7.  The first applicant is born in 1966, the second applicant is her oldest daughter, born in 1988, the third and fourth applicants are her sons, born in 1989 and 1990, and the fifth and sixth applicants are her youngest daughters, born in 1993 and 1999. They are currently in Sweden. 8.  On 14 February 2006 the first and fifth applicants arrived in Sweden and, two days later, they applied for asylum and residence permits. The second, third, fourth and sixth applicants arrived in Sweden on 17 August 2006 and applied for asylum and residence permits on the same day. The Migration Board (Migrationsverket) held three interviews with the first applicant and two interviews with the fifth applicant. The applicants’ legal representative was present at the third interview with the first applicant and at the second interview with the fifth applicant. The legal representative also submitted written submissions to the Board concerning all of the applicants. 9.  During the three interviews held by the Migration Board on 16 February, 6 March and 5 October 2006, the first applicant essentially told the Board the following. She was from Sana’a in Yemen where she had lived with her husband, X, and their five children. She and X came from the same clan and he worked in industry. In her view, they had been poor. Her mother, one brother and two sisters lived in Yemen and another brother lived in London. Her father was deceased. She had travelled with the fifth applicant to Sweden, via Paris, using their passports and with French visas. She had thrown the passports away upon arrival in Sweden for fear of being sent back. They had paid about 2,000 US dollars (USD) for their tickets and about USD 1,000 for the visas. She had paid for this by selling gold that she owned. A friend of hers had helped to obtain the visas from the French Embassy in Sana’a in January 2006. Her brother had obtained their passports without X’s knowledge. The second, third, fourth and sixth applicants had travelled to Sweden illegally with the help of smugglers. 10.  The first applicant claimed that her biggest problem was X who had abused her for many years. They had married when she was 14 years old and he had been very strict and had hit her, burnt her and threatened her with a knife. She had back problems caused by the violence and had received an injection at a hospital in Sana’a a few months before leaving the country to alleviate the back pain caused by a slipped disc. She had tried to obtain a divorce but the judge at the court had told her that she should solve her private problems with her husband. She had not contacted a lawyer as she had no money and she had not reported the violence to the police because they did not interfere in family matters. 11.  However, the first applicant alleged that the main reason for leaving Yemen had been to protect her daughters. The second applicant had been forced to marry an older man when she was 14 years old and forced to leave school because of it. X had also planned to marry off the fifth applicant to a much older man when she was only thirteen years old. The first applicant had petitioned the courts to stop the marriage but the courts had decided that X, as the head of the family, was entitled to make that decision. She claimed that women had no freedom in Yemen and that X would kill her if she were returned since she had dishonoured him by leaving the country with their daughter and without his permission. No one would be able to protect her and her daughter. 12.  The fifth applicant supported her mother’s claims, stating that X had wanted to marry her off to an older man against her will. The court case to stop the marriage had taken about six months and the outcome had favoured X for which reason she and the first applicant had left the country. Her uncle had helped them to obtain travel documents so they could leave the country legally. She also stated that X had worked at a ministry and that he had been very strict with her and her mother. 13.  The second applicant also supported her mother’s claims and submitted that X had married her off, at the age of 14, to a much older man who had eight children and a disabled first wife. He had treated the second applicant like a servant but had agreed to divorce her if he was reimbursed the USD 4,000 that he had paid as a dowry for her to X. After her mother and sister had left the country, the second applicant alleged that X had made her other siblings leave the house but that they had been able to stay with a friend of hers until they could travel to Sweden. She submitted that, if they were to return to Yemen, they would all risk being killed since they had dishonoured X. She also risked being killed by her husband since she had left him without his permission. 14.  In a later submission, the second applicant added that X would never allow her to return home even if she did obtain a divorce from her husband. Moreover, when X had made her siblings leave their home, she had exceptionally been allowed by her husband to house them. 15.  On 9 May 2007 the Migration Board rejected the applications. It first noted that the applicants had not submitted their passports or any other documents to prove their identity or to support their story. It then observed that Yemen is a tribal society dominated by a patriarchal social order where women are subject to discriminating treatment and where they have to obey their husbands. Turning to the applicants’ personal situation, the Board first pointed out that the first applicant’s brother had failed according to the “honour rules” by helping her to obtain a passport. Moreover, it considered that the mere fact that the first applicant had left the country, and by doing so allegedly dishonoured her husband, was not sufficient to create a need for protection in Sweden. In this respect, the Board observed that the first applicant’s clan could protect her against X. Concerning the fifth applicant, the Board considered that X’s actions had been motivated by financial gain and that, by paying the necessary sum to X, the fifth applicant could solve any problems that might arise. Here, it noted that the applicants’ contention that they were poor was contradicted by the fact that they had been able to afford to travel to Sweden since the cost of the journey would have been a fortune to a poor person. Turning to the second applicant, the Board observed that her husband had consented to divorce her if she reimbursed him the sum he had originally paid X. Again, the Board considered that the problem was mainly a financial matter which could be solved by paying the required amount. In regard to the remaining applicants, the Board found that they would be able to stay with their maternal grandparents or other relatives in the clan. 16.  Thus, the Board concluded that the family’s problems were related to financial matters rather than to honour and, consequently, they could not be considered refugees or otherwise in need of protection in Sweden. Since the situation in Yemen was not such as to call for an automatic grant of residence permits, the applicants’ requests were rejected. In reaching this conclusion, the Board had regard to the fact that some of the applicants were minors. 17.  The applicants appealed against the decision to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining their claims and adding that they had disgraced the head of their family as well as the clan by fleeing. Since they were members of the same clan as X and, since the clan always took the side of the man, it would not protect them. On the contrary, the clan, which was very large and powerful, had blacklisted them and they were convinced that the clan would kill them to save its honour. Moreover, the first applicant’s brother had helped them in secret and had risked his own life by doing so. He would not be able to help them again. According to the applicants, there was no one in Yemen who would be able to protect them. Furthermore, the applicants insisted that their need for protection was honour-related and not economic in nature. The second and fifth applicants did not have the money necessary to buy their freedom and, in any event, nothing would hinder X from marrying them off to someone else later on. The first applicant added that she had been a member of a women’s association which had met on Thursdays and Fridays and that she had told the women in the association about her problems and they had lent her some money to pay for travel. The remainder of the cost, she had paid by selling her jewellery. As concerned the other applicants, the second applicant had helped to pay for that trip. 18.  In support of their claims, the applicants submitted an e-mail, dated 26 December 2007, and sent by a programme officer for “Sisters of Arab Forum for Human Rights”. It stated that, if the applicants were sent back to Yemen, their lives would be in danger since the first and fifth applicants had disgraced their husband/father when they had run away instead of accepting his decision that the fifth applicant marry the man X had chosen for her. It further stated that honour crimes were common in Yemen and that Yemeni law encouraged it; for example, a man who killed his wife because of infidelity would only be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. 19.  They also submitted a copy of a police report, dated 19 January 2008, from which it appeared that X had reported to the Yemeni Ministry of the Interior that the third and fourth applicants had stolen 1,500,000 Yemeni rial (approximately EUR 5,300) from him. He stated in the report that he had hidden the money in his wardrobe about two months previously and had discovered that it had gone two days before. He had asked his wife about it but she had not known anything and thus he suspected that his two sons had stolen the money since they had been out a lot lately. The sons had now run away from home and he wanted them arrested. It appeared from the report that a regional arrest warrant had been issued for the third and fourth applicants. The applicants claimed that this was a method for X to get the authorities’ help to locate the family in order for him to have his revenge. They had received the report from the first applicant’s brother, who had heard about it and requested a copy from the Ministry of the Interior. He had received a copy since he was the boys’ uncle. 20.  Lastly, the applicants submitted the children’s birth certificates in original which their uncle had also acquired and sent to them. 21.  On 19 August 2008 the Migration Court rejected the applicants’ appeal. The court first observed that the general situation for women in Yemen was not a sufficient ground for them to be granted refugee status. An individual assessment had to be made in each case. It then observed that the reasons referred to by the applicants in support of their need for protection mainly concerned problems within the personal sphere caused, inter alia, by the country’s traditions. The court further noted that, other than the first applicant’s petition to a court to stop the fifth applicant’s marriage, the applicants had not turned to the Yemeni authorities to obtain protection against X or the second applicant’s husband. The court reiterated that, before international protection could be considered for problems of violence and reprisals within the family, all avenues of mediation and protection by the national authorities should have been tried. With regard to X’s police report against the third and fourth applicants, the court considered that it would be no problem for them to prove that they were innocent since they were in Sweden at the time of the alleged crime. Therefore, they did not risk being arrested or imprisoned. The court concluded that the applicants could not be considered refugees, that they were not in need of protection and that there were no exceptional circumstances to grant them leave to remain in Sweden, even though some of them were still minors. In reaching this conclusion, the court also had regard to the fact that the family was united, that several of them were adults and that they had family and friends in Yemen who supported them. 22.  On 22 October 2008, with one of the judges being of a dissenting opinion, the majority of the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. This decision was final and the deportation order thus became enforceable. 23.  However, in January 2009, the applicants lodged an application with the Migration Board to stay the enforcement of the deportation order and to reconsider their case due to new circumstances. They maintained their previous claims and submitted a copy of a document in Arabic that they claimed was a copy of a summons, dated 22 December 2008, and which had been issued by a Yemeni court. According to the applicants, it stated that the first applicant had taken her and X’s five children and had moved to Sweden, following a dispute between her and X regarding whether or not the fifth applicant should be married to an older man. According to the document, X requested the court to order the return of the applicants to Yemen so that the children would be with their father and to imprison the first applicant because she had disobeyed her husband and to stop her from leaving Yemen again. Moreover, X requested the court to decide that the fifth applicant should marry the man that he had chosen. The applicants contended that this, together with the other information in the case, showed clear discrimination against women and that there could be no doubt that, should they be returned to Yemen, they would be subjected to persecution because they had dishonoured the head of the family. 24.  On 20 January 2009 the Migration Board rejected the new application and decided that the measures to enforce the deportation order should continue. The Board found that the grounds invoked by the applicants had already been examined earlier in all essential parts and that no new circumstances had been presented which could lead to a stay of the enforcement of the deportation order. Furthermore, it considered that the applicants had invoked no other new circumstances which could lead to granting them residence permits in Sweden. 25.  The applicants appealed against the decision to the Migration Court, insisting that the evidence showed that inhuman treatment awaited them if they were returned to Yemen. However, on 13 February 2009, the court upheld the Board’s decision and reasoning in full and rejected the appeal. 26.  Upon further appeal, the Migration Court of Appeal, on 5 March 2009, refused leave to appeal 27.  On 24 March 2009, upon request by the applicants, the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until further notice. On the same day and on the basis of the Court’s request, the Migration Board stayed the enforcement of the deportation order until further notice.