) to reject the application at the airport, as the submission was in accordance with Resolution No. 30 of the UNHCR Executive Committee could be classified as manifestly unfounded.

1.2. With the first decision of the Federal Asylum Office dated July 5, 2007, the first asylum application was rejected in accordance with Section 33 (1) 1, 2 and 3 AsylG 2005 and it was established that the complainant had the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection in accordance with Section 8 (1) AsylG 2005 does not apply in relation to its country of origin India. The Federal Asylum Office based its decision on extensive regional studies and held that the complainant was not credible due to the numerous contradictions.

In contrast, the timely appeal to the (then competent Independent Federal Asylum Senate) stated that the complainant had asserted persecution in the country of origin and that the requirements of Section 33 (1) (3) AsylG 2005 were not met. In the handwritten supplement to the appeal, the complainant repeated the statements he had already made in the course of the interrogations at the Federal Asylum Office with regard to his reasons for fleeing. Political parties supported the applicant's uncle, which is why the police did not help him and his family.

With the decision of the Independent Federal Asylum Senate of 07/30/2007, Zl. 313.385-1 / 3E-II / 06/07, the appeal in accordance with Section 66 Paragraph 4 AVG in conjunction with Section 61 AsylG 2005 in conjunction with Section 33 Paragraph 1 AsylG 2005 was granted and the contested decision of the Federal Asylum Office resolved. The reason given was that in the case of the complainant, a "qualified untrustworthiness" could not be assumed; thus the prerequisites for an airport procedure according to § 33 Abs. 1 Z 1, 2 and 3 AsylG 2005 do not exist.

1.3. With the decision of the Federal Asylum Office dated March 21, 2008, the first asylum application in accordance with Section 3 (1) Asylum Act 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005, (short: AsylG 2005) was again rejected and it was established that the complainant had the status of subsidiary protection § 8 para. 1 no. 1 AsylG 2005 does not apply in relation to his country of origin India. At the same time he was expelled from the Austrian federal territory to Lebanon [sic!] In accordance with Section 10, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Asylum Act 2005. After making findings on India, the Federal Asylum Office stated that the complainant would not be at risk in the event of his return within the meaning of the Geneva Refugee Convention (GFK for short); his argument is not credible. It was clear from the country findings that the general situation in his home country would not pose a serious threat to his life in the event of his return. Nor would his right to subsidiary protection be violated. Rejected asylum seekers from India should not have any problems when they return to their home country because of the application for asylum. There is also no family life in Austria for permanent residents; an interference with his right to private life is justified. Overall, there are no indications of a possible violation of his rights under Art. 8 ECHR.

This decision was served on the complainant by filing it in accordance with Section 23 (3) of the Service Act and no further action was taken.

2. Second procedure for international protection:

2.1. On December 29, 2011, the Federal Asylum Office approved the readmission of the complainant from the United Kingdom in the course of the consultation procedure under Regulation No. 343/2003 of the Council (Dublin III Regulation). After his return to Austria on February 5, 2012, the complainant filed a second application for international protection. He stated that he had returned to his home country and wanted to look for his family, but had not found them. He went to his home village and was followed and beaten up by four men. They broke both of his hands and injured his head and arms. He was left lying on the street. He was then discovered and taken to the hospital. He spent a month in the hospital and then went to the police and asked for protection. Since he is not a prominent person, she did not protect him. He is not talented and therefore cannot work in India. Although he speaks some languages ​​(he stated Punjabi as his mother tongue and also speaks English and French), he cannot work. For this reason he came to Austria because the XXXX would take care of him here. As to the reason for his new application for asylum, he stated that he had been in England until a few days ago.

On February 13, 2012 and February 16, 2012, the complainant stated in summary before the Federal Asylum Office that he had neither a passport nor one. He was back home in India in 2008, but did not find his parents. He then came back to Europe from India in 2008; he had traveled to England via Moscow, Italy and Belgium. He stayed in India for about two months; he flew to India in January and then left again. He has no relatives in Austria. He is currently without income; he will be looked after. The last time he was in India was a Sikh temple. He tried to find his parents, he was attacked and injured. Both of his hands were broken and he went to the police. However, this could not help him and did not protect him. In England he made his living by doing odd jobs and working on construction sites. He now wants to live in safety here in Austria because he is alone. When asked what private interests he had in terms of integration in Austria [it is noted in the minutes that the complainant was mandated to answer this question], the complainant stated: "None yet."

The last time he had contact with his relatives in India was in 2007 when he left his home country. He has been in Austria since his return from the United Kingdom on February 1, 2012 and was arrested during a police check for illegal residence. He did not apply for asylum in the UK; He was told that you could only apply for asylum once and that he had already submitted it in Austria. He left Austria in 2007 and went to Italy. He applied for a certificate of return home from the Indian embassy in Rome and received it in January 2008. He then returned to India from Italy. He had therefore left Italy again because he had been invited to a wedding with friends there.

When he entered India, he had no problems. He initially stayed in Delhi and moved from one Sikh temple to another. In January 2008 he went to his home village. When word of his return got around, he was attacked again. In March 2008 he left India again by air for Moscow and then reached the United Kingdom via Belgium. He was in India and no longer has anyone there. Nobody helped him, not even the police. His life is in danger there and he can no longer live there. In the UK he had a lot of problems; Many Indians were killed there and he wanted to return to Austria anyway.

Nothing has changed since the first asylum procedure was finally finalized. As to the reasons for the new attacks after his return to his home country, he stated that they had a quarrel in the village with another family living there; this has existed since 2005 and they want to kill him. The dispute is related to the reasons why he left India in 2007. In 2006 his brother was killed. A handwritten letter of XXXX is inserted in the file of the Federal Asylum Office with an entry stamp dated February 21, 2012.

2.2. With the decision of the Federal Asylum Office dated February 27, 2012, the second asylum application in accordance with Section 68 (1) AVG was rejected because of a decided matter and the complainant was expelled from Austria to India in accordance with Section 10 (1) AsylG 2005. The reason given was that the first asylum procedure had been legally concluded and that his arguments in this regard were judged to be not credible. According to his information, the reasons for fleeing from the first trial would still exist. There were also no circumstances that would prevent the complainant from being expelled from Germany to India. With regard to India, the country of origin, nothing has changed significantly since the preliminary proceedings became final; in the event of a transfer to India, the complainant was not exposed to any treatment contrary to Art. 3 ECHR (various sources from the state documentation of the Federal Asylum Office were cited). His expulsion is also permissible under Art. 8 ECHR.

2.3. With the ruling of the Asylum Court of March 29, 2012, Zl. C11 313.385-2 / 2012 / 7E, the subsequent complaint pursuant to Section 41 (3) Asylum Act 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005, was granted and the contested Decision of the Federal Asylum Office corrected. The reason given was that the applicant in the second asylum procedure had put forward as a reason for fleeing that he had returned to India for two months and had been attacked again there. The complainant submitted a letter from an Indian hospital as evidence. The Federal Asylum Office had not dealt with the submission ex officio and the complainant was not questioned further about the letter he had submitted from an Indian hospital, and no further investigative steps were apparent from the Federal Asylum Office's file.

2.4. On August 3, 2012, during his interviews with the Federal Asylum Office, the complainant stated in summary that he had left Austria after his first asylum application in 2007. He stayed in Austria for about eight months and then returned to India via Italy. When asked how this could be reconciled with his "escape story" at the time, he stated that he had gone home because of his parents. He wanted them to live in safety, but couldn't find them. He stayed in India for about two to three months and looked for his parents in XXXX and XXXX. He drove home two or three times, but found his parents' house destroyed. He did not do any other research. He no longer has any contact with family members. In response to the fact that he had stated in the first asylum procedure that his father was mentally ill and that he had not looked for him in the hospital, the complainant stated that he had been in the hospital, but was not known about him there. Regarding the allegation that his mother had been with her brother in XXXX and it would have been obvious to look for her with her brother, the complainant stated that he had been there anyway, but that he had told him that she was gone and that XXXX was in front of you leave half a year.

In relation to his new application for asylum, the applicant stated that he had been in Scotland and had been brought to Austria [in the course of the Dublin transfer procedure]. He left India again because he was attacked again by the same people. Somehow they found out that he was back. He had taken the bus from XXXX to XXXX and was attacked again by these people on the bus. He doesn't know the people, he was attacked from behind on the bus. He was hit with a bottle on the head and attacked with a knife. The bus driver and passengers saved him, but the perpetrators escaped. He left India two weeks later. He received money in a Sikh temple and used it to pay for the smuggler. If he returns to India, he is afraid of being killed. He has no other reasons for his asylum application. He had no problems with the authorities in his home country, the police or the courts.

The complainant gave the possibility of the domestic alternative to fleeing, especially since he was a man with a good education and had stayed in many cities in India and Europe, spoke several languages ​​and it was to be assumed that he would be able to establish himself in a city outside of his home district Suppose you could have found him in "Bombay" and that he had no one in India. In response to the fact that he had stated that he had relatives in India and that they could help him, he stated that no one would help him.

In response to the allegation that he had received thousands of euros from charitable persons in a Sikh temple in a very short time and that they could have found him a job, the complainant replied that he had only wanted to save his life. After the provincial findings on the existence of a domestic flight alternative, the complainant stated that he saw no future for himself in India and was afraid of being killed.

Concerning his personal circumstances, he stated in summary during his interrogations that he was a Sikh from the state of Punjab. He does not know the whereabouts of his parents. He has no relatives in Austria or the EU. He attended primary school (1992-1998) and general secondary school (1998-2004). He speaks English and Punjabi as well as mediocre French. He worked in agriculture and most recently in construction. He is healthy and has no identity document.

2.5. With the decision of the Federal Asylum Office, the application according to § 3 para. 1 in conjunction with Section 2 (1) no.13 Asylum Act 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005 as amended. BGBl. I No. 38/2011, (short: AsylG 2005) rejected (point I.) and found that the complainant had the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection according to § 8 para. 1 in conjunction with § 2 para. 1 no. 13 AsylG 2005 does not apply to his country of origin India (ruling point II.). At the same time, the complainant was informed according to § 10 para.1 AsylG 2005 expelled from the Austrian federal territory to India (point III.).

In the event of his return, the complainant would not be endangered within the meaning of the Geneva Refugee Convention (GFK for short). The complainant had become involved in contradictions and was not credible. Among other things, the complainant has the option of an internal flight alternative in his home country. So he could have moved to other larger cities or states. Nor would his right to subsidiary protection be violated. Also in Austria there is no family life worthy of protection with regard to permanent residents; an interference with his right to private life is justified. Overall, there are no indications of a possible violation of his rights under Art. 8 ECHR.

The Federal Asylum Office also provided the complainant with a legal advisor for any complaints procedure before the Asylum Court.

2.6. In contrast, with the complaint submitted by fax via the XXXX advice center in due time, the complainant essentially submits, after describing the course of the procedure, that Section 18 AsylG provides that the Federal Asylum Office ex officio to close gaps, to provide procedural information, which Designation of evidence or the addition of all of these points. However, the authority concerned dealt with the complainant's allegations "improperly". In its last decision, the Asylum Court itself stated that it was easy to determine the hospital stay reported by the complainant, since the hospital could even be found on the Internet. It is therefore not enough for the authority concerned to withdraw from the position that in India every document can be forged anyway. It is also not sufficient for the Federal Asylum Office to refer to the unchallenged decision of the initial proceedings in essential decision-making points, but in contrast to this, hardly subject the current allegations to an appraisal.

2.7. With the decision of the Asylum Court of December 21, 2012, C11 313385-3 / 2012, the complaint against the above-mentioned decision was filed in a closed session in accordance with §§ 3, 8 and 10 Asylum Act 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005 as amended. BGBl. I No. 38/2011, rejected as unfounded.

In its reasoning for the decision, the ruling Senate of the Asylum Court essentially assumed that the complainant would have an alternative domestic protection option even if his statements were to be true, and that international protection would therefore not be considered even against this background; In particular, the following was recorded as evidence:

"According to his own statement, the complainant comes from India; the fact that this is true was also to be assumed due to the complainant's certain geographic orientation and his knowledge of the local language Punjabi. More detailed information on his identity, however, could not be made in the absence of credible documents.

The cited documents, on which these state determinations are based, come from respected state institutions and an experienced expert who has already written many conclusive and comprehensible reports for the independent Federal Asylum Senate and the Asylum Court and who travels to India regularly. There is therefore no concern against relying on it. As far as the sources are of an older date, these can still be described as current due to the fact that the circumstances have not changed.

The complaint initially refers to the submissions made by the complainant during the questioning before the Federal Asylum Office. Insofar as it attacks the assessment of the evidence by the Federal Asylum Office, it does not need to be dealt with because the Asylum Court is based on the information that the complainant provided during his interrogation.

If one follows the complainant's statements about his individual reasons for fleeing that he was beaten by strangers or threatened with death and that he received no protection from the (possibly corrupt and influenced) local police in this context, it emerges that he was outside of his alleged place of origin in India has an alternative domestic escape or protection alternative. The fact that this is basically possible in India results from the above-mentioned findings in the contested decision. The complaint does not preclude the possibility of domestic flight alternatives.

The sources of knowledge introduced in the process show that full freedom of movement is guaranteed in India. The sources paint a clear picture in this regard, according to which, in principle, local conflicts or acts of persecution can be avoided by moving to another part of the country. There is no government reporting or registration system for Indian citizens. The majority of citizens do not have any IDs. The Indian Constitution guarantees Indian nationals the right to freedom of movement in the national territory and the right to settle and reside in any part of the country. Even in the event of criminal prosecution, it is usually possible for them to live undisturbed in rural districts in other parts of India without this person having to hide their identity. On the other hand, the police in urban areas are better equipped in terms of personnel and material, so that the possibility of detection is greater. In New Delhi, for example, separatists from the Punjab were tracked down and arrested after several years of peaceful residence. Anyone who feels persecuted can therefore settle in another part of the country. The possibility of creating a livelihood outside of your closer home in India depends very much on the individual skills, knowledge and physical condition and can be increased significantly with the support of relatives, friends or fellow believers. For unqualified but healthy people, however, it will usually be possible to make a living by doing casual work.

In the present case, too, there is always the possibility of moving to another part of the country, since the acts of persecution mentioned by the complainant are limited to a regional area at best. Overall, it cannot be assumed that the complainant is exposed to the real danger of ongoing persecution, which would affect his entire country of origin.

As far as the complainant's health or psychological state is concerned, no indications of this emerged during the proceedings. No evidence whatsoever was submitted either. "

From a legal point of view, it was concluded that the complainant had not succeeded with a sufficient degree of probability in making persecution by strangers on the entire national territory of India credible, since he could settle in India outside of his closer homeland and therefore gave him a domestic alternative to escape or protection open. If one proceeds from his allegations, it can be ruled out that he is classified as particularly militant or as someone who has worked with armed groups in the past, as well as that he would be on the Union-wide search list.

As far as the complaint about the memory gaps or his dubious mental state of health - so the complainant should actually suffer from them, contrary to the assumption of the Asylum Court - it cannot be assumed that these health disorders are of that particular severity (such as AIDS in the last stage) which are necessary in order to make the evacuation of a foreigner appear to be in contradiction to Art. 3 ECHR according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (see, for example, its decision in the case of D. v. United Kingdom, 02.05.1997, case 30.240 / 96 ; as well as its decisions Ovdienko v Finland, May 31, 2005, Rs 1383/04, and Ndangoya v Sweden, June 22, 2004, Rs 17868/03; cf. also VfSlg. 18.407 / 2008). According to the country findings, it can be assumed that any necessary medical care would be possible in India. In addition, the complainant did not submit any medical evidence or other evidence with his complaint - which was obviously drawn up by his assigned legal advisor - which could give rise to doubts about the state of health. Finally, the Asylum Court was unable to recognize that the applicant would find himself in a life-threatening situation if he were to be returned to his country of origin with regard to basic existential needs (such as food, accommodation): The complainant who was able to work could be expected to do his job in his home country to earn his living as a farmer or at least with casual work, especially since he has spent the majority of his life in India and speaks the local languages. Thus, no circumstances emerged which could lead to a violation of Art. 2 and Art. 3 ECHR or Protocols No. 6 and No. 13 to the Convention.

Ultimately, no indications of the existence of aspects of the complainant's family and private life worthy of protection in the federal territory could have been identified, which is why the complaint against point III. of the contested decision had also to be dismissed as unfounded.

The cited knowledge came into force on 07.01.2013 as a result of proper delivery.

3. Third procedure for international protection:

3.1. On August 27, 2014, the complainant submitted a third application for international protection in Austria, which is now the subject of the proceedings. He was interviewed for the first time on August 29, 2014 in front of an organ of the public security service of the Police Inspection XXXX.

When asked about the reasons for his renewed application for international protection, the applicant argued that his reasons for asylum were still the same; he made the application because he lived illegally and without documents in Austria. Since he has lived here for eight years and speaks German, he has applied for a residence permit, but has not yet received a decision on this. The complainant received no support, but could not work without documents and was homeless. He is now applying for international protection in order to obtain an identity card; if he is checked by the police and has no ID, there are always problems and long waiting times for him. In response to his legally concluded preliminary proceedings and when asked whether there were new reasons, the complainant repeated that he submitted the application because he was living in Austria without documents. When asked about his fears of returning to India, the applicant stated that he had not been in India for nine years and that he did not know what would happen if he had to return. He could be killed. There are no specific indications that he would face inhuman treatment, inhuman punishment or the death penalty if he returned. When asked how long he had known about the change in his reasons for fleeing, the applicant replied that he had to live on the street since he had been released from XXXX about three weeks earlier. Due to his dreary situation, he decided to apply for international protection again.

With the submission dated September 15, 2014, a letter from the XXXX association was sent, according to which the complainant had been reported as homeless at an address given in more detail.

With a submission dated November 10, 2014, the District Court XXXX informed the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum of a final conviction of the complainant on the basis of § 127, 15 StGB.

With a note from the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum dated November 12, 2015, the complainant's proceedings for international protection were discontinued due to the unknown of his whereabouts in accordance with Section 24 (2) AsylG. On the same day, the issuing of an arrest order against the complainant in accordance with Section 34 (4) BFA-VG was documented.

On November 21, 2015 the complainant was subjected to an identity verification by organs of the state police department XXXX according to § 35 SPG and provisionally arrested and taken to the XXXX due to the arrest order against him according to § 40 BFA-VG.

On November 22, 2015, the complainant was questioned in writing before the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum in the presence of a suitable interpreter for the Punjabi language as part of his proceedings for international protection. At the beginning, the complainant stated in response to a corresponding questioning that he was able to communicate well with the interpreter present, that he had not granted a power of representation in the proceedings at issue and that he felt mentally and physically capable of conducting the questioning; he did not have any documents from India, on the occasion of his first interview he had given a wrong place of birth due to a misunderstanding, which he now wanted to report. The complainant belongs to the Jat ethnic group and the Sikh religious community; in India the complainant had completed twelve years of primary school and had not learned a trade; he never worked in India, he came to Austria at the age of 18 and worked as a newspaper deliverer after entering the country illegally. This meant that he was financially secure during his stay in Austria and that he only worked "black". In India, the applicant's parents and a brother would live in village XXXX. A cousin, with whom he was not in contact, lived in Denmark, in Austria the complainant had no family points of reference. After reproducing his travel movement from India to Austria and consequently within Europe, the complainant, when asked what he had been doing in Austria since February 2012, stated that he had again applied for international protection. In the camp in Austria he had an argument with someone and was injured in the head, after which he was taken into detention for about 45 days. After that he lived at various addresses and emergency sleeping places in XXXX until the beginning of 2014, in each case without being officially registered there. He was then detained in XXXX for eight days before he was released on a hunger strike. He then slept outdoors in XXXX for a while before being arrested again in summer 2014; then he stayed with various acquaintances, and most recently he stayed outdoors again.

In response to the fact that the complainant's second procedure for international protection was decided negatively in January 2013 in connection with a legally binding expulsion decision and was asked why he had not left the country as a result, the complainant replied that he had not yet told "everything" and had further details wanting to show off. The complainant had nowhere to go and for this reason did not leave. In XXXX the complainant met a woman from Kenya who asked him for help; he should have signed a document stating that he was her friend and would look after her at home. Then he stayed in their apartment in Lower Austria; There was no electricity in this, which is why the complainant changed the wiring in the meter box, whereby he was entered by the caretaker, who then informed the police. The applicant had been arrested and taken into police custody; after the woman mentioned had called the police several times, the latter had been released and the complainant had moved back to their apartment. In the meantime, the woman's friend has returned from Spain and also lived in the apartment. Since there was constant quarrel, the complainant decided to move out. The complainant was then reported by this woman because he allegedly had vandalized her apartment. As a result, he slept in parks again.

When asked again why the complainant had not left the country as a result of his legally binding expulsion, he stated that he had learned the language and wanted to stay here. He doesn't know where to go. When asked, he was not aware of the final negative outcome of his second proceedings for international protection. When asked what he had done to legalize his stay in the federal territory, the complainant stated that he had made an application for tolerance about eight months earlier, stating that he had never been given an appointment to be summoned. In response to the fact that the application for tolerance had been rejected in August 2014, the complainant stated that he did not know this.

In response to the fact that two applications for international protection had already been given a final negative decision regarding the person of the complainant and were asked why he had submitted a new application at the end of August 2014, the complainant asked where else he should go; he wanted to stay in this country.He left India in 2007 to earn money; now he loves this country and wants to stay here. When asked whether he had any further reasons for fleeing, the complainant replied in the negative. When asked what threat situation he could present, the complainant submitted that he did not want to return to India under any circumstances. The number of drug addicts there is very high and there is no medical help. In Austria the complainant consumed "subitat tablets", which he received for 10 euros at every underground station; he is addicted. Since he is receiving medical treatment in Austria, unlike in India, he would like to stay here. When asked how he had been specifically threatened in India, the complainant replied that the situation there was generally very bad and that he had not been specifically threatened.

When asked about connections to political parties, religious affiliations or groups prone to violence in his home country, the complainant stated that he only worked as an election worker for the "Akali Party" and received drugs in return. An uncle on his father's side was a village councilor in the complainant's former place of residence, he could not give any further details. When asked, the complainant was not persecuted in India for reasons of religion, "race" or nationality. When asked whether he had been persecuted in India because of his political views, the latter stated that he had been attacked once in 2006. The complainant's uncle was a member of the "Alkali Party", which is why they were attacked by the "Congress Party". They were a group of around 70 people, and the opposing group of around 50 people shot them with rifles. Two friends of the complainant had died. After that there were no further attacks. When asked, the complainant was not subjected to any acts of persecution in India because he belonged to a social group. He is in contact with his relatives in India, if he has money, he calls them every day. When asked about the content of the last interview, the complainant stated that his mother was ill and needed money. He told his mother not to worry and to take care of her health, otherwise he had not found out anything from home. The living conditions there are "mediocre". His parents owned a house and a few animals, and they grew grain for fodder. When asked what to expect if he returned home, the applicant stated that he could get into bad company there and become a robber or burglar because he was addicted to drugs. He is not well educated to get a job. When asked whether he could live and work in his hometown or in another region of India, the complainant replied in the negative. He doesn't have the money to live anywhere else in India. He asked for a residence permit in Austria in order to be able to work here.

When asked about his living conditions in Austria, the complainant stated that he was looking for work; he does not have a work permit and therefore works "black" on a case-by-case basis. He earns his living in Austria by occasionally working as a newspaper deliverer. He made some acquaintances in Austria, he was a member of the XXXX and helped with the flood in 2013 on the Slovakian border. In Austria he did not pursue any religious activity; he already speaks good German. When asked about additions to his reasons for fleeing, the complainant stated that he wanted to stay here, since one could determine one's life here and it was a beautiful country. Otherwise, he said everything and no objections to the questioning. He answered all questions comprehensively and understood the interpreter well. The complainant was given the findings of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum on the situation in India and given him a two-week period in which to submit a statement. Finally, after the back-translation of his information, the complainant confirmed the correctness and completeness of what was recorded by his signature.

On the same day, the complainant was released as the need for security ceased to exist.

3.2. With the decision of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum dated 04.01.2016, Zl. 420289101 - 14918202 mentioned in the ruling, the application for international protection according to § 3 paragraph 1 in conjunction with § 2 paragraph 1 number 13 AsylG 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100 / 2005 (AsylG) as amended, rejected with regard to the granting of the status of person entitled to asylum (ruling point I.). Furthermore, the application for international protection in accordance with Section 8 (1) in conjunction with Section 2 (1) No. 13 AsylG, with regard to the granting of the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection in relation to the country of origin India, was rejected (point II.). A residence permit for reasons worthy of consideration was not granted in accordance with Sections 57 and 55 AsylG. According to § 10 paragraph 1 number 3 AsylG in conjunction with § 9 BFA-procedural law, Federal Law Gazette I No. 87/2012 (BFA-VG) as amended, a return decision was made against the complainant in accordance with § 52 paragraph 2 number 2 Aliens Police Act 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005 (FPG) as amended, and it was determined in accordance with § 52 Paragraph 9 FPG under one that the deportation of the complainant to India is permissible according to § 46 FPG (point III.). Pursuant to Section 55 (1) to (3) of the FPG, it was stated that the period for the complainant's voluntary departure would be two weeks after the return decision became final (point IV.).

The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum made the following statements regarding the decision-making situation in India:

1. Political situation

With over 1.2 billion people, India is the most populous democratic state in the world (CIA Factbook October 28, 2015; see AA April 24, 2015). With its many languages, India is particularly diverse, which is also reflected in its federal political system, in which power is shared by the central government and the states (BBC October 28, 2015). Since June 2nd, 2014 India has 29 federal states and seven Union states (CIA Factbook October 28th, 2015; cf.AA 10.2015a). According to the constitution, it is a secular, democratic and federal republic. The capital New Delhi has a special legal status. The central government has significantly greater powers than the state governments and, in the event of internal problems, can place a state under direct central government administration for a limited period of time (AA 10.2015a).

After independence from Great Britain (1947), India enforced the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The decisions of the state administration (bureaucracy, military, police) are also controlled by the country's free press, which is published not only in the national official languages ​​Hindi and English, but also in many of the regional languages. India also has a lively civil society that is involved in shaping politics with a variety of initiatives (AA 10.2015a). President Pranab Kumar Mukherjee has been Indian head of state since July 2012 (AA 10.2015a). The President is the head of state and is elected by an electoral committee, while the Prime Minister is the head of government (USDOS 6/25/2015). The office primarily entails representative tasks, but in the event of a crisis the president has far-reaching powers (AA 10.2015a). The most important office within the executive branch is held by the Prime Minister, who has been called Narendra Modi since May 26, 2014 (GIZ 11/2015).

In accordance with the constitution, the states and union territories have a high degree of autonomy and have primary responsibility for law and order (USDOS 6/25/2015). The legislature consists of a People's Chamber (Lok Sabha) and a Chamber of States (Rajya Sabha). There are also state-level parliaments. The Supreme Court in New Delhi is at the head of the judiciary (GIZ 11.2015; cf. AA 24.4.2015).

The separation of powers between parliament and government follows the British model. In India there is a constitutionally guaranteed, independent judiciary with three levels of authority (AA April 24, 2015).

In the last few decades India experienced an enormous economic boom, which led to the formation of a new middle class. But India's age-old caste system, ailing rural infrastructure, severe environmental pollution and religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims continue to pose major problems for the country (FAZ May 16, 2014). The new government, which has been in office since 2014, not only wants to continue the market economy course, but also to intensify it by removing bureaucratic obstacles and reducing protectionism. Foreign investors should become more active (GIZ 8/2015).

Elections 2014:

The last nationwide elections took place in April / May 2014 (AA April 24, 2015). The election for the 16th Lok Sabha, the Indian lower house, began on 7.4.2014 (GIZ 11.2015). 814 million voters were called upon to cast their votes at more than 930,000 ballot boxes and 1.5 million electronic voting machines (Eurasisches Magazin May 24, 2014), including around 120 million first-time voters (GIZ 11.2015).

Three major party alliances faced each other in the election:

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) under the leadership of the Congress Party, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) under the leadership of the BJP and the so-called Third Front, which consists of eleven regional and left-wing parties. The performance of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which emerged from part of the India Against Corruption movement, was attended with particular interest. The AAP managed to win 28 out of 70 seats in the 2013 election in Delhi. The result in 2014: Nationwide, the AAP only won four seats (GIZ 11.2015; see FAZ 16.5.2014).

The election winner was officially announced on May 16, 2014: Narendra Modi from the opposition party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which won an absolute majority with 282 of 543 seats. On the other hand, heavy losses for the coalition led by the Congress under Manmohan Singh, which has been in power since 2004. Sonia Gandhi and son Rahul are now moving to the opposition bench (Eurasisches Magazin May 24, 2014; see FAZ May 16, 2014, GIZ 11.2015). The new head of government is the previous Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. This also nourishes the fear of a flare-up of communalism (GIZ 11.2015).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India

-

AA - Foreign Office (10.2015a): India, domestic policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_AC539C62A8F3AE6159C84F7909652AC5/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/innenpolitik_node.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (28.10.2015): India country profile - Overview,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

CIA - Central Intelligence Agency (October 28, 2015): The World Factbook

-

India,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

Eurasisches Magazin (May 24, 2014): Where is the greatest democracy on earth going?

http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/artikel/Indien-nach-den-Wahlen-eine-Analyse/14017, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

FAZ - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (May 16, 2014): Modi is the man of the hour,

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/fruehaufsteher/wahlentscheid-in-lösungen-modi-ist-der-mann-der-stunde-12941572.html, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (11.2015): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmBH (8/2015): India, Economic System and Economic Policy, http://liportal.giz.de/india/wirtschaft-entwicklung/, accessed November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

2. Security situation

India is rich in tensions across ethnic groups, religions, castes and life perspectives. Contradictions, contradictions or conflicts discharge in the social arenas and are taken up, processed and in some cases instrumentalized by politics (GIZ 11.2015). Bloody terrorist attacks have repeatedly claimed deaths in India's megacities in the past few years (Eurasisches Magazin, May 24, 2014). The tensions in the north-east of the country continue, as does the dispute with the Naxalites (GIZ 11.2015). The state's monopoly on the use of force is being called into question in some areas by the activities of the "Naxalites" (AA April 24, 2015).

India faces a number of security problems. There are several left-wing armed groups (Maoists) across the country. After an increase in the activity of insurgent groups between 2003 and 2010, these activities declined due to internal power struggles, limited support in the tribal communities and effective operations against their leadership by the security forces. In 2013, around 76 of India's more than 600 counties experienced some form of Maoist violence. Insurgent groups from Pakistan have demonstrated their ability to launch attacks (via Indian-administered Kashmir) in central India. Worth mentioning are the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament and the Mumbai attacks in July 2006 and November 2008. Pakistani groups are believed to have provided support to Indian terrorist cells in the 2006 attacks. The attacks in 2008 were planned, supported and led from Pakistan. Local rebel groups - both Hindu and Islamist - have been implicated in a series of terrorist attacks on key Indian cities. The security situation in the areas of Kashmir, northeast and especially in Assam is unstable and revolts keep coming back. Another security problem is communal violence between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority. Organized crime is also a problem in capitals, but not for foreign companies. There are kidnappings with ransom demands, but these are limited to the local population. The poor road safety in the country is a significant problem. The greatest immediate external security threat is Pakistan, especially in relation to the long-standing Kashmiri dispute (IHS- Jane's Sentinel Security 1.7.2014).

The government acts with great severity and rigor against militant groups, who mostly advocate the independence of certain regions and / or adhere to radical views, especially as soon as internal security is seen as endangered. If such groups renounce violence, the government is usually ready to negotiate their demands. Nonviolent independence groups are free to be politically active (AA April 24, 2015). Despite numerous and sometimes dramatic successes by India's security and intelligence agencies, which repeatedly suffer from severe resource problems, the reality is that the security apparatus is still easily vulnerable (South Asia Terrorism Portal October 30, 2015).

(...)

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India

-

AA - Foreign Office (10.2015c): India - Foreign Policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/Aussenpolitik_node.html#doc346922bodyText3, accessed November 9, 2015

-

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (October 28, 2015): India profile

-

Overview, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

Eurasisches Magazin (May 24, 2014): Where is the greatest democracy on earth going?

http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/artikel/Indien-nach-den-Wahlen-eine-Analyse/14017, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (11.2015): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

IHS - Jane's Sentinel Security (July 1, 2014): Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment - South Asia - executive summary, India

-

South Asia Terrorism Portal (October 30, 2015): India Assessment - 2014, http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/index.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

South Asia Terrorism Portal (October 30, 2015): Data Sheet - India Fatalities: 1994-2015,

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/database/indiafatalities.htm, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

3. Legal protection / judicial system

In India there is a constitutionally guaranteed, independent judiciary with three levels of authority (AA April 24, 2015). The law guarantees an independent judiciary, but corruption was widespread in the judiciary (USDOS 6/25/2015).

The courts conduct criminal proceedings with judicial independence. A generally discriminatory criminal prosecution or sentencing practice cannot be established, but the lower levels in particular are not free from corruption.The former Chief Justice Katju had triggered a public controversy with a statement in autumn 2014 when he made corruption among the judges public and in one case also disclosed state influence on the appointment of a judge (AA April 24, 2015).

The judiciary continued to be overloaded and the backlog at the court led to long delays or the withholding of case law (USDOS 25.6.2015). In August 2013, the Justice Minister announced that there were three positions in the Supreme Court and 275 positions in the high courts. Alarming was also the number of vacancies in the subordinate judiciary, with more than 3,700 positions to be filled. The Justice Minister attributed lengthy delays in the courts to the vacancies (USDOS 02/27/2014). An analysis by the Ministry of Justice revealed a vacancy of 34% of the judges at the higher courts on August 1, 2014 (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The very long duration of the procedure is very problematic. The standard duration of criminal proceedings (from the indictment to the judgment) is several years; in some cases, proceedings take up to ten years. Witness protection is also inadequate. As a result, witnesses in court often do not testify freely because they have been bribed or threatened (AA April 24, 2015).

The judiciary is separate from the executive. Judges showed considerable dedication to handling public interest litigation. However, in recent years judges have also opened proceedings for improper conduct in court against activists and journalists who have taken action against corruption in the judiciary or who have questioned judgments. Corruption is reported to be widespread in the lower levels of the judiciary. Many citizens have difficulties enforcing the law through the courts (FH January 28, 2015). The system is heavily backlogged and understaffed. This often leads to prolonged pre-trial detention for many suspects, which often lasts longer than the actual sentence would be (FH January 28, 2015; see FH May 19, 2014). The establishment of various fast-track courts to deal with pending court cases led to the right to a fair trial not being observed in some cases (FH May 19, 2014).

Rule of law guarantees enshrined in the constitution (e.g. the right to a fair trial, Art. 21) are restricted by a number of security laws. These laws were tightened after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008; Among other things, the presumption of innocence was suspended for certain criminal offenses. Particularly in unrest areas, the security forces have extensive powers to combat secessionist and terrorist groups, which are often used excessively (AA April 24, 2015). Pretrial detention takes a long time. Except for offenses threatened by the death penalty, the judge should order a detention review after half of the impending maximum sentence has expired and order a release on bail. However, with such an application, the person concerned accepts that the case will not be pursued for a long time. In the meantime, around 70% of all prisoners are remand prisoners, many because of minor offenses that lack the means to provide bail (AA April 24, 2015).

The criminal law provides for public negotiations, except in proceedings in which the statements may concern state secrets or state security. There is free legal advice for defendants in need, but in practice access to competent advice is often limited. All evidence brought against a defendant must be accessible to him and convictions must be published (USDOS 6/25/2015). The law allows defendants access to relevant government evidence in most civil and criminal cases, but the government reserves the right to withhold information, including in cases it deems sensitive. Defendants have the right to interview witnesses; underprivileged defendants sometimes do not enjoy this right due to a lack of proper legal representation. The court is obliged to issue judgments publicly and there are effective ways of appeal at almost all levels of the judiciary (USDOS 25.6.2015).

In rural India there are also informal council meetings, the decisions of which sometimes lead to violence against people who break social rules - especially women and relatives from the lower castes (FH January 28, 2015).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India

-

FH - Freedom House (January 28, 2015): Freedom in the World 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/296800/433144_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

FH - Freedom House (May 19, 2014): Freedom in the World 2014 - India, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5379d1d710.html, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (February 27, 2014): India, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/270728/400811_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

4. Security agencies

The police act on the basis of state police laws (AA April 24, 2015). The Indian Police Service is not a direct law enforcement or law enforcement agency. Rather, it acts as a training and recruiting agency for police officers in the states. With regard to the federal structures, the police are organized decentrally in the individual states. The individual units are organized on a decentralized basis, but in view of a national police law, numerous national criminal laws and the central recruiting office for executives described above, they have a number of things in common. In general, the police are entrusted with prosecuting, preventing and combating crime, and maintaining public order, while at the same time exercising partial control over the various secret services (BICC 6.2015). In addition, there are largely paramilitary units subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior (AA April 24, 2015).

The Indian military is subordinate to civil administration and has shown little interest in a political role in the past. The supreme command is incumbent on the president. According to their self-image, the army is the "protector of the nation", but only in a military sense (BICC 6.2015). The military can also be active domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security (AA April 24, 2015; cf. BICC 6.2015), for example in the fight against armed insurgents, supporting the police and paramilitary units, as well as deploying Natural disasters (BICC 6/2015).

In addition to structural deficits, a lack of trust in the reliability of the police arises from frequent reports of human rights violations such as torture and extrajudicial killings and threats that were allegedly perpetrated by the police (BICC 6.2015; see USDOS 25.6.2015; see HRW 29.1 .2015). The police are accused of serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, torture and rape (USDOS 25.6.2015). The police remain overburdened, underpaid and exposed to political pressure. Political demands to identify perpetrators as quickly as possible after terrorist attacks and rape often lead to illegal arrests (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The Special Frontier Force is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office. The so-called border special forces are an elite unit that is deployed on sensitive sections of the border with China. There are also legal bases for the actions of the secret services, the so-called intelligence bureau (domestic secret service) and the research and analysis wing ("Research and Analysis Wing"). The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is used as the legal basis for the deployment of armed forces - especially land forces - in unrest areas and against terrorists. The AFSPA gives the armed forces extensive powers to use lethal force, make arrests without a warrant, and search without a warrant. In their actions, those involved in the armed forces enjoy broad immunity from prosecution. The AFSPA comes into play after state governments declare their states or only parts of them to be "unrest areas" on the basis of the Disturbed Areas Act. The states of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura are currently considered unrest areas (AA April 24, 2015 cf. USDOS June 25, 2015).

Terrorist attacks in previous years (December 2010 in Varanasi, July 2011

Mumbai, September 2011 New Delhi and Agra, April 2013 in Bangalore, May 2014 Chennai and December 2014 Bangalore) and in particular the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 have put the government under pressure. Only a few of the attacks in recent years have been completely cleared up and the reform projects announced in response to these incidents to improve the Indian security architecture have not been implemented consistently. The "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act" (UAPA) has been tightened. The changes include an expanded definition of terrorism and, in cases related to terrorism, the option of extending pre-trial detention without charge from 90 to 180 days and simplified rules for proving the perpetrator of a defendant (which in fact come close to reversing the burden of proof) (AA April 24, 2015) .

There continued to be reports of police rape of detainees. Some rape victims were afraid to come forward and report the crime because of the threat of social stigma and possible retaliation, especially if the perpetrator was a police officer or other official. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the mandate to investigate rape cases involving police officers. The NHRC has the legal authority to request information about members of the military and paramilitary forces, but has no client to investigate cases in which these units are involved (USDOS 6/25/2015).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India

-

BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2015):

Information service - security, armaments and development in recipient countries of German arms exports: Country information India,

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/20157/haben.pdf, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

5. Torture and Inhuman Treatment

Torture is banned in India; Statements obtained as a result of torture are not permitted for use in court (AA April 24, 2015; see USDOS June 25, 2015). The law thus prohibits torture, but there are reports from NGOs that such practices are widespread, especially in conflict areas (USDOS 6/25/2015). The state persecutes torture. However, security forces repeatedly use torture during interrogation. Torture by police officers, the army and paramilitary units often goes unpunished because the victims do not know their rights, are intimidated or do not survive the torture (AA April 24, 2015). Promised police reforms are dragging on (HRW 01/29/2015).

According to human rights experts, the government continued to attempt to arrest people and to blame them for violations of the - repealed - Act on Combating Terrorism, Terrorist Acts and Destructive Acts. This law stated that confessions made in front of a police officer would be treated as admissible evidence in court (USDOS 6/25/2015).

Although India signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1997, it has not yet ratified it (AA April 24, 2015). In addition, no changes to national legislation necessary for ratification have been introduced (BICC 6.2015). A national draft law to combat torture, which is a national requirement for ratification of the UN Anti-Torture Convention, was not passed by parliament (AA April 24, 2015).

According to reliable information from the "Asia Pacific Human Rights Network", torture is systematically used by the police as a means of questioning and extorting money or as a summary punishment of alleged perpetrators (AA April 24, 2015; cf. USDOS June 25, 2015); According to reliable assessments by NGOs, deaths of prisoners are related to the use of torture. Systematic torture continues to occur in interrogation centers in Jammu and Kashmir, according to credible, confidential estimates by the ICRC. Torture is also used in other parts of the country, especially in socially disadvantaged and populous countries such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. According to reliable information from Amnesty International, torture and ill-treatment in prisons are widespread (AA April 24, 2015).

The human rights situation in India varies greatly from region to region. While civil and human rights are largely respected by the government, the situation in regions where there are internal conflicts is sometimes very bad. This applies in particular to Jammu and Kashmir and the north-east of the country (BICC 6.2015; cf. AA April 24, 2015). The security forces, but also the non-state armed groups, be they separatist organizations or militias loyal to the government, are accused of massive human rights violations. The military and paramilitary forces are charged with kidnapping, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial executions. There are fears that the new, draconian anti-terrorist legislation will worsen the human rights situation and that these laws will be misused against political opponents (BICC 6/2015). Socially weak classes and women are particularly at risk (AA April 24, 2015).

Individuals - or NGOs on behalf of individuals or groups - can submit public interest litigation petitions to any high court or directly to the Supreme Court to seek legal redress for public violations. These complaints can be a violation of government duties by a government employee or a violation of constitutional regulations. NGOs very much appreciate these motions to hold government officials accountable to civil society organizations for corruption and partiality (USDOS June 25, 2015).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India

-

BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2015):

Information service - security, armaments and development in recipient countries of German arms exports: Country information India,

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/20157/haben.pdf, accessed on November 9, 2015

-

HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

-

USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

6. Corruption

Corruption is widespread (USDOS 6/25/2015). India appears in the 2014 corruption index of Transparency International on place 85 (note: 2013 place 94) out of a total of 175 countries (TI 12.2014).

The fight against corruption was intensified through domestic and international pressure. Although politicians and officials are caught taking bribes every year, there are numerous cases of corruption that go unnoticed and go unpunished. National and international pressure has led to legal measures to combat corruption. After years of large-scale social mobilization by activists, Parliament passed the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Law, which the President signed in January 2014. The law creates independent state bodies to which complaints about corrupt officials or politicians can be directed and which are empowered to investigate the complaints and prosecute convictions in court. At the federal level, this facility is called Lok Pal, and the law requires states to set up their own anti-corruption institutions, known as Lokayuktas, within a year. However, questions about enforcement remain open. Since 2008 at least 29 "right to information activists" have been murdered and 164 have been attacked or harassed (FH January 28, 2015).

The law provides penalties for corruption in the public service, but the government has not effectively implemented the law and, in practice, public officials often get away with corrupt practices. Corruption is present at all levels of government. The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) registered 583 cases of corruption during the investigation period [note: January to November].The CBI operates a toll-free hotline - to record complaints - and a web portal to publish information (USDOS June 25, 2015).

NGOs report that bribes are commonly used to expedite legal proceedings, for police protection, for school enrollment, or access to water supplies or grants. Civil society organizations drew public attention to the issue of corruption throughout 2014 through public demonstrations and websites (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The government appointed Chief Vigilance Offifers to investigate public complaints and grievances in banking, insurance and other sectors serviced by private, public and corporate bodies. Parliament passed a law on ombudsman organization, Lok Pal, in December to investigate allegations of government corruption (USDOS 6/25/2015).

The lower areas of the judiciary are particularly affected by corruption and most citizens have difficulties obtaining justice through the courts (FH January 28, 2015). Many government-sponsored programs for poverty reduction and job creation suffered from corruption. (USDOS 6/25/2015).

A new helpline to help people deal with government bribery claims in the capital, Delhi, received more than 4,000 calls in the first few hours of its existence. The Anti-Corruption Helpline is an initiative of the new Aam Aadami (Common Citizens) Party (AAP), which governs Delhi with the support of the Congress Party. This helpline is available 14 hours a day and is intended to help fight everyday corruption (BBC 9/1/2014).

Swell: