Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

94. Having considered the evidence in its totality, we highlight certain of its features only. We draw attention particularly to the evidence pertaining to the “ Colectivo de Refugiados ” (the “Colectivo”). There is clear evidence that the Appellant interacted with this organisation following his release from prison and, in this way, secured forged travel documents to facilitate his entry to the United Kingdom and benefited from accommodation here, shared with another ETA beneficiary of the Colectivo’s services, LS: see [10] – [19] supra . There is expert evidence that the Colectivo is a peaceful organisation which operates openly in France where it is not proscribed. It exists to provide solidarity and support to released ETA prisoners. 95. In this context, it is convenient to address the topic of the Appellant’s association with LS and the London accommodation. The evidence indicates that LS was already accommodated in the relevant premises upon the Appellant’s arrival. It cannot be gainsaid that the two men associated with each other thereafter, until the Appellant’s arrest. However, there is no primary evidence that the Appellant was harbouring LS or obstructed justice on this front. Nor can this be properly inferred from any primary evidence. This analysis is fortified by the contents of the EAW: see [15] – [16] above. While there is mention of LS in the text, there is no allegation that the Appellant was instrumental in harbouring him. Indeed, au contraire, it is asserted that LS “ lodged ” the Appellant in London.