A real risk of death, torture, violence, or arbitrary detention is generally sufficient to satisfy ‘persecution’ under the Refugee Convention. Where, however, physical harm will only arise if a claimant were to exercise certain human rights upon return, jurisprudential uncertainty reigns. Only a few individuals are impelled to become ‘martyrs’ through open dissent. Courts strongly endorse these dissenters’ entitlement to international protection even if they could avoid retribution through self-censorship. A second group – ‘a silent minority’ – are those who would actually refrain from exercising their rights to avoid physical harm. Most jurisprudence appears to accept that such a situation may sometimes amount to persecution. Unlike martyrs, however, these claimants are required to meet control devices based upon the severity of the human rights restriction, and/or the mental effects of self-censorship on the claimant. These are, however, both arbitrary and unprincipled. This article argues the real harm felt by martyrs and the silent minority is the same: the forcible suppression of their enjoyment of human rights. Importantly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ approach to military service, religious, and sexuality cases already embodies this principle. To generalize, this ‘suppressive’ persecution arises when (a) claimants sincerely wish to engage in actions which (b) are international human rights entitlements and (c) they face objective conditions of sufficient duress such that they cannot reasonably assert their rights through civil disobedience. When States or private actors suppress the exercise of rights by duress in this way, those affected suffer a denial of rights amounting to persecution. This analysis should apply whether a claimant would be a martyr or would be intimidated into self-censorship.

中文翻译：

---

殉难与沉默之间：异议、胁迫和迫害作为《难民公约》下的人权压制

死亡、酷刑、暴力或任意拘留的真实风险通常足以满足《难民公约》下的“迫害”。然而，只有当索赔人在返回后行使某些人权时才会发生人身伤害，因此法理上的不确定性占主导地位。只有少数人通过公开的异议被迫成为“烈士”。法院强烈支持这些持不同政见者享有国际保护的权利，即使他们可以通过自我审查来避免报复。第二组——“沉默的少数”——是那些实际上会避免行使其权利以避免人身伤害的人。大多数判例似乎都承认这种情况有时可能构成迫害。然而，与烈士不同的是，根据人权限制的严重程度和/或自我审查对索赔人的心理影响，这些索赔人必须满足控制设备。然而，这些都是武断的和无原则的。本文认为烈士和沉默的少数人所感受到的真正伤害是一样的：强行压制他们享有人权。重要的是，联合国难民事务高级专员对兵役、宗教和性案件的处理方式已经体现了这一原则。概括地说，这种“压制性”迫害发生在以下情况下：(a) 原告真诚地希望从事 (b) 属于国际人权权利的行动，以及 (c) 他们面临足够胁迫的客观条件，以至于他们无法通过民事诉讼合理地维护自己的权利。不服从。当国家或私人行为者以这种方式通过胁迫压制权利的行使时，受影响的人将遭受相当于迫害的权利被剥夺。无论索赔人是烈士还是被恐吓进行自我审查，这种分析都应适用。