Enforced deportations to Zimbabwe may resume within weeks after a special court ruled today that Robert Mugabe's dictatorship is not too dangerous.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) said that asylum-seekers being sent back would not automatically face "a real risk being subjected to persecution or serious ill-treatment", so the Government can still make decisions on deportation on a case-by-case basis.

The ruling focused on whether Zimbabweans returning to Mugabe's regime would face torture or persecution. Over the last few years, supporters of Mr Mugabe have rampaged through the properties of white farmers, repossessing and burgling many and threatening other residents, many of whom have been forced to flee to Britain.

In a statement after the verdict, Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said he was "pleased" because the verdict enabled the Government to uphold "a robust and fair system".

"We recognise that there are Zimbabweans who are in genuine fear of persecution and that is why we have granted them asylum - but it is only right that we remove those who seek to abuse our hospitality," he said.

"I am therefore pleased that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has today backed us and said that the involuntary return of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe does not put them at risk of mistreatment. We have argued this consistently during the last year.

"We would always encourage individuals to return of their own accord, as 90 Zimbabweans have already this year, but where people do not leave voluntarily it is only right that we enforce their return."

Despite leaving open the possibility of deportations to Zimbabwe, the judge did set out a number of caveats on his ruling which could lead deportees to be at risk. Those linked with Zimbabwean opposition parties or with military or criminal records may be at greater danger of serious mistreatment during interrogation by Zimbabwean authorities, the ruling said.

The six-page document added: "If the reason for suspicion is that the deportee has a political profile considered to be adverse to the Zimbabwean regime, that is likely to be sufficient to give rise to a real risk of persecutory ill-treatment for a reason that is recognised by the Refugee Convention.

"That will not necessarily be the case where the only matter of interest is a relevant military history or outstanding criminal issues. Each case must be considered on its particular facts."

In October the tribunal threw the Government's policy on Zimbabwe into doubt after a failed asylum seeker, who can be identified only as AA for legal reasons, won his appeal against the Home Secretary. But that decision has been reconsidered after the Court of Appeal ruled in April that the panel had "erred in law" in making its initial decision.

Mr Byrne claimed that, during this period of uncertainty, applications from Zimbabweans had soared. "It cannot be right ... that an individual is able to abuse the asylum system and stay here indefinitely by virtue of their nationality - yet that is what has been happening," the minister added.

Professor Terence Ranger, an expert on Zimbabwe and emeritus professor of race relations and African history at Oxford University, told the tribunal hearing last month that concerns still remain about the safety of deporting failed asylum seekers to the country.

Asked about a statement made in Zimbabwe's Herald newspaper in April by Didymus Mutasa, the minister responsible for President Mugabe's feared security force the CIO, that Zimbabweans returning to their country would be "looked after very well", Professor Ranger said: "I do not find it credible. His statement stands completely alone and has no context in previous material."

A Home Office spokeswoman said enforced deportations to Zimbabwe may now resume within weeks. Currently about 14 Zimbabweans are in immigration detention although it was unknown how many were failed asylum seekers pending deportation and how many were being held for other reasons, such as foreign national prisoners awaiting removal. An estimated 7,000 Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers are thought to be in the UK. In the first three months of this year, there were 755 new asylum applications from Zimbabwe.

On the steps of the court, the Zimbabweans who had come to hear the ruling declared their disappointment. Arthur Molife, a Zimbabwean who already has leave to remain in the UK, told the two dozen who had turned out to support the case: "The Zimbabweans have lost here today. It hurts. If you people are serious, take it up on the British streets today. I have got my papers but I feel the pain for others."

Mafungasei Maikokera, 25, said she feared she would be sent back to Zimbabwe and persecuted. She arrived in the UK in 2002. After being detained for seven months, her application for asylum was rejected. Visibly anxious, Miss Maikokera said: "I was expecting something better from the decision here that would allow us to sleep peacefully. Instead we have nightmares. Not knowing is torture in itself."

Patricia Mukandara, 27, who had lived in the UK for five years before the immigration service detained her for seven months, said her case was due to be heard at the High Court. She told the crowd, who held banners declaring "Sent to Zimbabwe, sent to death" as they sang on the court steps, "Justice has not been done. Let's fight for each other."

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, which campaigns against mass immigration, said: "This is a most welcome decision. The courts have at last returned to common sense. These cases can only be decided individually. A blanket ban on removals is an open invitation to bogus claimants."

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: "This whole situation is due to the Government’s failure of policy in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates the need for a better analysis of the situation in Zimbabwe including the fate of deportees. We called for this twelve months ago, but the Government has failed to act."

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers