Author
Pursuant to the Asylum Act, asylum applicants are required to truthfully and fully present all facts relevant to their application for asylum.[1] This obligation also entails an effort to substantiate their statements with available evidence or, where such evidence is unavailable, to provide the MO with an adequate explanation for its absence. In practice, this can also include medical reports regarding their past persecution or serious harm.
According to Article 19c of the Asylum Act, the MO, where deemed necessary for the assessment of the asylum application, shall ensure a medical examination concerning indications of persecution or serious harm. The applicant’s consent is required for such examination, and the costs are covered by the MO. If the MO does not consider the examination necessary, it is required to inform the applicant that they may independently obtain, at their own expense, a medical examination concerning indications of past persecution or serious harm. The outcome of such a medical examination is a medical report, which serves as evidence in the further examination of the asylum application.
The law does not lay down any criteria for determining when such a medical examination should be carried out.
In addition, the MO may also proceed in accordance with Article 36 of the APC, pursuant to which an administrative authority may appoint an expert where an expert opinion is necessary for the professional assessment of facts relevant to the decision. The performance of expert activities is governed by Act No. 382/2004 Coll., and related legislation. The list of experts is maintained by the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic (MoJ) and is publicly accessible.
Furthermore, the law also permits the appointment of an ad hoc expert, i.e. a person who is not registered in the official list of experts. Such an appointment is possible provided that the person consents and:
(a) no person is registered in the relevant field or specialisation; or
(b) a registered expert is unable to perform the task, or carrying out the task would involve disproportionate difficulties or costs.[2]
The outcome of expert activity is an expert opinion, which serves as evidence in administrative proceedings. However, the expert opinion itself is assessed by the administrative authority in the same manner as other evidence, namely in accordance with the principle of free assessment of evidence.
In practice, psychiatric and other medical reports have, in some cases, successfully influenced decisions regarding an applicant’s credibility.[3]
[1] Article 6(3) of the Asylum Act.
[2] Article 15(1) of the Act No. 382/2004 Coll.
[3] Based on HRL´s experience.