Are Indians respected outside of India

dish

REASONS FOR DECISION:

I. Procedure:

The complainant, an Indian citizen, entered the federal territory illegally and applied for international protection on June 21, 2016. She was questioned in writing on the same day by organs of the public security service. The complainant stated that she was born on XXXX in XXXX / India. She belongs to the Sikh religious community and the Tarkan ethnic group. She attended elementary school in her home country for 12 years and most recently worked as a self-employed tailor. Your father has already passed away. Her mother, brother and sister would be residing in India. She made the decision to leave the country in March 2016. She left her place of residence on July 2nd, 2016. Your uncle organized the trip. The trip cost 1,000,000 Indian rupees and the tugboat was contacted by her uncle. The complainant stated that her reason for fleeing was that her family had wanted to marry her off against her will. Her uncle helped her leave the country. Her uncle said it would be better for her to leave the country. Upon her return, she feared that her family would marry her off against her will.

During the written questioning on March 27, 2018 before the BFA, the complainant stated that she was not receiving medical treatment and was not taking any medication. Unfortunately, you also do not have a life-threatening illness. When asked whether she spoke German, the applicant replied "A little bit" in English. She speaks best Punjabi and Hindi. Her mother and two siblings are living in her home country. She has not had any since she was in Austria More contact with her family members. She does not know how her family members are doing. She entered Austria illegally and stayed in Austria continuously. She is not a member of an association or organization. She also does not have any legal work I also have no relatives in Austria. She also does not live with a person in a family community or a family-like community. The complainant gave the following reason for fleeing: "A: My family wanted me to marry a man who was twice my age and had a son who was my age, the former was already married, and my family is financially in middle school cht, but the man I should have married was very wealthy. His son died in Australia about 7 years ago. My father committed suicide because of unrecoverable debts because he was harassed by the creditors. The man I was supposed to marry came to our house more often. Two or three creditors reported to us that the man I was supposed to marry then paid the debt. Since the man's son had passed away and he needed an heir, he needed another child. That I should have given birth. My parents tried to persuade me, but I said no right away. I no longer had anyone on my side, my family no longer had any contact with my father's other relatives. My family tried to talk to me lovingly, but I didn't want to waste my life and wanted to make something of myself, so I turned down the wedding. After my rejection, they tried to talk to me and tortured me more mentally in every way. I told my maternal uncle about the incident, he knew it was a good decision for me and he helped me. If I had accepted the wedding, I would have committed suicide or would have died from torture by my family. My uncle said I should wait a few more days before he found a way out. My uncle then found escape as a way out. He told me that I cannot live in India because there is no one on my side. He was the only one who helped me this far. 7 or 8 months ago this uncle also died. So I no longer have anyone in India who can help me. My uncle thought I was safe here. Now I'm here, but I can't go back to India. "The forced marriage was planned for March or April 2016. Subsequently, it was stated:" L: According to you, the man you should have married was already married . Polygamy is illegal in India. What do you think?

A: That's right, but he wanted an heir, that was his intention. His wife also agreed.

L: When and how did you hear about your uncle's death?

A: I was in contact with him. When I called him, I found out from his son that he was dead. That was when he died.

L: Did you take action against the forced marriage you specified, e.g. file a complaint?

A: I didn't file a complaint, I didn't have anyone on my side. When asked, I state that my uncle lived in New Delhi and I in Punjab, so I was not able to help with a complaint.

L: Then why should your uncle have been able to help you leave the country, where at least a valid passport, a ticket, smuggling assistance and, according to your statements, 1,000,000 Indian rupees were required?

A: I didn't want to be against my family and file a complaint because there are already thousands of such cases in India. In the end, these girls commit suicide because they cannot be helped. I didn't want to see myself in these girls, so we decided to leave.

L: Why didn't you settle in another part of India?

A: I had no one in other areas to help me.

L: You were self-employed as a tailor and thus capable of self-sustaining. Therefore, assuming the reasons for flight you stated to be truthful, an alternative domestic flight would have been reasonable and possible for you. What do you think?

A: But I didn't feel safe in India, I did what my uncle suggested because I didn't feel safe there.

L: India has over 1.2 billion inhabitants and there is no registration system. Therefore, you would have been able to live safely in another part of India. What do you think?

A: The main thing is that I don't want to live there in India because I don't want to experience these situations and do not want to commit suicide like thousands of other girls who are forcibly married.

L: That wouldn't be the case with you either if you settled in a safe place in another part of India. What do you think?

A: I know the situation would escalate there. If I could live in India, I would live there. I didn't feel safe in India, so I took this step. When asked, I stated that by the escalation of the situation I meant that I would either die from my family through torture or through suicide. I know that India is very big, you could have lived there too, but the reason why I am not there but here is the forced marriage.

L: Can you provide evidence to show that you have been persecuted or threatened by a third party?

On a.

Concerns about a return:

L: What do you fear if you return to your home country?

A: When you leave your own country, you think about it a thousand times. I don't have the strength to relive these situations, you read in the newspaper every day that there are thousands of such incidents.

L: Are there any specific indications that you face inhuman treatment, inhuman punishment or the death penalty if you return or that you would face some kind of sanctions if you return to your home country?

On a. But I don't want to go to India, I don't have the strength to experience this situation. I only had to expect government sanctions if I broke the law. I want to make something of myself and stand on my own two feet. I don't want to be forced into marriage and have children.

L: We will now discuss with you on what basis and on the basis of which state determinations the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) will come to a decision in your case. The statements based on the general situation in the country of origin are based on a compilation of the state documentation of the BFA from January 2017, last brief information from December 21, 2017. This is obliged to be objective and is subject to the observation of an advisory board. It can therefore be assumed that all findings originate from reputable governmental and non-governmental bodies, have been compiled in a balanced manner and therefore there are no concerns about relying on them.

From the general situation itself, as well as from your personal characteristics, nothing can be inferred that would suggest persecution or fear of such in the sense of the NVC and the reasons stated therein. The risk situation you put in the room is not relevant to asylum.

Likewise, nothing can be ascertained that poses a real danger to your life or health or poses a serious threat to your life or integrity as a civil person as a result of arbitrary violence in the context of an international or domestic conflict. Such a risk cannot be inferred either from the general situation in the country of origin or from a possible life-threatening illness that cannot be adequately treated in your country of origin.

In view of the shortness of your stay and the lack of family or private ties in Austria, it is not evident that a return decision would constitute an unjustified encroachment on your right to respect for family and private life. "

With the decision of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum dated June 12, 2018, the complainant's application for international protection pursuant to Section 3 (1) in conjunction with Section 2 (1) no.13 AsylG 2005 (ruling point I.) and regarding the granting of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection was granted Rejected with regard to the country of origin India in accordance with Section 8 (1) in conjunction with Section 2 (1) no. 13 AsylG 2005 (point II.). A residence permit for reasons worthy of consideration according to § 57 AsylG 2005 was not granted (point III.). Pursuant to Section 10 (1) 3 AsylG 2005 in conjunction with Section 9 BFA-VG, a return decision was issued against the complainant in accordance with Section 52 (2) 2 FPG and, pursuant to Section 52 (9) FPG, it was established that the complainant's deportation according to Section 46 FPG India is permissible. According to Section 55 (1) to (3) FPG, the period for voluntary departure is 14 days after the return decision becomes final (point IV.).

In order to provide evidence, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum stated that the specific reasons for leaving the country of origin were not credible: "On a personal level, you have not succeeded in appearing credible to the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum .

During the trial you submitted on the one hand that you should have been forcibly married in your home country and that you had no one in India to support you. On the other hand, you stated that an uncle of yours would have organized your escape from India within a few days, which required at least a valid passport, a ticket, smuggling assistance and, according to you, 1,000,000 Indian rupees.

You stated that the forced marriage you alleged was planned for March or April 2016 (pages 5 and 6 of the EV dated March 22, 2018). However, you did not leave India until June 2016 (page 3 of the EB dated June 21, 2016).

In India, polygamy is also forbidden, as is clear from the state determinations of the Federal Office for your country of origin India. The man you should have married was already married at this point.

You have indicated that you have not taken any action against the threatened forced marriage you have indicated, such as filing a report with the police.

You have not been able to produce any evidence to support specific persecution or threat from a third party against you.

As can now be clearly seen from the above, it was not credible to the authority responsible that the facts you brought into the meeting were the reason for your departure, but rather it can be assumed that you emigrated purely in the interest of emigration and only Put up a fictitious submission to justify your application for international protection without actually being affected by the submission.

If, contrary to the above statements with regard to the unbelievability of your information, one arrives at the assumption that your allegations could correspond to the facts, the status of a person entitled to asylum could not be granted. Your submission is not suitable to make an asylum-relevant fear of persecution within the meaning of the GFK credible, especially since it could not be assumed in any way that the Indian state and its authorities would not be willing and would not try to prevent such incidents from happening to its citizens protect. This can be clearly seen from the above statements on the situation in the home country and does not change anything that, as in any other state, comprehensive protection against criminal activities is not always possible. The Indian state is basically functional, willing and capable of protection.

The Federal Office does not assume that you will be persecuted in your home country, but it should be mentioned that there is no registration system in your home country and that you would therefore not be easily traceable. It can therefore be assumed that you have the option of settling in another part of the country in India, should you actually have problems in your home town.

In addition, according to the case law of the VwGH, the persecution or the objectively justified fear of such must have existed in the entire national territory of an asylum seeker (cf. Dec. of the VwGH of June 21, 1994, Zl. 94/20/0333).

Your information and claims about your ability to work and your family ties were understandable and believed to be credible. They also stated that they attended elementary school for at least twelve years. You also stated that you last worked as a self-employed seamstress.

Family members also live in your country of origin, which is why you have points of contact in the event of a return.

Since you are not threatened with persecution in your country of origin and you have points of contact in your country of origin, the authorities assume that you are not threatened with any dangers in your country of origin that would justify granting subsidiary protection.

Overall, it is therefore clear to the Federal Office that you have not been exposed to any asylum-related persecution in your home country and that you will not be so after your return.

It can be assumed that after returning to India you would not find yourself in a situation that threatened your livelihood, if only because you are basically a healthy woman of working age who has evidently already found her livelihood in India . The fact that it would be unreasonable for you to earn your living after returning, if necessary also through casual work, or to orientate yourself professionally differently, neither results from your information nor can it be with regard to the possibly. Based on the country information on which the decision is based, it is recognized that the objective situation in India would make this seem hopeless from the outset.

Taken as a whole, your submissions did not reveal any indications that there had been specific asylum-related persecution directed against you or that justified your flight. "

A complaint was lodged against this decision in a timely manner.

II. The Federal Administrative Court has considered:

1. Findings:

The applicant is a national of India and comes from the Punjab. The complainant attended school in India for 12 years and most recently worked as a self-employed tailor. The complainant filed an application for international protection on June 21, 2016. The complainant has no family members living in Austria and has no close social ties in the federal territory. The complainant is criminally harmless. The complainant has no significant knowledge of German. No relevant indications can be found for the assumption that the complainant is sufficiently integrated in Austria from a linguistic, social and professional point of view. She is healthy and able to work.

It cannot be established that the complainant has left her country of origin for the reasons given by her.

On the general political and human rights situation in India, the country information sheet is used as a basis for the state documentation and, in particular, the following ascertains:

Political situation:

With over 1.2 billion people and a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, India is the most populous democracy in the world (CIA Factbook 12.12.2016; see also: AA 16.8.2016, BBC 27.9.2016). The diversity of India - also linguistically - is also reflected in its federal political system, in which power is shared by the central government and the states (BBC 09/27/2016). The central government has significantly greater powers than the state governments (AA 9.2016a). 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 April 13, 2016). The capital New Delhi has a special legal status (AA 9.2016a).

The separation of powers between parliament and government corresponds to the British model (AA 16.8.2016), the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary is enforced (AA 9.2016a). The independence of the judiciary, which has a three-tier instance, is constitutionally guaranteed (AA 16.8.2016). The Supreme Court in New Delhi heads the judiciary (GIZ 11.2016). 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 vibrant civil society (AA 9.2016a).

India is a parliamentary democracy and has a multi-party system and a bicameral parliament (USDOS 13.4.2016). The legislature consists of a People's Chamber (Lok Sabha) and a Chamber of States (Rajya Sabha). In addition, there are parliaments at the state level (AA 08/16/2016).

The President is the head of state and is elected by an electoral committee, while the Prime Minister is the head of government (USDOS 13.4.2016). The office of president primarily entails representative tasks, but the president has far-reaching powers in the event of a crisis. President Pranab Kumar Mukherjee has been Indian head of state since July 2012 (AA 9.2016a). However, the prime minister holds the most important office within the executive (GIZ 11.2016).

Elections to the House of Commons take place every five years according to simple majority voting ("first-past-the-post"), most recently in April / May 2014 with almost 830 million eligible voters (AA August 16, 2016). Three major party alliances faced each other: The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by the Congress Party, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP - Indian People's Party) and the so-called Third Front, which consists of eleven regional - and left-wing parties as well as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which emerged from part of the India Against Corruption movement (GIZ 11.2016; see also: FAZ 16.5.2014). Apart from a few minor disruptions, the elections were correct and free (AA August 16, 2016).

As the clear winner with 336 out of 543 seats, the party alliance NDA (AA August 16, 2016), with the Hindu-nationalist BJP (AA 9.2016a) as the strongest party (282 seats), replaced Congress in government (AA August 16, 2016) . The congress-led coalition under Manmohan Singh, which has ruled since 2004, suffered great losses, with which Sonia Gandhi and son Rahul now move to the opposition bench (Eurasisches Magazin May 24, 2014; cf. also:

FAZ May 16, 2014, GIZ 11/2016). The AAP, which won 28 out of 70 seats in the 2013 election in Delhi, has now only won four seats nationwide (GIZ 11.2016; see also: FAZ 16.5.2014). The BJP's top candidate, the previous Prime Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, was elected Prime Minister (AA 16.8.2016) and has headed a 65-member cabinet since 16.5.2014 (GIZ 11.2016) (AA 16.8.2016).

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 12.2016).

Under Prime Minister Modi, India is pursuing a more active foreign policy than before. The earlier strategy of "strategic autonomy" is increasingly being overshadowed by a policy of "multiple partnerships" with all major countries in the world. The most important goal of Indian foreign policy is to create a peaceful and stable global environment for the country's economic development and to raise its profile as an emerging great power (AA 9.2016b). A permanent seat on the UN Security Council remains a strategic goal (GIZ 12/2016). At the same time, India is striving for greater regional ties with its neighbors. India is a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a member of the "ASEAN Regional Forum" (ARF). In recent months, India has also stepped up its bilateral initiatives in neighboring countries. India is also taking part in the East Asia Summit and, since 2007, in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). In February 2016, India took over this year's chairmanship from Russia in the BRICS group of states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). At its meeting in Ufa in July 2015, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) decided to accept India and Pakistan as full members after completing the accession procedures (AA 9.2016b).

Relations with its neighbors Pakistan, who are also nuclear armed, have recently come to a head again. In the decades since independence, phases of dialogue and tension, including armed conflict, have repeatedly followed one another.

The biggest obstacle to improving relationships is still the cashmere problem (AA 9.2016b).

India achieved a breakthrough with the nuclear agreement with the USA. Although it refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty to this day, the agreement means access to nuclear technology. India's relationship with China has also developed positively. The controversial border issues have not yet been resolved, but confidence-building measures have been agreed so that at least this issue no longer provokes a conflict. There is also interest in a further increase in bilateral trade, which has increased more than tenfold within a decade (GIZ 12.2016).

Relations with Bangladesh are of a special nature, as the two states share a border over 4,000 km long, India controls the upper reaches of Bangladesh's most important rivers, and India played a key role in the development of Bangladesh. Difficult issues such as transit, border lines, unregulated border crossings and migration, water distribution and smuggling are discussed in regular government talks. The country's relations with the EU are particularly important from an economic point of view. The EU is India's largest trade and investment partner. The trade in goods in both directions has in fact steadily expanded (GIZ 12.2016).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

AA - Foreign Office (9.2016a): India, domestic policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_AC539C62A8F3AE6159C84F7909652AC5/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/innenpolitik_node.html, accessed December 5, 2016

-

AA - Foreign Office (9.2016b): India, foreign policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_F210BC76845F7B2BE813A33858992D23/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/Aussenpolitik_node.html, accessed on December 29, 2016

-

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (27.9.2016): India country profile - Overview,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on December 5, 2016

-

CIA - Central Intelligence Agency (November 15, 2016): The World Factbook

-

India,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html, accessed on 9.1.2017

-

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 4.1.2017

-

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 4.1.2017

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (12.2016): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on December 5, 2016

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmBH (11.2016): India, Economic System and Economic Policy, http://liportal.giz.de/haben/wirtschaft-entwicklung/, accessed on December 5, 2016

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 5, 2016

Security situation

India is rich in tensions along ethnic lines, religions, castes and also life perspectives. Contradictions, contradictions or conflicts are discharged in the social arenas and are taken up, processed and in some cases instrumentalized by politics (GIZ 11.2016). 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 11.2016). The state monopoly on the use of force is being called into question in some areas by the activities of the "Naxalites" (AA August 16, 2016).

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 (AA April 24, 2015). The South Asia Terrorism Portal recorded 1,073 deaths from terrorism-related violence for 2011, 803 for 2012, 885 for 2013, 976 for 2014, 722 for 2015 and 835 for 2016 [Note: the figures quoted include civilians, security forces and terrorists] (SATP 09/01/2017).

Conflict regions are Jammu and Kashmir, the northeastern regions and the Maoist belt. Attacks by Maoist rebels on security forces and infrastructure continued in Jharkhand and Bihar. In Punjab there were repeated assassinations and bomb attacks by violent opponents of the government. In addition to the Islamist terrorists, the Naxalites (Maoist underground fighters) contribute to the destabilization of the country. From Chattisgarh they fight in many union states (from Bihar in the north to Andrah Pradesh in the south) with armed force against state institutions. In the north-east of the country, numerous separatist groups are fighting against state power and demanding either independence or more autonomy (United Liberation Front Assom, National Liberation Front Tripura, National Socialist Council Nagaland, Manipur People's Liberation Front, etc.). Hindu radicalism, which is directed against minorities such as Muslims and Christians, is seldom officially classified in the terror category, but rather referred to as "communal violence" (ÖB 12.2016).

The government acts with great severity and consistency against militant groups, who mostly advocate the independence of certain regions and / or adhere to radical views. If such groups renounce violence, negotiations about their demands are usually possible. Nonviolent independence groups are free to be politically active (AA August 16, 2016).

Pakistan and India

Pakistan neither recognizes the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union in 1947 nor the de facto division of the region between the two states since the first war in the same year. India, on the other hand, takes the position that Jammu and Kashmir as a whole are not part of India (AA 9.2016b). There have already been three wars since 1947, two of them due to the disputed Kashmiri area. Peace talks, which began in 2004, continued despite tensions over the Kashmir region and repeated heavy bombings until the attacks by Islamists in Mumbai in 2008 (BBC 09/27/2016).

India accuses Pakistan of at least tolerating, if not promoting, infiltration of terrorists into Indian territory. Major terrorist attacks in India in 2001 and 2008 and the recent terrorist attack on a military base in the Indian part of Kashmir had significantly increased tensions in bilateral relations. India responded to the attack, in which 18 Indian soldiers were killed, with a limited military operation ("surgical strike") in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, which, according to Indian sources, was directed against an impending terrorist infiltration. As a result, there are repeated exchanges of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops on the armistice line in Kashmir. India sees Pakistan as responsible for the terrorist threats on its northwest border and is increasing the pressure on its neighbors to achieve effective Pakistani measures against terrorism (AA 9.2016b). At a meeting in New York at the end of September 2013, Prime Ministers Singh and Sharif merely agreed to better comply with the ceasefire in the future (GIZ 11.2016a). The dialogue process between the two sides, which gave hope from 2014-2015, has come to a standstill over current developments. On Christmas Day 2015, Prime Minister Modi paid his Pakistani counterpart a surprise visit and thus briefly raised hopes of an easing of the situation (AA 9.2016b).

Swell:

-

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

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

AA - Foreign Office (9.2016b): India - Foreign Policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_09493FC61FD08185D486477F8D93E1EE/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/Aussenpolitik_node.html, accessed December 5, 2016

-

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (27.9.2016): India country profile - Overview,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on December 5, 2016

-

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 December 5, 2016

-

GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (11.2016a): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on December 5, 2016

-

ÖB - Austrian Embassy New Delhi (12.2016):

Asylum Country Report India

-

SATP - South Asia Terrorism Portal (9.1.2017): Data Sheet - India Fatalities: 1994-2016,

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/database/indiafatalities.htm, accessed on 9.1.2017

Legal protection / judicial system

In India, many fundamental rights and freedoms are constitutionally enshrined and the constitutionally guaranteed independent Indian judiciary remains a much more important guarantee of rights. However, the often long duration of proceedings due to overburdened and understaffed courts as well as widespread corruption, especially in criminal proceedings, significantly limit legal security (AA August 16, 2016; cf. also:

USDOS 13.4.2016). A generally discriminatory criminal prosecution or sentencing practice cannot be established, but the lower levels in particular are not free from corruption (AA April 24, 2015).

The judiciary is separate from the executive (FH January 27, 2016). The judicial system is divided into the Supreme Court, the highest court with seat in Delhi; which, as a constitutional court, regulates disputes between central government and Union states. It is also the body of appeal for certain categories of judgments, such as death sentences. The High Court is in every state of the Union. Collegial court as an appeal instance in both civil and criminal matters. He also oversees the service and personnel of the state's lower courts in order to shield the judiciary from the influence of the executive. Subordinate Civil and Criminal Courts are subordinate courts in the districts of the respective Union states and divided into civil and criminal law. Cases are decided by single judges. Judges at the District and Sessions Court decide both civil and criminal cases (as District Judge on civil law cases, as Sessions Judge on criminal cases). Below the District Judge there is the Subordinate Judge, below the Munsif for civil matters. Under the Sessions Judge, the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate and, under this, the 2nd Class Judicial Magistrate, each act for less serious criminal matters (ÖB 12.2016).

The judiciary continues to be overburdened and the backlog in the courts leads to long delays or the withholding of justice. An analysis by the Ministry of Justice revealed a vacancy of 34% of the judges' positions in the higher courts on August 1, 2015 (USDOS April 13, 2016). 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 often do not testify freely in court because they were bribed or threatened (AA 16.8.2016; cf.also: USDOS 13.4.2016).

Judges showed considerable commitment in the processing of so-called "Public Interest Litigation" (lawsuits in the public interest). Corruption is particularly widespread in the lower levels of the judiciary and most citizens have great difficulty in enforcing their rights in court. The system is backward and severely understaffed, leading to long pre-trial detention periods for large numbers of suspects. Many of them stay in prison longer than the actual sentence would be (FH January 27, 2016). Accordingly, the duration of pre-trial detention is usually excessively long. Except in the case of offenses threatened by the death penalty, the judge should order a detention review and a release on bail after half of the impending maximum sentence has expired. 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 August 16, 2016).

Rule of law guarantees enshrined in the constitution (e.g. the right to a fair trial) 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 (AA August 16, 2016).

Police arrest a suspect without an arrest warrant can only last 24 hours under general law. Charges should be brought within 60 days for offenses with a threat of punishment of up to ten years, and within 90 days for cases with a higher threat of punishment. However, arrests are often made for preventive security reasons as well as under special internal security laws, e.g. the National Security Act, 1956 or the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. , 1978). Arrested persons can be held in preventive detention for up to one year without charge under these laws. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, people can also be detained for several days for the hearing of witnesses if there is a risk of escape. The Federal Foreign Office is not aware of any cases of clan liability (AA August 16, 2016).

It cannot be ruled out that unauthorized investigative methods are used, in particular to obtain a confession. This applies in particular to cases with a terrorist or political background or those with a particular public interest. There are cases where inmates are mistreated. The ethnic or religious affiliation as well as the political convictions of the victim can play a role here. An empirical report on the death penalty in India published in May 2016 by the renowned National Law University Delhi paints a bleak picture of the Indian criminal justice system. For example, 80% of all death row inmates stated that they had been tortured in custody (AA August 16, 2016).

Defendants are presumed innocent, except in the case of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, and have the right to freely choose their lawyer. The criminal law provides for public hearings, except in proceedings in which the statements 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 (USDOS 13/4/2016) The law allows defendants access to relevant government evidence in most civil and criminal cases, but the government does reserves the right to withhold information, including in cases it deems sensitive, defendants have the right to face the prosecutor and present their own witnesses and evidence, but defendants have sometimes been able to do so due to the lack of evidence not exercise proper legal representation, courts are required tet to proclaim judgments publicly and there are effective avenues of appeal at almost all levels of justice. Defendants have the right to refuse to testify and not to plead guilty (USDOS April 13, 2016).

Court summons in criminal matters are regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC, Chapter 4, §§61-69), in civil law matters in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908/2002. Each summons must be issued in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding judge and provided with a court seal.

According to the CrPC, summons are in principle delivered to the person concerned personally by a police officer or a court officer. He has to confirm receipt. In the absence, the cargo can be handed over to an adult male member of the family, who will confirm receipt. If the consignment cannot be delivered, a copy of the consignment will be visibly attached to the summoned residence. The court will then decide whether the summons was lawful or whether a new summons will be issued. A copy of the summons can also be sent by registered mail to the home or work address of the person concerned. If the court becomes aware that the person concerned has refused to accept the summons, the summons is still deemed to have been served. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, summons to the court can also take place via a court-approved courier service (ÖB 12.2016).

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 members of the lower castes (FH January 27, 2016).

Swell:

-

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

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

FH - Freedom House (January 27, 2016): Freedom in the World 2016 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/327703/468368_de.html, accessed December 7, 2016

-

ÖB - Austrian Embassy New Delhi (12.2016):

Asylum Country Report India

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 6, 2016

Security agencies

The Indian Police Service is not a direct law enforcement or law enforcement agency (BICC 6.2016) and is subordinate to the states (AA 16.8.2016). 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 on a decentralized basis in the individual states. However, given a national police law, numerous national criminal laws and the central executive recruitment office, the individual units have a number of things in common. In general, the police are entrusted with law enforcement, crime prevention and control, and the maintenance of public order, while at the same time exercising partial control over the various secret services. Within the police there is a Criminal Investigation Department (CID), in which a special unit (Special Branch) is integrated. While the former is entrusted with national and interstate crimes, the task of the special unit is to gather information and monitor all subversive elements and persons. In almost every state, special police units have been set up to deal with women and children. Most of the law enforcement agencies are controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs (BICC 6.2016).

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, extrajudicial killings and threats that were allegedly perpetrated by the police (BICC 6.2016; see also: USDOS 13.4.2016). The police remain overworked, underpaid and exposed to political pressure, which in some cases leads to corruption. (USDOS 4/13/2016). Promised police reforms were delayed again in 2015 (HRW January 27, 2016).

The effectiveness of law enforcement and security forces varies widely across the country. While there are cases of police officers / officials who act with impunity at all levels, there were also cases in which security officers were held accountable for their illegal actions (USDOS April 13, 2016).

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 6.2016). The military can be deployed domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security (AA August 16, 2016; see also: BICC 6.2016), for example in the fight against armed insurgents, in support of the police and paramilitary units, and in operations in the event of natural disasters (BICC 6/2016).

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 extensive 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 and Nagaland are currently considered unrest areas (AA August 16, 2016 cf. USDOS June 25, 2015).

The Indian paramilitary units deployed in the central Indian states affected by left-wing extremist groups (so-called Naxalites) are largely subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior (AA August 16, 2016). These include in particular the National Security Guard (Nationale Sicherheitspolizei NSG), a special force for personal protection composed of members of the army and the police, also known as the "Black Cat", the Rahtriya Rifles, a special force for the protection of traffic and communication links in the event of civil unrest to fight armed rebellions, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - the Federal Reserve Police, a militarily equipped police force for special operations -, the Border Security Force (BSF - Federal Border Guard), as the largest and best equipped militia to protect the borders with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. But it is also used to maintain internal order in other parts of the country. The Assam Rifles - responsible for border defense in the northeast - the Indo-Tibetan Border Force (ITBP) as the Indo-Tibetan border police and the coast guard, the Railway Protective Force to protect the national railways and the Central Industrial Security Force, belong to the security of the State-owned companies on this (ÖB 12.2016). Particularly in unrest areas, the security forces have extensive powers to combat secessionist and terrorist groups, which are often used excessively (AA 16.8.2016).

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" - foreign secret service) (AA April 24, 2015; cf. also USDOS 25.6. 2015).

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) .

Swell:

-

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

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2016):

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

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/201607/haben.pdf, accessed on December 7, 2016

-

HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed on December 21, 2016

-

ÖB - Austrian Embassy New Delhi (12.2016):

Asylum Country Report India

-

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 on 4.1.2017

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 7, 2016

Torture and Inhuman Treatment

India signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1997, but has not yet ratified it (AA 16.8.2016). In addition, no changes to national legislation necessary for ratification have been introduced (BICC 6.2016). 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 August 16, 2016).

Torture is banned in India (AA August 16, 2016) and the Indian state generally persecutes torturers and organizes campaigns to raise awareness among the security forces, but human rights violations by police officers and paramilitary units often go unpunished and do not even lead to investigations. Members of the lower castes and other socially disadvantaged sections of the population are particularly at risk (ÖB 12.2016). Statements obtained as a result of torture are not permitted for use in court (AA August 16, 2016; see also: USDOS April 13, 2016). The law thus bans torture, but there are reports from NGOs that such practices are widespread, especially in conflict areas (USDOS April 13, 2016). 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 August 16, 2016).

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 August 16, 2016; see also: USDOS April 13, 2016); According to reliable assessments by NGOs, deaths of prisoners are related to the use of torture (AA August 16, 2016).

According to human rights experts, the government continued to attempt to arrest people and accuse them of violating the - repealed - Act on Counter-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 04/13/2016).

According to reliable, confidential estimates by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), systematic torture continues in the interrogation centers in Jammu and Kashmir. 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 August 16, 2016).

Despite the training for senior police officers, arbitrary arrests, torture and forced confessions by security forces remain widespread (ÖB 12.2016).

There are always arbitrary attacks by the state organs, especially the police, especially against prisoners in police custody. In some cases, arbitrary and unreported arrests have been reported, with the detainee being deprived of sufficient water and food. With a number of exceptions, illegal acts in this area will be punished. The courts seised have shown increased responsibility in recent years, especially since NGOs and the press are critical of the cases they have become aware of. Human rights organizations and the National Human Rights Commission also report on attacks by the military and paramilitary groups during their operations inside the country (especially in Jammu and Kashmir as well as in Northeast India). These, too, are occasionally punished by (military) courts, but the process and the outcome of the process remain secret (ÖB 12.2016).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2016):

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

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/201607/haben.pdf, accessed on December 7, 2016

-

ÖB - Austrian Embassy New Delhi (12.2016):

Asylum Country Report India

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 7, 2016

corruption

Corruption is widespread (USDOS April 13, 2016). India appears in the 2015 corruption index of Transparency International on place 76 (note: 2014 place 85 out of 175) out of a total of 168 countries (TI 2016).

NGOs report that bribes are usually paid to expedite services such as police protection, school enrollment, access to water supply or grants (USDOS April 13, 2016). 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). Corruption is present at all levels of government (USDOS 13.4.2016).

Although politicians and officials are caught taking bribes every year, there are numerous cases of corruption that go unnoticed and go unpunished (FH January 27, 2016). The law provides for penalties for corruption in the public service, in practice public servants with corrupt practices often get away with impunity (USDOS 13.4.2016). National and international pressure has led to legal measures to combat corruption. The Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Law, signed by the President in 2014, established independent state bodies to which complaints about corrupt officials or politicians can be addressed and which are empowered to investigate the complaints and prosecute convictions in court. Although Modi and his government officials have signaled support for the law, there is little evidence that it is being implemented effectively. The right to information (RTI) created in 2005 is mainly used to increase transparency and to expose corrupt machinations, although there are questions of implementation. Since the law was passed, at least 45 "right to information activists" have been murdered and more than 250 have been attacked or harassed (FH January 27, 2016).

Corruption also sometimes hinders government programs to investigate alleged government corruption. According to a special investigation team, officials from Lokayukta, a legal anti-corruption body, took bribes to protect against corruption raids in Karnataka. Ten people were arrested, including the son of the Ombudsman Justice Bhaskar and the Public Relations Officer of Lokayukta (USDOS April 13, 2016). In May 2015, the Lok Sabha (People's Chamber) adopted amendments to the Whistleblowers Protection Act from 2014. Members of the opposition criticized that this would further weaken the already limited effects of the law (FH January 27, 2016).

Civil society organizations drew public attention to the issue of corruption through public demonstrations and websites throughout 2015 (USDOS April 13, 2016).

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered 583 corruption cases during the investigation period [note: January to November 2015]. The CBI operates a web portal and a toll-free hotline - to record complaints (USDOS 13.4.2016). 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. This helpline is available 14 hours a day and is intended to help fight everyday corruption (BBC 9/1/2014).

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 2014 to investigate allegations of government corruption (USDOS 6/25/2015).

Individuals - or NGOs on behalf of individuals or groups - can bring so-called public interest litigation petitions to any Supreme Court or directly to the Supreme Court to seek legal redress for public violations of law. These complaints can be a violation of government duties by a government employee or a violation of constitutional provisions. NGOs very much appreciate these motions in order to hold government officials accountable to civil society organizations for corruption and partiality (USDOS April 13, 2016).

Swell:

-

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (9.1.2014): India's Delhi government's anti-corruption helpline gets thousands of calls, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25663763, accessed 12.12.2016

-

FH - Freedom House (January 27, 2016): Freedom in the World 2016 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/327703/468368_de.html, accessed December 12, 2016

-

FH - Freedom House (January 28, 2015): Freedom in the World 2015 - Indian Kashmir, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/310322/448267_de.html, accessed December 5, 2016

-

TI - Transparency International (2016): Corruption Perceptions Index 2015, http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015/, accessed December 12, 2016

-

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 on 4.1.2017

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 12, 2016

NGOs and human rights activists

India's civil society is polyphonic; There is an almost unmanageable number of non-governmental organizations (official estimates are over 3 million), including many domestic and foreign human rights organizations (AA 16.8.2016) that advocate social justice, sustainable development and human rights (USDOS 13.4.2016) . In principle, they can operate freely (AA August 16, 2016) and usually without government restrictions, investigate cases of human rights violations and publish the results (USDOS April 13, 2016). The website NGOsIndia.com contains extensive further information about the numerous human rights organizations active in various areas and regions in India (NGOsIndia.com undated).

There are no systematic state obstacles or reprisals against human rights defenders (AA 16.8.2016), but in some cases there are restrictions (USDOS 13.4.2016). It is not uncommon for NGOs to be subtle harassment by the authorities (delay or refusal of permits, especially for the receipt of foreign funds, frequent billing and financial reviews, slow processing or refusal to issue visas for foreign personnel, travel bans) and also threats, for example by the army or the police, suspended (AA August 16, 2016; see also: FH January 27, 2016). Individual human rights defenders, especially in the area of ​​social and economic rights, and journalists see their work being restricted by local authorities / police. Occasionally these are also victims of violence (AA 16.8.2016). Human rights monitors in Jammu and Kashmir were able to document human rights violations (USDOS April 13, 2016), but there are repeated attempts to intimidate journalists and human rights defenders (including arrests, license withdrawals), particularly in the conflict-affected state of Jammu and Kashmir and in northeast India, which is threatened by separatist groups, up to physical attacks. In these areas, due to the special legal framework, there is often impunity for human rights violations (AA 16.8.2016).

Although India has a strong civil society and academic community, foreign observers wishing to travel to the country to investigate human rights and other issues are sometimes denied visas. Under special circumstances, the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) allows the federal government to deny non-governmental organizations access to foreign funding (FH January 27, 2015). The government is accused of abusing this law to combat political opposition. In 2016, authorities canceled the FCRA licenses of around 20,000 NGOs for non-compliance with FCRA regulations, including unauthorized foreign funding. This leaves 13,000 legal NGOs and the first registration requests were submitted to the Ministry of the Interior in 2000 (TOI January 27, 2016).

The government typically met with domestic NGOs, responded to their inquiries, and took action in response to their reports and recommendations. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) works cooperatively with numerous NGOs and several committees of the NHRC work together with NGO representatives (USDOS 13.4.2016).

Swell:

-

AA - Federal Foreign Office (August 16, 2016): Report on the asylum and deportation-related situation in the Republic of India

-

FH - Freedom House (January 27, 2016): Freedom in the World 2016 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/327703/468368_de.html, accessed on December 13, 2016

-

NGOsIndia.com (undated): Online Database and Resources of Indian NGOs, NPOs, VOs, Funding Resources and Date, http://www.ngosindia.com/, accessed on December 13, 2016

-

TOI -Times of India (December 27, 2016): FCRA licenses of 20,000 NGOs canceled,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fcra-licences-of-20000-ngos-cancelled/articleshow/56203438.cms, accessed on 5.1.2017

-

USDOS - US Department of State (April 13, 2016): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html, accessed December 12, 2016

ombudsman