* Case Number: a20140204.1
  * Status: init
  * Claimant: Jochim S
  * Respondent: CAcert
  * initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe
  * Case Manager: MartinGummi
  * Arbitrator: AlexRobertson
  * Date of arbitration start: 2014-06-04
  * Date of ruling: 2014-06-29
  * Case closed: 2014-06-29
  * Complaint: Clarify validity of a Passport with fake stamps for assurances

  * Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator AlexRobertson(A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Jochim S (C), Case: a20140204.1


== History Log ==
 . 2014-02-04 (issue.c.o): case [s20140204.86]
 . 2014-05-24 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
 . 2014-05-24 (iCM): asks wiki admins to delete wrong case file that was created with a wrong number accidentally (this is the correct one)
 . 2014-05-24 (iCM): notified C about case
 . 2014-05-24 (iCM): declared CoI before DRO and internal Auditor
 . 2014-05-24 (wiki-admin): deleted wrong case file
 . 2014-05-25 (DRO): sees no issue with CoI as iCM
 . 2014-06-01 (CM): appoints A
 . 2014-06-29 (A): Ruling and close

== Private Part ==

 * '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20140204.1|a20140204.1 (Private Part)]], Access for (CM) + (A) only'''

## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT
<<Include(Arbitrations/priv/a20140204.1)>>  
## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT

==== EOT Private Part ====

== original Dispute ==

 {{{
> Dear support,
> 
> Could you please clarify whether we can regard a passport with obvious
> fake stamps in the visa section still as valid? On Fosdem I4, an assuree
> presented me a Mexican passport with stamps from Checkpoint Charlie in
> Berlin and several GDR visa stamps from 2011. The rest of the document
> was still OK, no securtity features were damaged, and there were visa
> from the Netherlands and Austria. Therefore (and because the assuree
> also presented a Netherlands residence permission) I accepted the
> document, but I'd like you to clarify whether we had run into trouble if
> the only document we got had been the Mexican passport with the fake
> stamps.
> 
> Thanks in advance
}}}

== Discovery ==

 . Comment made by ICM
 {{{
> I'm not sure if this really should be a dispute. I would prefere if
> questions like this could be answered by the AO directly, he has the
> according authority and I see no need why arbitration should rule here.
}}} 

== Ruling ==

 . I am inclined to agree with the ICM's comment - a number of cases have recently been referred to arbitration that maybe could and should be handled elsewhere.  <<BR>><<BR>> Passports in general consist of two parts - one part relates to the passport holder's identity and the other relates to where the passport holder needs additional permission to travel. <<BR>><<BR>> Provided that the document has not been tampered with, the actual content of the "visas" part of the passport is not particularly relevant to the assurance and examination thereof might even represent an intrusion on the privacy of the holder but it is not unreasonable to scan through for signs of tampering with the document or to check UV/watermark and other security details. <<BR>><<BR>> Given that proviso, my opinion is that the document described would be acceptable as a primary ID despite the "bogus" stamps. <<BR>><<BR>> However, as with any assurance, the decision as to whether to accept a document or not, as well as how many points to award is '''always''' at the discretion of the assurer. As an Arbitrator, I would have no issues with an assurer either accepting or rejecting the document.
<<BR>>
Alex Robertson<<BR>>
CAcert Arbitrator<<BR>>
Crewe, UK<<BR>>
29th June 2014<<BR>>
<<BR>>


== Execution ==

== Similiar Cases ==

## || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|a20YYMMDD.n]] || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|<discription>]] ||

----
 . CategoryArbitration
 . CategoryArbCaseOtherAssurerErrors
 . CategoryArbCaseOthers