No

Staff News

Areti Sianni has returned from maternity leave and has now replaced Dorothee Starck as the ECRE Policy Officer. Rachel McIntosh has joined the Secretariat as the new Policy Intern.

EU Developments

Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugeesÖor as persons who otherwise need international protection

At a first glance, the Draft Directive contains a number of positive elements: inclusion of non state agents of persecution in Article 9 (Sources of harm and protection); an adequate definition of the concept of social group in Article 12,4 (Reasons for Persecution) and inclusion of a range of positive rights for people granted a subsidiary protection status that are of the same standard as those accruing to Convention refugees {Articles 20 (Information), 25 (Access to education), 26 (Social Welfare), 27 (Health and psychological care) 29 (Access to appropriate accommodation), 30 (Freedom of movement within the Member States)}.

However a number of provisions included in the draft Directive are of concern to ECRE. These relate to Article 9, 3 (Sources of harm and protection), Article 14 (Exclusion from refugee status); Article 16 (Cessation of subsidiary protection status); Article 17 (Exclusion from subsidiary protection status), Article 21,2 (Residence Permits), Article 24, 3&4 (Access to Employment), Article 31, 2 (Access to integration facilities). ECRE plans to issue a comments paper by mid October. For further information, please contact the Policy Officer ASianni@ecre.org (extension 210) The proposal can be downloaded from: http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/qual.shtml

UNHCR

Pre-ExCom Meeting

Geneva, 24 -26 September 2001

The theme of this year's PreExCom meeting was "UNHCR and partnership with NGOs". The new High Commissioner, Ruud Lubbers opened the meeting reaffirming the role of refugee protection as the key function of UNHCR, firmly dependent upon the identification of a durable solution. The inability to find durable solutions for a great number of refugees was considered to amount to a failure of protection resulting in refugees either languishing in camps or relying on criminal networks to gain access to protection in Western countries. Following the events of September 11, there is a considerable risk in many countries of an increase in xenophobia at a time when refugees are already seen in many countries as "phoney". Mr Lubbers asked for the support of NGOs in advocating with national governments for UNHCR to become a truly multilateral organisation that is properly funded and therefore in a position to fulfil its core functions.

Elaborating further on the theme of partnership with NGOs, Erica Feller, Director of the Department of International Protection, talked about the range of projects set up to increase protection capacity throughout the world. Among others, these include: a) the Protection Surge Capacity Project: a new project set up with the International Rescue Committee that aims to increase protection capacity in the field through the deployment of external protection staff to UNHCR when there is a protection surge; b) Action for the Rights of the Child: run with Save the Children Fund Alliance; c) Refugee Status Determination (RSD) Project: this involves the deployment of consultants when UNHCR capacity to undertake RSD is limited or when there is a backlog of cases; d) the Resettlement Deployment Scheme; and e) Legal Clinics in Central Europe run by law students at universities providing advice to asylum seekers.

In order to consolidate its current partnerships with NGOs or create new ones, earlier this year, UNHCR established a Task Force on Partnerships to assess what partnerships currently exist and how they serve the interests of UNHCR and partners. The Task Force will also elaborate a checklist to be taken into account when entering into future partnerships. The findings of the Task Force were presented to the Senior Management Committee at the end of September. It is unclear at this stage what will be the practical implications of this work for NGOs. For further details, the contact person is Craig Sanders, the new NGO Coordinator.

Under Regional Refugee Topics - Europe, ECRE made a statement on the theme of "Building Bridges for Tolerance". A copy of this statement is included with this Documentation Service (annex P040101).

ECRE-UNHCR Biannual Strategic Meeting

26 September 2001

The meeting focused on recent developments on asylum harmonisation in the European Union and on work currently under way in preparation for the Laeken Summit and the forthcoming Spanish and Danish Presidencies. Given the pace of progress in the adoption of various instruments, there might be a change in the discussion format used by the EU after the Laeken Summit, so that all planned legislative work gets completed by 2004.

With regard to developments post September 11, there is some concern about certain European countries' policies towards Afghan refugees. In one case, Afghans were rounded up "for their own security" while in some other countries they have been asked to re-register. A possibility exists that countries might decide to freeze refugee determination processes while waiting to see what will happen next. UNHCR plans a sustained strategy for dealing with intolerance.

In terms of the emergency situation unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, UNHCR's key priority is investing in the region to increase reception capacity, with Temporary Protection being seen as a last option to be employed at a later stage. Given the number of refugees and displaced persons in the region, it is highly unlikely that a humanitarian evacuation will have a considerable impact on the reception capacity of the region. UNHCR is in the process of finalising its Position on Afghanistan.

For further information, please contact the Policy Officer (ASianni@ecre.org).

Global Consultations on International Protection

27-28 September 2001-10-02

Under the Third Track of the Global Consultations on International Protection, discussion focused on the issues of: reception of asylum seekers, including standards of treatment; complementary forms of protection; and strengthening protection capacities in host countries. ECRE together with ICVA prepared the NGO Statement on Complementary Protection. Please contact the Policy Officer if you would like copies of the NGO Statements.

During discussions on the issue of the reception of asylum seekers, a number of delegations expressed concern as to the applicability of UNHCR's best practice criteria in less developed countries. A suggestion was made for the development of a special fund to assist less developed countries to receive refugees. UNHCR will consult further with ExCom on the possibility of drafting a conclusion and a set of guidelines on reception.

In terms of complementary protection, a number of delegations (Sweden, Norway, France, USA. Switzerland) supported the adoption of an ExCom Conclusion on Complementary Protection as a tool for greater harmonisation and more coherence in state practice. A request was made for further guidance to be provided by UNHCR on the definition of the beneficiaries of complementary protection and the relationship of this status with the Convention against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. Many delegations were in favour of a single procedure, which firstly considers eligibility for refugee status. Norway was in favour of people with complementary protection being granted as far as possible the same benefits as Convention refugees. The United Kingdom raised the issue of exclusion from complementary protection on the same grounds as those applying to persons falling within Article 1F of the Refugee Convention.

In terms of capacity building, some countries proposed that the focus should be on dealing with root causes with priority being given to countries with considerable irregular movements. There was no support for the adoption of an ExCom Conclusion on Capacity Building. Instead, UNHCR will draft a set of Guiding Principles to underpin work on this issue.

erf project policy work

ECRE is updating its paper ìPosition on the Reception of Asylum Seekersî first published in June 1997. Draft amendments are due to be circulated among ECRE members and the new version should be available shortly.

ECRE is planning to produce a new Good Practice Guide ñ on Freedom of Movement. This will provide information on the different practices adopted by European states to restrict the movement of those who have applied for asylum within their borders. It will look in detail at procedures in a small number of states and assess the impact of these for individuals, governments and the public. The guide will present a framework for developing good practice in relation to freedom of movement, based on this research.

ECRE welcomes any information or documentation which you may have on freedom of movement issues in your country, that would assist with this new publication. For further information contact Kate Smart, policy officer on reception and integration, ECRE, at KSmart@ecre.org

Conferences - Seminars - Other News

Global Consultations on International Protection

UNHCR together with the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva are organising an experts' meeting on Article 31 (Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge) and on family unity (Final Act of the 1951 Conference). For further information, please contact Eve Lester at LESTER@unhcr.ch. A regional meeting to discuss "Resettlement as a multifaceted tool and its relationship to migration" is also planned for November 6-7 in Oslo.

The Ministerial Meeting of States Parties to reaffirm the commitment of States parties to the 1951 Convention is to be held on 12 December 2001 in Geneva. A draft declaration for the meeting has been agreed and is included in this mailing (annex P040102).

The Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration and Asylum in Europe is organising a conference on "Subsidiary Protection: Improving or Degrading the Right of Asylum in Europe". This will take place on 16-17 November 2001 at Universite Libre de Bruxelles. For further information, please contact Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Reseau Academique Odysseus, CP 137, 50 Roosevelt Avenue, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, tel: + 32 2 6503885, E-MAIL: odysseus@ulb.ac.be.

The magazine Refuge invites contributions to an upcoming issue dedicated to examining the uniquely vulnerable situation of children in the context of forced displacement. Refuge particularly invites submissions on topics including but not limited to: comparative or case studies of the position of unaccompanied minors in refugee determination systems; the unique obstacles faced by refugee girls; the particular issues confronting internally displaced children; children as victims and survivors of trafficking; innovations in programming to assist refugee children in displacement and/or in the context of resettlement; the impact of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a tool to advance the position of displaced children; the detention of unaccompanied children and alternatives to detention; and the social/psychological resources of children themselves in the process of flight, resettlement, and/or return. Contributions must be received by November 15, 2001. For further information, contact: Lene Madsen, Managing Editor, Centre for Refugee Studies, York Lanes, Suite 322, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario M3J 1P3, e-mail: refuge@yorku.ca

UNHCR study on good practices in refugee children's programming

UNHCR is conducting a study on good practices in refugee children's programming for the purpose of producing a practical guide for field staff. Suggestions of good projects and initiatives involving refugee children (or which could be applied to refugee children) are welcome. Please send ideas to Asmita Naik; email: naik@unhcr.ch or asmita99@yahoo.co.uk ; tel:+41 22 739 8549 or + 41 79 239 7449

European MA in Migration, Mental Health and Social Care

ECRE has been asked to bring your attention to this MA course. The European MA in Migration, Mental Health and Social Care is a course for those who work in services for multi-ethnic populations and are concerned about the delivery of effective mental health and/or social care services to black, minority ethnic, and/or refugee communities.

The course is being run in collaboration with universities in The Netherlands and Sweden and draws on expertise in this area from a variety of European countries. This is based on the premise that there are common challenges facing European countries and learning from each other can best develop good practice. The course will include one joint workshop per year in each of these European countries. The course starts in September each year and is part-time over a period of two years.

http://www.ukc.ac.uk/tizard/EuroMA.htm

Publications

In the light of the events of September 11^th, the United Nations has published a reference book titled "International Instruments Related to the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorismî (ISBN 92-1-133631-7). For a copy, please contact e-mail: unpubli@unog.ch, fax: +41 22 9170027.

New report on Kosovars settling in the UK

The report, Asylum Stories: The experiences of Kosovars settling in the UK, (written by Kate Smart and published by Asylum Initiatives in May 2001) is a research report based on a series of interviews with refugees and asylum seekers from Kosovo living in the UK. This report is a useful addition to the relatively small number of studies of individual communities of refugees in the UK. By identifying shortcomings in UK asylum policy through the experience of the Kosovar community, it is also an important contribution to efforts to safeguard the welfare of asylum seekers and refugees.

The report highlights the different status and treatment of those who arrived in the UK as spontaneous refugees between 1990 and 2000, and those who were selected for evacuation in 1999. It compares the widespread sympathy for the Kosovars among the UK public, with hardening attitudes towards asylum seekers in general, and examines the impact of successive UK asylum legislation. It also looks at what we understand by the term ìsettlingî in the context of refugees and asylum seekers and proposes a framework for measuring successful settling. The report also discusses the role of party politics, the media and public opinion in shaping asylum policies and makes a series of detailed recommendations based on the research findings.

Copies of the report can be obtained from asylum initiatives (Tel: +44 1784 477298; e-mail: asyluminitiatives@hotmail.com)

Civil Society Statements in response to the events of 11 September

In response to the events of 11 September ECRE has endorsed two statements by civil society groups. The first was published by a coalition of Dutch NGOs, including Vluchtelingen Werk Nederland, and can be found at http://www.ecre.org/dutchco.shtml. The second was an initiative of an international group of NGOs and civil society groups, and can be found at http://www.oneworld.net/csresponse/. The ECRE website contains further statements made by refugee-assisting NGOS. ECRE is also monitoring asylum policy developments across Europe in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

elena news

Between 13 - 16 September 2001, the ELENA Network organised an International Introductory Course on Refugee and Asylum Law in Sarajevo, Bosnia ñ Herzegovina. The course, given by Professor James Hathaway and Professor Walter K”lin, was attended by about 75 participants from 24 countries in both western Europe and the Balkans.

Parallel to the course, the ELENA National Coordinators held their annual meeting where they discussed national legal developments as well as new and proposed EU legislation, reviewed ELENA activities in 2001, and planned proposed activities for 2002.

United Nations

Security Council

The United Nations Security Council on 28 September 2001, acting under Chapter VII of Charter of the United Nations, adopted resolution 1373, which calls upon all states to adopt a wide range of measures to combat terrorism. The resolution also establishes a Committee of the Council to monitor the implementation of the resolution, and calls upon all states to report on actions taken no later than 90 days from the date of the resolution.

With explicit reference to international refugee protection, the resolution calls upon all states to: ì[t]ake appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts;î and to ì[e]nsure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.î

The text of the resolution is available on:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm

UN Human Rights Committee

In its views on Communication No. 930/2000: Australia, CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000, 16 August 2001, the Human Rights Committee stated that the removal of a stateless couple whose son had been born in Australia and was a national would entail a violation of articles 17, 23, paragraph 1, and 24, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The authors of the communication, both formerly Indonesian nationals but currently stateless, arrived in Australia on a visitor's visa and a student visa in 1985 and 1987 respectively and remained unlawfully in Australia after they expired. They also commenced a de facto relationship akin to marriage, and in 1988 they had a son who has since acquired Australian citizenship.

Having had their applications for both protection visas under the 1951 Convention and ëparent visasí rejected, the authors claimed that their proposed removal from Australia to Indonesia would constitute a violation of articles 17, 23, paragraph 1, and 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant by the State party, arguing that a removal which separates parents from a dependent child, as claimed could occur in this case if the son were to remain in Australia, amounts to an ëinterferenceí with that family unit.

As to the claim of a violation of article 17, the Committee noted that ì[t]here may indeed be cases in which a State party's refusal to allow one member of a family to remain in its territory would involve interference in that person's family life. However, the mere fact that one member of a family is entitled to remain in the territory of a State party does not necessarily mean that requiring other members of the family to leave involves such interference.î The Committee considered that a decision of the State party to deport two parents and to compel the family to choose whether a 13-year old child, who has attained citizenship of the State party, either remains alone in the State or accompanies his parents was to be considered ëinterferenceí with the family, ì[a]t least in circumstances where, as here, substantial changes to long-settled family life would follow in either case.î On the issue whether or not such interference would be arbitrary and contrary to article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee stated that the discretion of states to enforce their immigration policy and to require departure of unlawfully present persons is not unlimited and may come to be exercised arbitrarily in certain circumstances.

Taking into account the fact that both authors had been in Australia for over fourteen years; their son had grown in Australia from his birth 13 years ago, attending Australian schools as an ordinary child would and had developed the social relationships inherent in that, the Committee stated that ì[i]t is incumbent on the State party to demonstrate additional factors justifying the removal of both parents that go beyond a simple enforcement of its immigration law in order to avoid a characterisation of arbitrariness.î

In the particular circumstances, the Committee concluded that the removal by the State party of the authors would, if implemented, constitute arbitrary interference with the family contrary to article 17, paragraph 1, in conjunction with article 23, of the Covenant in respect of all of the alleged victims, and, additionally, a violation of article 24, paragraph 1, in relation to the son due to a failure to provide him with the necessary measures of protection as a minor.

In an dissenting individual opinion, four Committee members claimed that the authors had failed to substantiate their claim that the Australian government had failed to provide the child with the necessary measures of protection required under article 24, and therefore argued that the claim should have been declared inadmissible. They further disagreed with the Committeeís view that the State party had violated the rights of the authors and their son under articles 17 and 23, stating that even if there were interference in the authorís family, there was no basis for holding that the State partyís decision was arbitrary.

The Council of the European Union

Directives on minimum standards for giving temporary protection and on carrier sanctions published in July 2001

On 10 July, the Council of the European Union published Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985. (See Brussels developments).

On 20 July, the Council of the European Union published Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. (See Brussels developments)

An ECRE information note on the Directive on temporary protection is available on: http://www.ecre.org/statements/tpsumm.shtml.

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court sets guidelines to determine whether expulsion resulting in separation of a couple can be justified under article 8

In a judgement on 2 August 2001 (BOULTIF - Switzerland/Suisse, No. 54273/00, Judgment 2/8/2001), the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that the expulsion of an Algerian national by the Swiss authorities whereby he was separated from his Swiss wife constituted a violation of article 8, providing for respect for family life.

The applicant entered Switzerland with a tourist visa in December 1992 and married a Swiss national in March 1993. He was later convicted on two occasions, for unlawful possession of weapons and for robbery and damage to property. Following unsuccessful attempts to overturn his conviction, he started a two-year prison sentence for robbery and other offences in May 1998. On 19 May, the Swiss authorities refused to renew his residence permit. He was released on good behaviour in August, and after having failed in his appeals to obtain an extension of his residence permit, he was ordered to leave Switzerland by 15 January 2000. At an unspecified date in 2000 he left the country for Italy, where he had previously resided.

This is the first case in which the Court has ruled on the application of double jeopardy, i.e. conviction followed by expulsion, of an applicant with almost no ties with the defending State. The applicantís only link to Switzerland was that of his wife being a Swiss citizen.

In its judgment, the Court listed a number of guiding principles applied to reach a decision, including the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; the length of his stay in Switzerland; the time elapsed since the offence was committed as well as his conduct during that period; the nationalities of the various persons concerned; his family situation (such as the length of the marriage); other factors expressing the effectiveness of the coupleís family life; whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when s/he entered into a family relationship; whether there are children in the marriage, and if so, their age; and the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country of origin. However, the Court explicitly pointed out that the mere fact that a person might face certain difficulties in accompanying her or his spouse cannot in itself exclude an expulsion.

Considering the fact that when the Swiss authorities had decided to refuse renewal of his residence permit, the applicant only presented a comparatively limited danger to public order, the fact that the applicant was a law-abiding resident from the time he committed his offence to his departure, his good conduct in prison deserving him an early release, the fact that he had skills in several manual professions and therefore would have been able to secure a stable job had he been allowed to stay, together with the fact that his wifeís only ties with Algeria was the fact that she was married to an Algerian national, the Court considered that the applicant had been subjected to a serious impediment to establish family life since it was practically impossible for him to live with his family outside Switzerland. The Court thus concluded that his expulsion was not proportionate to the aim pursued, i.e. that a fair balance had not been struck between the relevant interests of the applicantís right to respect for his family life and the prevention of disorder and crime.

The European Court rules on the proportionality of measures taken in relation to detention of suspected terrorist

In a judgement on 5 July 2001 (ERDEM - Allemagne/Germany, No. 38321/97), the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the lawfulness of a five years and 11 month long detention and the proportionality of monitoring the applicantís correspondence with his lawyer.

The case concerned a Turkish national who had had refugee status in France since December 1987 and who was arrested in April 1988 on the German border on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation and falsifying documents. He was placed in detention on remand the following day and was kept in detention prior to and during the trial of 18 Kurdistan Workersí Party (PKK) officials, including himself, (which lasted from 24 October 1989 until 7 March 1994) for, among other offences, 11 murders and six counts of unlawful deprivation of liberty. During his detention, the applicantís correspondence with his lawyer was monitored. In March 1994, the D¸sseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled that the applicant was one of the founders of the PKK and a former member of the PKKís Executive Committee who had built up PKK units in Lebanon and Syria. He was found guilty of being a member of a terrorist organisation and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

The applicant complained of the length of his detention (five years and 11 months) based on Article 5(3) and Article 6(2). He further complained, relying on Article 8, about the interception of his correspondence with his lawyer. Regarding article 5(3), the Court noted that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, the very considerable length of the deprivation of liberty suffered by the applicant would have to have had the most convincing justifications. However, it considered that the grounds cited by the German courts in their decisions had not been sufficient to justify holding the applicant in detention pending trial for 5 years and 11 months and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5(3). In view of this finding, the Court considered it unnecessary to consider separately the complaint raised under article 6(2). Regarding article 8, the Court held unanimously that, considering the threat presented by terrorism in all its forms, to the safeguards attending the interception of correspondence in the instant case and to the margin of appreciation left to the State, the interference complained of was not disproportionate in relation to the legitimate aims pursued and therefore that there had been no violation of Article 8.

The European Court declares case involving Russian national of Chechen origin at risk of deportation to the Russian Federation admissible under article 3

In a decision on 3 July 2001 (K.K.C. - Netherlands/Pays-Bas, No. 58964/00), the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible under article 3 of the Convention a case involving a Russian national of Chechen origin at risk of being deported to the Russian Federation.

In 1992, the applicant started being involved in the activities of the Chechen army. In 1994, he was accused of treason and immediately arrested by the Chechen military authorities. He managed to escape and remained in hiding in Chechnya until 1997, when he fled to the Netherlands. Both his application for asylum or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, and appeal, were rejected. He also submitted a second application for asylum, which was turned down. In his appeal, the applicant relied on a statement made by the State Secretary of Justice, according to whom Chechens not holding a residence permit for another area in the Russian Federation other than Chechnya should not be expelled until the situation of displaced Chechens in the Russian Federation had improved. This statement was deemed irrelevant in the applicantís case, on the ground that he had a criminal record in the Netherlands - he had been found guilty of a minor offence and shoplifting. According to the Circular on Aliens, no balance had thus to be made between the applicantís interests and the public interest through an assessment of his offences. The Court considered the case admissible under Article 3.

Members of the Yezidi religious group in Georgia do not risk state or state-tolerated persecution: case declared inadmissible

In a decision on 31 May 2001 (KATANI and others ñ Germany, No. 67679/01), the European Court of Human Rights rejected as manifestly unfounded the claim made by six Georgian families of the Yezidi faith that their repatriation would expose them to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

The six families arrived in Germany between 1994 and 1996 and applied for political asylum, claiming that they were victims of systematic persecution for which the Georgian State was responsible. Their applications were rejected by the courts concerned on the ground that the applicantsí membership of the Yezidi religious community did not make them a target for persecution.

The European Court was satisfied that the German authorities had, in reaching their decisions, relied on various sources of information indicating that the situation of the applicants was not worse than that of other members of the Yezidi religious minority in Georgia, or even of inhabitants of the country, for which responsibility could not be attributed to the State. The fact that the Georgian authorities have not always taken the necessary and sufficient steps to prosecute those responsible for offences committed there against members of the Yezidi religious community was considered due to a generalised structural weakness in the country and not to intentional action directed against the victims as members of a religious minority, ruled the Court. The case was thus declared inadmissible under article 3.

Case involving Iranian deserter at risk of expulsion from Denmark following criminal conviction declared admissible under article 8

In a decision on 28 June 2001 (Davood Amrollahi vs. Denmark, Appl. No. 56811/00), the European Court on Human Rights declared admissible under article 8 a case involving an Iranian national who deserted the Iranian army in 1987 and was granted a residence and a work permit in Denmark but following a criminal conviction was at risk of expulsion.

The applicant started to live with a Danish partner in 1992, and in 1996 they had a daughter. In 1997, the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a permanent ban from Danish territory for drug trafficking. In his appeal, rejected by the High Court of Western Denmark, the applicant argued that the expulsion order should not be implemented since his matrimonial situation had changed, he had married in the meantime, and because of the risk of ill-treatment in Iran. Before the Danish authorities, the applicant held that if returned to Iran, he would be subjected to persecution. However, the Aliens Appeals Board, considering the change of circumstances brought about by the end of the Iran-Iraq conflict, decided that there was no risk of persecution and that there was no risk that the Iranian authorities would learn about the applicant's sentencing in Denmark and consequently inflict on him a second sanction.

His claim before the Court was based inter alia on Art. 3, 5 and 8 of the ECHR. Both the claims made based on article 3 and 5 were declared inadmissible. Concerning Art. 3, the Court stated that since the conflict between Iran and Iraq was over, no severe or disproportionate sanction would be taken against the applicant. On the issue of double punishment, because of the offence committed in Denmark, the Court stated that there was no real risk of treatment contrary to the ECHR since the Iranian authorities were not aware of the reasons for the applicant's expulsion from Denmark. The fact that the applicant had been detained from December 1998 until May 2000 did not suffice for a claim based on article 5, since the Court found that throughout the whole period action had been taken with a view to expulsion. The various appeals against the expulsion order were processed without delay and with due diligence, as required under article 5 (1). The only claim declared admissible was that made based on article 8, where the applicant argued that he would lose contact with his wife, children and stepdaughter.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)

Visit by the CPT to Portugal: recommendations on temporary holding facilities

The visit to Portugal was carried out from 19 to 30 April 1999. Among the facilities visited were temporary holding facilities for persons refused entry, awaiting expulsion or seeking asylum, operated by the Foreigners and Border Police (SEF) at Lisbon Airport.

Based on its findings, the Committee recommended e.g. that measures be taken to ensure that persons detained at the existing temporary holding facilities have access to a telephone and to their luggage, and that anyone detained for more than 24 hours be offered at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day. The required measures are expected to be taken into account in the design of a new holding facility at the airport.

Furthermore, regarding safeguards against the ill-treatment of detained persons, the Committee called upon the Portuguese authorities to ensure a right of access to a lawyer from the outset of their custody, which should include the right to talk to the lawyer in private and to have a lawyer present during any interrogation conducted by the police. It also recommended that action be taken to ensure that such persons have a formally recognised right of access to a doctor, and stated that a doctor should be called without delay whenever a person in police custody requests a medical examination; that police officers should not seek to filter such requests; that all medical examinations of persons in police custody should be conducted out of the hearing and out of the sight of police officers; that a person taken into police custody should have the right to be examined by a doctor of his own choice in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities (for which the expenses might have to be borne by the detainee).

The full report is available on the CPT website on: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/reports/inf2001-12en.htm#_Toc520775931.

Visit by the CPT to France

The visit by the CPT to France was carried out from 14 to 26 May 2000. The report, only available in French, at the time of writing, can be accessed on:

http://www.cpt.coe.int/fr/rapports/inf2001-10fr.htm.

CPT publishes reports from three visits to Greece

On 13 September 2001, the Committee published reports from three visits to Greece, carried out in 1996, 1997 and 1999 respectively.

The report from the 1999 visit, carried out from 26 October to 2 November 1999, was focused on the conditions of detention and treatment of foreign nationals awaiting deportation and is the only report from which the recommendations by the Committee will be summarized here.

In the preliminary remarks in the report, the Committee recommended that the Greek authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that there are no undue delays in the deportation procedure. It further made a number of recommendations.

Regarding conditions of detention, the Committee recommended the Greek authorities to take steps to bring conditions of detention in all the existing detention facilities specifically designed for holding illegal aliens into conformity with the following requirements:

- foreign nationals awaiting deportation should be accommodated in centres specifically designed for that purpose and which are adequately furnished (for example, beds or sleeping platforms, cupboards, tables and chairs), clean and in a good state of repair, and should provide sufficient living space for the persons likely to be detained. The design and layout of such premises should avoid, as far as possible, any impression of a prison-like environment.

- regime activities in such centres should include outdoor exercise, access to a recreation room and to radio/ television and newspapers/ magazines, as well as other appropriate means of recreation (e.g. board games, table tennis). The longer the period for which persons are detained, the more developed should be the activities which are offered to them. Such centres should have at least a medical room where any medical examinations or nursing care can be carried out under satisfactory material conditions and the confidentiality of medical examinations guaranteed.

The Committee also recommended that the period of time spent by persons detained for deportation in police directorates/stations should be kept to the absolute minimum, stating that whenever it becomes clear that the deportation procedure in respect of a foreign national is going to take longer than a week, the person concerned should be transferred to a detention facility specifically designed for holding illegal aliens. The CPT also recommended that the Greek authorities explore the possibility of assigning female officers to police detention facilities where women are held.

Regarding safeguards against ill-treatment, the Committee recommended that immediate steps be taken to ensure that persons detained under the Aliens' legislation can receive visits from lawyers in conditions ensuring the confidentiality of the discussions, that they are able to meet their relatives and contact representatives of relevant organisations, that they are put in a position to make and receive phone calls, and that they are provided with a document explaining the procedure applicable to them and setting out their rights. This document should be available in the languages most commonly spoken by those concerned and, if necessary, recourse should be had to the services of an interpreter.

The full 1999 report is available on:

http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/reports/inf2001-18en2.htm#_Toc524929146>, where links to the other, earlier reports, are also available.

country developments

Australia

The Federal Court upholds appeal by the Australian Government in the Tampa case

On 17 September (Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Vadarlis, [2001] FCA 1329 (17 September 2001), the full bench of the Federal Court set aside the decision by the Federal Court of Australia on 11 September (Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Ors, V 899 of 2001; Eric Vadarlis v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Ors, V 900 of 2001, FCA 1297) by upholding an appeal by the Australian government.

In the initial decision, the Federal Court ruled that the 433 people rescued at sea at international waters near Christmas Island and taken on board the MV Tampa on 26 August 2001 should be released by the Australian authorities onto the mainland of Australia. This order was by way of habeas corpus and was granted on the basis that Australia had detained without lawful authority the people rescued by MV Tampa. In his decision, Justice North stated that the governmentís actions in the week following 26 August demonstrated ì[t]hat they were committed to retaining control of the fate of the rescuees in all respects. The respondents directed where the MV Tampa was allowed to go and not to go. They procured the closing of the harbour so that the rescuees would be isolated. They did not allow communication with the rescuees. They did not consult with them about the arrangements being made for their physical relocation or future plans. After the arrangements were made the fact was announced to them, apparently not in their native language, but no effort was made to determine whether the rescuees desired to accept the arrangements. The respondents took to themselves the complete control over the bodies and destinies of the rescuees. The extent of the control is underscored by the fact that when the arrangements were made with Nauru, there had been no decision as to who was to process the asylum applications there or under what legal regime they were to be processed. Where complete control over people and their destiny is exercised by others, it cannot be said that the opportunity offered by those others is a reasonable escape from the custody in which they were held. The custody simply continues in the form chosen by those detaining the people restrained."

In its decision on the appeal, the full bench of the Federal Court ruled by a majority that Australia was acting within its executive power under the Constitution in the steps it took to prevent the landing of the rescuees. Furthermore, it ruled that the closure of the Christmas Island port was done under a statutory authority that was not challenged, and that the restraint on their liberty did not constitute detention. On this latter issue, the Court stated that ì[t]he actions of the Commonwealth were properly incidental to preventing the rescuees from landing in Australian territory where they had no right to go. Their inability to go elsewhere derived from circumstances, which did not come from any action on the part of the Commonwealth. The presence of SAS troops on board the MV Tampa did not itself or in combination with other factors constitute a detention. It was incidental to the objective of preventing a landing and maintaining as well the security of the ship. It also served the humanitarian purpose of providing medicine and food to the rescuees. The Nauru/NZ arrangements of themselves provided the only practical exit from the situation. Those arrangements did not constitute a restraint upon freedom attributable to the Commonwealth given the fact that the Captain of the Tampa would not sail out of Australia while the rescuees were on board [Ö].î

The Chief Justice dissented, taking the view that whilst the power to expel people entering Australia illegally is undoubted, that it is a power that derives only from laws made by the Parliament and not from powers otherwise exercisable by the executive government. He argued that since the powers provided in the Migration Act 1958 had not been relied upon, the Australian government had no power to detain those rescued from the Tampa. He also considered that, on the facts of the case, there was a detention by the Commonwealth and that since it was not justified by the powers conferred by the Parliament under the Migration Act it was not justified by law. He would therefore have dismissed the appeals.

The appeal ruling is available in full text on:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/1329.html

The first instance judgment is available in full text on: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/1297.html

Parliament passes Governmentís controversial migration legislation

Labor Opposition members of parliament have voted with the government to pass seven bills aimed at restricting the access of asylum seekers to Australia.

The changes brought about by the new amendments include:

-The excision of Cocos Island, Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and Cartier Reef from the Australian Migration Zone under the Migration Act 1958, which in effect means that any person arriving at these Australian territories - lawfully or unlawfully - will be denied their right to seek refugee status.

-The introduction of provisions giving certain powers for dealing with ëunlawful non-citizens entering an ëexcised offshore placeí without a visa as well as the introduction of a new Australian visa regime, with a hierarchy of rights, intended to deter further movement from, or the bypassing of, other safe countries.

-The introduction of provisions providing authority to prevent arrival in, and remove a vessel from, Australiaís territorial waters if it is deemed that the intention of the people aboard is to enter Australia unlawfully, as well as provisions preventing any legal challenges to such forced removal.

-The introduction of measures aimed at curbing expansive judicial interpretations of the Refugee Convention and preclude abuse of asylum seekers in Australia and to ërestore the effectiveness of the codified natural justice framework set out in the Migration Act 1958í.

-Provisions ensuring that private sector organizations can continue to disclose information concerning a persons travel, or proposed travel, to or from Australia to officers exercising powers and functions under the Act.

-The introduction of a so-called ëprivate clauseí, a mechanism that will severely restrict access to Federal and High Court judicial review of administrative decisions made under the Migration Act 1958.

-The amendments also change the requirements for standing in the Federal Court and by introducing time limits for original applications to the High Court in migration matters, which will restrict access to the courts for judicial review of migration decisions.

A summary of the amendments prepared by Amnesty International Australia is available on: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/current%20issues%20bills.htm.

Austria

Parliament approves amendments to the Asylum Law

The Austrian Parliament on 6 July approved several amendments to the present Asylum Law. The new amendments include an amendment, which suppresses the regulation granting asylum-seekers a renewable residence permit valid for a maximum of three months. The new amendment regulates that a residence permit issued to an asylum-seeker will end automatically as soon as the asylum procedure is completed. (Source: Migration News Sheet, August 2001)

High Administrative Court quashes deportation order based on the right to family life

In a ruling 0n 10 July, the High Administrative Court (VfGH) quashed a deportation order issued to a Turkish woman and her three children based on the right to family life.

Before the woman came to Austria, her husband had been living and working legally in the country since 1988. Due to the strict and limited annual quota on family reunion, she got frustrated with the long waiting period and entered Austria on a tourist visa in 1993, after the expiry of which she remained illegally in the country. Three children were subsequently born. In 2000, the Austrian authorities discovered the womanís illegal presence and she was ordered to leave Austria together with her children.

In its ruling, the Court found that the expulsion order violated the right to private and family life as enshrined in the Austrian constitution and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Court, the violation of the law of residence in this case was not, in itself, sufficient to justify the expulsion of the woman and her children. (Source: Migration News Sheet, August 2001)

Belgium

Refugee status denied Rwandan nuns found guilty of war crimes

The Standing Committee on Appeals by Refugees (CPRR) on 19 July 2001 confirmed the decision of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA) to deny refugee status to two Rwandan Catholic nuns who were found guilty of war crimes on 8 June 2001 to 12 and 15 yearís imprisonment respectively. Their applications were turned down on the basis of the exclusion clause in article 1 F (a) of the 1951 Convention.

Two other asylum applications lodged at the same time by two other Rwandans were also turned down for the same reason. However, refugee status was granted to the wife of one of them, since there was nothing to suggest that she had participated in the genocide atrocities and that she risked being exposed to reprisals of vengeance if she had to return to her home country. (Source: Migration News Sheet, September 2001)

Canada

Mexican Lesbian couple granted refugee status

According to Womenís Asylum News, citing the website http://www.gay.com from 13 August 2001, the Canadian authorities have for the first time in history granted a lesbian couple asylum. The women from Mexico arrived in Toronto in 1999, stating homophobic persecution as the ground for their requests for asylum and testified to having been arrested, beaten and sexually assaulted by Mexican police hired by one of the womenís ex-husbands in 1999. In addition to the fact that the ex-husband had reportedly taken away the womanís child when he heard of her lesbian relationship, two men had reportedly attacked the mother in 1998.

The couple was granted refugee status in Canada after the board agreed that the violence the women had been subjected to equalled persecution. (Source: Womenís Asylum News, Issue 13, August 2001)

Stateless Palestinian of Lebanese origin granted refugee status based on membership of a particular social group

In a decision on 1 June 2001 (CRDD MA0-08431, Barazi), the Immigration and Refugee Boardís Refugee Division granted a stateless Palestinian of Lebanese origin refugee status based on his membership of a particular social group.

The claimant was a stateless Palestinian born in Lebanon during the civil war. While growing up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, he was subjected to pressure to join the PLO, but refused to do so. He was unable to find employment because Palestinians in Lebanon are excluded from skilled jobs and are almost never issued work permits. He went to university in the United States. He feared that if he returned to Lebanon he would be forced to join a Palestinian faction in the camp and that his basic rights would be denied.

Based on documentary evidence indicating that following an agreement between the Lebanese and Palestinian authorities, the armed forces do not enter Palestinian refugee camps, he claimed that he would not get protection from the Lebanese authorities. Furthermore, considering that the Lebanese government has compiled a list of some 70 jobs prohibited to Palestinians, who are restricted to menial, underpaid work and that the claimant enjoyed hardly any of the civil rights enjoyed by Lebanese citizens, the Refugee Division concluded that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his membership of a particular social group.

Stateless Palestinians granted refugee status based i.e. on discrimination and denial of second and third level rights

This case (CRDD AA0-01454, Wenuk, 12 July 12, 2001), concerned a stateless Palestinian (the principal claimant), his wife who was a citizen of Lebanon, and their son who was also stateless.

Countries of former habitual residence for the principal claimant included Lebanon, where he was born, Kuwait, where he had lived and worked for ten years, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Of these countries, he only had a right to return to Lebanon, where he had no civil rights, was no longer eligible for social assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and had no right to work in his field.

Substantiating his claim were documentary evidence indicating that Palestinian refugees are subject to arrest, detention and harassment by both state security forces, Syrian forces, various militias and rival Palestinians in Lebanon. Furthermore, the IRB noted that very few Palestinians receive work permits, and that the government does not provide health services. Considering also that of the four levels of rights identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, his second level rights (freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention) and third level rights (right to work, right to an adequate standard of living, right to education) were infringed, the IRB concluded that there was a ësystemic and persistent discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanoní which cumulatively amounted to persecution and thus granted him refugee status.

Regarding the son, the Board noted that he had the right to return to and reside in Lebanon, considered a country of former habitual residence despite the fact that he had remained there for only two months after his birth there and returned only on one later occasion in order to renew his travel document, but not to any of his other countries of former habitual residence, namely, Kuwait, the UAE, or India. The Board considered him having a well-founded fear of persecution in Lebanon by reason of his Palestinian nationality and thus granted him refugee status.

Regarding the refugee claim by the principal claimantís wife, the IRB noted that the fact that Palestinian men married to Lebanese women cannot obtain Lebanese citizenship through marriage, while Palestinian women married to Lebanese men can, might be discriminatory, but that it did not support the female claimant's refugee claim. Furthermore, there was no documentary evidence to support her allegation that she had a well-founded fear of persecution because of her marriage to a Palestinian man. Her claim for refugee status was subsequently rejected since she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Lebanon on any Convention ground.

Germany

Kurdish woman granted right to remain due to serious threats to her survival in home country

In a decision on 12 August (Az.: 2 K 2630/99.A), the Administrative Court (VG) in Bremen ruled that the particularly difficult circumstances in which a Turkish woman of Kurdish origin finds herself as a result of having defied and disobeyed her parents and traditions constituted an obstacle to her expulsion from Germany.

The woman, divorced with three children, had refused her parentís choice of a husband and married another man together with whom she fled to Germany in 1994. Against her will, her husband later left her. Her asylum application was rejected and she was ordered to leave Germany with her three children. The Administrative Court noted that she had flagrantly violated the tradition and honour in her ultraconservative home village and would be repudiated by the inhabitants there upon return and that she could not expect help neither from her own family nor from the relatives of the ex-husband. The Court concluded that without family support, this single mother of three children would not be able to find human dignity corresponding to the minimum economic level of existence, especially since she suffered from psychological problems and was thereby not in a position to live in a major city in western Turkey, away from her home village. (Source: Migration News Sheet, September 2001)

Ireland

Supreme Court ruling on the reasons for deportation orders

This case concerned three applicants who sought and were refused refugee status. Their appeals against those refusals were similarly rejected. Rather than challenging the decisions of the competent authorities whereby their applications for asylum were refused, they applied for humanitarian leave to remain in the State. These reasons were however also rejected, and the Minister notified them he intended to make deportation orders. The asylum-seekers then sought leave to review judicially the Minister's decisions, which was refused by the High Court. The matter was then appealed at the Supreme Court.

In their appeal, the appellants challenged what they described as a ëformula letterí from the Minister, arguing that it did not contain proper, intelligible or adequate reasons for their deportation. In all three cases, the letter stated: ìThe reasons for the Minister's decision are that you are a person whose refugee status has been refused . . . the Minister is satisfied that the interests of public policy and the common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems outweigh such features of your case as might tend to support your being granted leave to remain in the State.î

In his judgment, Mr Justice Hardiman stated that the invocation of the ëcommon goodí under the Immigration Act 1999 did not require or imply any derogatory opinion of the individual whose case was being considered. It simply entitled the Minister to have regard to the State's policy in relation to the control of aliens who were not, on the facts of their individual cases, entitled to asylum. At the time they appealed to the Minister, the three asylum seekers were persons without title to remain in the State, and according to Justice Hardiman, the legislative scheme was that such persons might be deported. He therefore rejected their submissions that the Minister's decision took into account extraneous and unintelligible matter, concluding that the reasons stated in the Minister's letter were adequate. (Source: The Irish Times, Wednesday, 25 July 2001)

The judgment is available on: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/2001/asylum/index.htm

Luxembourg

Administrative Court grants refugee status to members of the Bosnian Gorani minority

In a decision on 25 July 2001, the Tribunal Administratif du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg reversed an earlier decision by the Ministry of Justice (No 12630, 15 December 2000) to refuse asylum to a Yugoslav couple from Kosovo. According to the Tribunal, the international KFOR administration in Kosovo has recently shown itself to be increasingly ineffective in providing adequate protection to minorities in Kosovo, and that the appellants had indeed had sufficient individual proof to demonstrate that as members of the Bosnian Gorani minority, they would run a particularly serious risk of persecution by extremist Albanian forces if returned to Kosovo. Considering these factors, the Tribunal did grant the couple refugee status.

Spain

Council of Ministers approves regulations on the implementation of ësubsidiary statusí and on the recognition of status of Stateless Person

On 20 July, the Council of Ministers approved Royal Decree 864/2001, implementing the Aliens law and modifying the asylum regulation to implement and develop a ësubsidiary protectioní regulation in the asylum act, the application of which has been unclear since it was introduced in 1994.

The third final disposition of the decree modifies the asylum regulation to implement ësubsidiary protectioní. Under the new amendment, subsidiary protection will be granted for reasons of public interest, or for humanitarian reasons connected with the application of international instruments prohibiting refoulement and in situations where the Geneva Convention is not applicable but there still exists a connection with the grounds for refugee status. This status cannot be requested independently, but will only be granted by the Ministry of Interior at the time of denial of an asylum claim.

The rights granted under ësubsidiary protectioní include a temporary residence permit valid for one year, which may be renewed on a yearly basis as long as the original reasons for protection persist, as well as a work permit for the same duration, which can be limited to a geographical area or an activity. Persons granted this status may apply for a permanent residence permit after five years of residence. This regulation also establishes that persons granted subsidiary protection may be authorized to work six months after the asylum application has been lodged. Such authorisation is valid for six months and may be renewed.

Under regulation 865/2001 on the recognition of the status of Stateless Person, also approved on 20 July, a special procedure has been established for such persons, under which decisions will be taken by the Ministry of Interior within three months after having been examined by the Oficina de Asilo y Refugio (Office for Asylum and Refuge). The applicant may be authorized to remain in Spain during the procedure as long as no measure of expulsion has been adopted or initiated, and can be granted a residence and work permit valid for up to two years (renewable). The status of stateless person will under this regulation not be granted to applicants who submit their applications after having been present in Spain for more than a month without authorization, and to those under an expulsion order in force. Such applications will be considered as manifestly unfounded. The status will become null and void upon granting the holder Spanish citizenship or the nationality of a third State. In cases where a decision has been taken to expel a stateless person, s/he will under the new regulation be given 40 days to find another country of reception.

(Source: Migration News Sheet, August 2001; information also kindly provided by Jon Zabala)

Switzerland

Asylum Appeals Commission rejects removal of Roma and Ashkali to Kosovo

In a decision on 28 May 2001 (2001 / 13 ñ 101) concerning a Roma woman from northern Kosovo, the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission ruled that even though there might be limited areas in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (outside of Kosovo) that, due to the presence of KFOR, could be considered as internal protection alternatives for Roma and Ashkali from a security perspective, which would therefore exclude eligibility for refugee status, it can not be considered reasonable to execute the removal order of the applicant due to the prevailing difficult situation regarding integration and socio-economic conditions.

Asylum Appeals Commission recognizes the special difficulties for Tamil women to return to Colombo area

In a decision on 10 May 2001 (2001 / 16 - 120) on the removal order concerning a Sri Lankan woman of Tamil origin to the South of the country, the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission recognized that, while it is generally reasonable to send rejected asylum seekers back to Sri Lanka after an evaluation of all factors, women without the support of a family face special difficulties when being returned to Colombo.

In this case, the Commission took into account the fact that psychological condition of the applicant required her to stay in a protected and calm environment, her average education and lack of vocational training, the fact that she could not receive any support from her family, the fact that she only spoke Tamil, and the general difficulty to find work and housing in and around Colombo. Considering these factors, the Commission concluded that the applicant would not be able to establish a humanely dignified life in the area of Colombo, and therefore should not be sent back.

United Kingdom

High Court rules that speedy asylum decisions in the interests of general administration cannot justify detention of asylum seekers

In a decision by the High Court (the Queen on the application of SAADI, MAGED, OSMAN & MOHAMMED-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, 7 September), the detention of four Kurdish asylum seekers from Iraq at the Oakington Reception Centre was ruled unlawful.

The four claimants arrived in the UK in December 2000 and claimed asylum. It was decided that their claims should be assessed at Oakington and that they therefore should be detained there for up to 10 days while interviews and other enquiries were made. They were later released from detention.

The key issue in this case was whether the application of article 5. 1 (f) of the European Convention on Human Rights rendered the detention unlawful. Elaborating on the two different ëstagesí of article 5(1), the first concerned with the control of those who are seeking to enter a state and the second with those whom a state is seeking to remove, Mr Justice Collins stated that ì[d]etention cannot be justified on the ground that it may speed up the process of determination of applications generally and so may assist other applicants [nor on the basis that] it might deter others from seeking to enter by making false claims for asylum.î In cases where it is accepted that an applicant has made a proper application for asylum and there is no risk that he will abscond or otherwise misbehave, he noted that ì[i]t is impossible to see how it could reasonably be said that he needs to be detained to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry.î With regard to the second ëstageí, Mr Justice Collins stated that ì[i]t is not compatible with asylum seekersí rights under the Refugee Convention to regard the investigation of claims for asylum in all cases as being action with a view to deportation. The question is not whether they should be removed but whether they should be permitted to enter.î

In his decision, Mr Justice Collins stated that to be lawful, detention must be justified for the individual under Article 5.1 (f). Thus, Mr Collins argued, ì[t]he reasons for and the purpose behind a personís detention are all-important. In these cases, the claimants have not been detained because they might otherwise effect an unauthorized entry or because action is being taken to remove them; it is because it is considered necessary to achieve a speedy decision in the interests of the general administration in relation to asylum claims.î For this reason, the detention of the four claimants was ruled unlawful.

Because the Home Office has chosen to make it clear that the sole reason why most applicants are detained at Oakington is because of the advantages it provides in ensuring speedy decisions, Mr Justice Collins noted that ì[t]he same may well apply to many, perhaps most, Oakington cases.î However, he explicitly stated that in saying this he was ì[n]ot saying that to detain those who come to this country seeking asylum is necessarily unlawfulî, and noted in that regard that ì[i]t will be very easy to justify detention of illegal entrants, particularly those who have shown that they have single-mindedly set out to get here.î

The judgement will come into effect on 5 October 2001.

High Court rules on the relevance of status of relatives in establishing risk of persecution

In an appeal against a refusal of leave by the Tribunal on 21 June 2001 (Abdul Aziz Kolcak v. IAA (SSHD), involving a Turkish Kurd who provided evidence of scars and psychological damage, and with relatives/neighbours from Turkey with refugee status of Exceptional Leave to Remain, the High Court argued that to say that experiences of relatives and neighbours were irrelevant to applicantís asylum claims would have been an error of law; and of fact, as Turkish authorities suspect those whose associates are connected to PKK themselves to be connected. According to the Court: ìthe relationship, or association of a Claimant for asylum, with someone else who has been persecuted may itself constitute, and in general does constitute, part of the claim of the First Claimant.î

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the applicant had not produced credible evidence. While the Court noted the obvious relevance of the status of relatives etc., it did not consider the evidence submitted as being sufficient to show that the situation of his relatives and neighbours were notably similar to his own and therefore that evidence of their status did little to prove his case. Similarly, the dismissal illustrates that medical evidence can only prove the existence of scars, injuries or psychological damage and comment on the consistency of the claimed explanation; it does not prove that an explanation coming as part of a generally incredible account must be true. (Source: Refugee Legal Centre Legal Bulletin No. 99, 31 August 2001)

IAT decisions provide guidance on blood-feud cases

In the case of Medri Mukaj (01/TH/381), 6 July 2001, involving a Kosovar Albanian previously ill-treated by Serbian police with current fear because his family was involved in a blood-feud, the Immigration and Appeals Tribunal ruled on the issue whether the feud provided a Convention reason for refugee status.

While deciding that the likelihood of existence and continuation of the feud should be taken into account when deciding on removal, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the connection with political/ethnic elements was remote and therefore did not provide a Convention reason. The applicantís father killed a Serb in response to an attack in 1986 for spying on him. The father was killed in 1989. In the view of the Tribunal, whilst a blood-feud may have existed in the past, subsequent events since 1998 were unrelated to it.

In SSHD v. Hasan Skenderaj (01/BH/0026), 18 April 2001, involving an Albanian with fear of persecution as a male member of clan involved in blood feud, appeal was allowed on the basis that he was a member of a particular social group. Citing Shah & Islam, the Tribunal stated that there must be discrimination against the particular social group in provision of protection, and that since those involved in blood-feuds refused on principle to involve or co-operate with the police, it could not be said that even were the police unable to protect, the failure to do so could not be considered discriminatory against blood-feudalists.

(Source: Refugee Legal Centre Legal Bulletin No. 99, 31 August 2001)

Court of Appeal rules on the issue of imputed political opinion by state authorities regarding redress sought for corrupt state agentís criminal act

In a key case on 15 June 2001 (YURIY STOROZHENKO v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, C2000-5441), the Court of Appeal delivered a fairly full analysis of the concept of imputed political opinion.

The case concerned a citizen of Ukraine who, in the spring of 1994, was nearly knocked down by a speeding police car when he was out walking. The car did knock down and injure a young girl who was walking nearby. The appellant went over and remonstrated with the two police officers in the car, who, appearing to be drunk, both got out of the car. One of them hit him in the face with a baton, which put him in jail with a broken jaw. Upon release from a month detention in hospital, he discovered the identity of the police officer that had assaulted him and made a formal statement at a different police station. After this, he received threatening phone calls telling him to withdraw the statement. When he chased up the matter he was told that no proceedings would be taken because there were no other witnesses. Since the threats continued in the form of phone calls, an assault on him in the street, and an arson attack on his home, he decided to leave.

In considering the concept of imputed political opinion and whether it applied to the appellant, the Court considered the often cited Canadian case of Ward [1993] 2SCR 689 which it found the be authority for the propositions that (i) the phrase ëpolitical opinioní may embrace any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of state, government and policy may be engaged; (ii) the political opinion at issue need not have been expressed outright but may have been imputed to the claimant; and (iii) that if the claimant fears that he may be persecuted for an imputed political opinion, he may have the basis for a successful claim for asylum even if he does not in fact hold the opinions imputed to him. In identifying these propositions, the Court was careful to point out that its judgment was not or did not intend to be exhaustive.

Having considered a number of Canadian and Australian cases in which these principles had been applied, the Court dismissed the appeal based on the argument that the appellant had not involved himself ì[I]n any public activities in relation to his wish to see [the police officer] disciplined or brought to justice. He did not write to the newspapers or allow himself to be interviewed by the media or become involved in a public campaign of any kind. His difficulties arose because he made a statement to the police about what had happened, which he refused to withdraw [Ö].î

USA

Trafficked Thai woman of Chinese origin granted asylum

According to the Womenís Asylum News, a Thai woman (of Chinese origin), who was trafficked to the USA, was granted asylum by the Immigration Court of Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 2001. She was initially threatened with a removal order when the immigration authority found by her own admission that she was using a false passport.

The asylum seeker had been approached by a woman in a local disco who promised her great working opportunities in the USA. She agreed to travel to the USA and was accompanied by a middle-woman whom she met on the plane and who told her what to say and do once they arrived to the USA. However, when questioned by the Immigration officials, the woman admitted that she was travelling using non-valid travel documentation and was accompanied by another woman. She was issued with removal proceedings whilst the middle-woman was subsequently apprehended and convicted in Illinois for the offence of alien smuggling. The respondent denied removability and sought relief in the form of asylum. The respondent testified that she feared retribution from her traffickers upon return to Thailand because she had played a major role in bringing one of them to justice. She also stated that ëpeopleí had reportedly come to the shop where she had been working to look for her because she owed her traffickers money, and that the woman who had offered her a job in the shop had had demands for money made to her and had gone missing.

The Court found that the respondent had satisfied the test for obtaining asylum based on membership in a particular social group. Based on expert evidence, the court concluded that ì[a] member of an ethnic group in Thailand, who has been forced into indentured servitude and deprived of the right of citizenship has ë[c]ommon, immutable characteristicsí sufficient to comprise a particular social group.î The Court argued that the respondent was clearly a member of the aforementioned social group as a non-Thai ethnic from the northern hills of Thailand who had no right to citizenship and had been trafficked to the USA. Regarding the issue of failure of state protection, the Court agreed that the ì[g]overnment [of Thailand] is doing little or nothing to cease the victimization of women and children.î Expert evidence presented to the Court had shown that significant trafficking in women through Don Muang airport in Bangkok enjoys the cooperation and/or complicity of many police and immigration officials in Thailand and that undocumented and/or unregistered women and girls living in Thailand are particularly vulnerable due to the fact that they are prevented from attending higher education, cannot obtain a passport through legal channels, or turn to the police or other officials for protection and/or assistance without risking deportation.

(Source: Womenís Asylum News, Refugee Womenís Resource Project, Asylum Aid, Issue 12, July 2001)

US Refugee Protection Act introduced

On August 2, 2001, The Refugee Protection Act was introduced in the Senate by seven Senators. This is a bi-partisan bill aimed at restoring certain procedural guarantees for asylum seekers that were taken away following the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act passed by Congress in 1996. Before the new law took effect, asylum seekers could present their cases before an immigration judge, using witnesses and documentation to support the claim for asylum and, though not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, could be represented by a lawyer.

Under the 1996 changes, the responsibility of making decisions previously entrusted to professional judges placed on INS inspectors at airports or border crossings, and the introduction of expedited removal procedures may expose refugees who arrive without valid documents to the risk of immediate deportation. The law strips the federal courts and even immigration judges of any review of these summary airport and border deportations.

The new Refugee Protection Act introduced in the Senate ends the use of expedited removal except when there is an immigration emergency as declared by the Attorney General; provides procedural protections even when expedited removal is used during an emergency situation to minimize the chances of wrongly turning refugees away; clarifies the law to make it clear that while asylum seekers may be detained when necessary, detention is not mandatory and that asylum seekers can be paroled while their claims are reviewed; and establishes a ëgood causeí exception to the one-year time limit for filing asylum claims for immigrants already in the United States.

In addition to these mentioned provisions, the legislation will likely include language to promote the use of alternatives to detention and provide for review by an immigration judge of a decision to detain an asylum seeker who requests parole.

For more information, see the Lawyerís Committee for Human Rightsí website ìThe Torchlight Campaign: Protecting Asylum Seekersî on: http://www.lchr.org/refugee/refugee.htm.

Publications

2001 Michigan Guidelines on Nexus to a Convention Ground

The second colloquium of the Program in Refugee and Asylum Law, convened in March 2001, issued The Michigan Guidelines on Nexus to a Convention Ground, which define the meaning and application of the ëfor reasons ofí clause in the refugee definition.

This document is attached (l040101), but is also available on the University of Michigan Law School Program in Refugee and Asylum Law website on:

http://www.refugeecaselaw.org/Refugee/program.htm .

New report by the European Roma Rights Center on human rights abuse of Roma in Romania

Based on ERRC monitoring and field missions, this report, titled State of Impunity: Human Rights Abuse of Roma in Romania (published by European Roma Rights Center, September 2001), identifies continuous human rights violations including both violent attacks, denial of basic rights and racial discrimination as resulting from the prevailing climate of impunity in Romania, which reportedly extends to nearly all spheres of social life in Romania.

The report identifies e.g. widespread denial of the right to justice and compensation for Roma victims of crimes, and immunity from prosecution for actions against Roma. Of particular concern is immunity for actions taken by police officers, which reportedly constitute the majority of serious abuses reported. Based on its findings, the report concludes with a number of recommendations to the Romanian government aimed at improving the human rights situation of Roma in Romania.

The report is available both in English and Romanian on: http://errc.org/publications/reports/index.shtml

Copies of the report can be obtained through the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) in Hungary on (Phone: +36 1 4132200; Fax: +36 1 4132201; E-mail: office@errc.org).

New report on Turkish Refugees

The interim results of the common project of NFR (Lower Saxonian Refugee Council), TAV (Foundation for Arts, Culture and Social Research) and PRO ASYL in co-operation with IHD (Turkish Human Rights Association), supported by the European Union since May 2000, has now been published in a report titled Turkey and Refugees. The report includes articles on a wide range of issues related to Turkish refugees, such as e.g. European policies, the role of UNHCR and the repression of human rights organisations in Turkey. In response to the identified deficiencies in the decision-making by the Home Office, the report also makes important on how these can be addressed.

Copies of the report, available in English only, can be purchased from the Nds. Fluechtlingsrat in Germany on fax: 0049 - 5121-31609, or by e-mail: bestellung@nds-fluerat.org.

New study of Pakistani torture survivors seeking asylum in the UK

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (2001) recently published a report titled Evidence of Torture: A Study of Pakistani Torture Survivors Coming to the UK. Based on reviews of 51 cases of tortured asylum seekers from Pakistan, this report concludes that the Home Office uses language to downplay and marginalize the reality of torture described by the clients, that general negative conclusions are drawn about the details of their claims, and that proper evaluations of the individualís own testimony of torture is never made.

The study is available on the website of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture on:

http://www.torturecare.org.uk/archivebrf/pakistan_final.pdf>. Copies can also be obtained by contacting the organisation in London (Tel: +44 (0)20 7813 9999; Fax: +44 (0)20 7813 0033).

New report on refugee women and domestic violence by the Refugee Womenís Resource Project

The report, titled Refugee Women and Domestic Violence: Country Studies (Refugee Womenís Resource Project, Asylum Aid: September 2001), provides background information on the arguments for recognising domestic violence as grounds for protection under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act and goes on to look at the situation for women in five of the main countries of origin of asylum seekers to the UK ñ Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, China, Iran and Pakistan.

Each country report consists of sections on the political and human rights context in relation to women, international legal instruments, domestic violence and the law, the reality of seeking protection and the situation of separated or divorced women. Examples of relevant case law are quoted where possible.

The full report is available on the website of the Refugee Womenís Resource Project on: www.asylumaid.org.uk. Copies can also be obtained by contacting the RWRP (tel: +44 (0)20 7377 5123; fax: +44 (0)20 7247 7789; email: rwrp2000@hotmail.com).

eu presidencies

Belgian Presidency

Belgium has already fulfilled half its mandate at the EU presidency.

The Belgian Presidency presented restrictive proposals for a Council Directive to be discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on minimum standards on procedures held on September 27 and 28.

In relation to family reunification, which is proving the most difficult issue for the member states to agree on, Belgium put forward a compromise proposal that only met the lowest standards possible. Nevertheless, the meeting finished with no significant progress. Basically the Belgian proposal was to narrow obligatory family reunification to the nuclear family (spouse and unmarried minor children). Parents and unmarried partners are at the State's discretion. The Commission had originally proposed to recognise unmarried couples in countries which already do so, following the national alien legislation, but the proposal was rejected.

A JHA Council will be held in November 16/17 to discuss the preparation of the Laeken summit. On December 6/7 the Justice and Home Affairs Council will discuss procedures and reception. The Belgian Presidency is trying to come to an agreement on reception by December.

Spanish presidency

The objectives and priorities of the Spanish Presidency are going to be influenced by the outcome of the Laeken summit, which should evaluate the progress made so far on the implementation of the Tampere conclusions. Spain is probably going to keep focusing on the issues they have traditionally been more concerned about: border controls, trafficking in human beings, illegal immigration and fight against terrorism. The priorities for the Spanish agenda with regard to asylum, migration and border controls are the following:

- minimum standards of reception of asylum seekers

- revision of the Dublin Convention

- the status of third country nationals who are long term residents in the EU

- promotion of readmission agreements with third countries

- the drafting of an action plan for Morocco

Danish presidency

Its asylum agenda will depend on the progress made by the Belgian and the Spanish Presidencies on the issues of procedures, reception, criteria for granting refugee status and implementation of the Dublin Convention. Probably Denmark will have to take over most of the above mentioned issues and it might also have to start the discussion on the Commission's proposal for a directive harmonizing procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which was adopted in September 12.

With regard to immigration, Denmark will face the problem of the third country nationals who are long term residents of the EU, the coordination of immigration flows within Europe and the issues of entry and freedom of movement (the Schengen catalogue of best practices and the Handbook on border controls) and the visa directive.

eu asylum agenda

The Justice and Home Affairs Council

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof.

The first piece of legislation from the asylum agenda of the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force on 7 August 2001 (date of publication in the Official Journal of the EC) and applies to all EU Member States except for Denmark and Ireland. According to Article 32(1) of the Directive, the 13 Member States bound by the Directive have to ensure the necessary domestic legislation is in place by 31 December 2002.

The Directive establishes an EU mechanism and minimum standards for granting temporary protection (TP). TP is defined as "a procedure of exceptional character to provide, in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particular if there is also a risk that the asylum system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient operation, in the interests of the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection" (Article 2(a)). The Directive stipulates that a mass influx may be caused both by spontaneous arrivals in the Union and by evacuation programmes (see Art 2 (c) and (d)). There is an exclusion clause along the lines of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention in Article 28.

A TP regime, valid in all Member States (MS), is established by a Council decision adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission (Art. 5). Member States shall then, if necessary, provide persons to be admitted to their territory with "every facility for obtaining the necessary visas, including transit visas. Formalities must be reduced to a minimum" and "[V]isas should be free of charge or their cost reduced to a minimum" (Art. 8.3). Unless terminated by another Council decision, the normal duration of TP is one year, with an automatic extension of two six monthly periods for a maximum of one year (Art 4.1). Where the reasons for TP persist, the Council may then decide (again, by qualified majority and on a proposal by the Commission) to extend the regime for another year (Art 4.2). The maximum possible duration of TP is therefore three years.

You can find the full text of the directive on

http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/tpdir.pdf

as well as ECRE's comments on

http://www.ecre.org/statements/tpsumm.shtml

On 10 July, the Council of the European Union published the Council Directive
2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 on minimum standards on carrier sanctions supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985. Please find the full text of the directive on:

http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/sanctdir.pdf

The Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting of 27/9 -28/9

The Justice and Home Affairs Council met on 27/9 and 28/9 to discuss the commission's directive proposal on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

Agence Europe

In addition to the restrictive proposals put forward by the Belgian Presidency on family reunification and procedures there is another proposal that Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have brought to this JHA Council. These three countries are arguing for the inclusion of subsidiary forms of protection (in addition to the protection already granted by the Geneva Convention) in the common procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status, as well as in any other proposal for a council Directive under article 63 TEC.

JHA Emergency Council on Security 20/9/01

The Commission Proposals on Terrorism were discussed by the JHA Emergency Council on Security which took place in Brussels on 21/9 following the crises in the US. Particularly interesting in the conclusions are the following points :

… The Council invites the Commission to examine urgently the relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and in instruments

… The Council agrees to examine urgently the situation in relation to countries and regions where there is a risk of large-scale population movements as a result of heightened tensions following the attacks on the United States and asks the Commission, in consultation with Member States, to examine the scope for provisional application of the Council Directive on temporary protection in case special protection arrangements are required within the European Union.

European Commission

The Commission adopted two proposals for framework decisions on the fight against terrorism and the European arrest warrant. Both were presented by commissioner A. Vitorino on September 19.

You can find further information on this subject on http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/01/1284|0|RAPID&lg=EN

Please also find attached Amnesty International Press Release reacting to the discussion (B040101). And also please find attached the full text of these proposals (B040102 and B040103).

Commission's proposal for a Directive harmonising criteria for granting and withdrawing refugee status

A Commission proposal for a Directive harmonising criteria for granting and withdrawing refugee status was adopted on September 12. This latest proposal for a Directive complements the body of provisions destined to establish a common basis for asylum policy in the context of the European Area of Security and Justice (EASJ) project. Remarkably, it includes non-state agents of persecution. See the policy section for an introductory analysis of the draft directive. Please find a press release by the Commission about this proposal on:

http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/qual.shtml.

European Parliament

European Parliament adopts resolution with several asylum-related recommendations

In its resolution on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union (2000) (2000/2231(INI)), adopted on 05/07/2001, the European Parliament made several recommendations to the Member States in relation to asylum.

In relation to prisons, the resolution recommends in paragraph 31 that "[m]ember States limit detention of asylum seekers to exceptional cases and only for the reasons set out in the UNHCR Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers."

Regarding refugee minors, paragraph 32 recommends that "[m]ember States provide better protection for unaccompanied minors, including the assistance, from the earliest possible moment, of a guardian or a legal advisor and the presence of staff who are qualified to deal with the specific requirements of minors."

Regarding prohibition of slavery and forced labour trafficking in human beings, the resolution recommends in paragraph 38 that "[m]ember States adopt a legally binding instrument designed to ensure suitable protection for the victims of trafficking in human beings, which should be recognised as a ground for 'persecution'; [and in para. 39 that] "[M]ember States grant temporary residence permits on humanitarian grounds to victims of trafficking in human beings and domestic slavery for the duration of the inquiry and the judicial procedure to encourage them to cooperate with the authorities and assist in the prosecution of offenders."

Several recommendations were made regarding the right to asylum and rights of citizens from third countries. These include e.g. the prompt adoption of "[a] common policy on asylum procedures, reception of asylum seekers and refugee status that strictly respects the rights of asylum seekers and that is based on a non-restrictive interpretation of the Geneva Convention including persecution by non-state agents and gender-related persecution and on UNHCR recommendations and conclusions, while affording those granted theright of asylum a swift, efficient and just administrative procedure and full integration [59]."

Other recommendations state that Member States should "[c]onsider the possibility of granting subsidiary protection to persons who are not protected by the Geneva Convention but who must not, for humanitarian reasons or because they would be in grave danger, be sent back to their country of origin (victims of trafficking in human beings and domestic slavery) [60]; that the Member States ensure that their asylum policies as well as their border and entry policies respect the principle of non-refoulement and be aware that at present the combination of the Dublin Convention rules and the 'safe third country' and 'safe country of origin' concepts, as well as rules on carrier sanctions and the lack of suspensive effect of certain appeal procedures, constitute a threat to this principle [61]." It also recommended "[a]n increase in EU financial aid to the UNHCR [62]." It should however be pointed out that these recommendations are not legally binding upon Member States.

Report by Mr Robert Evans (UK - European socialist party) on the Commission Communication on asylum (of November 2000)

The report by Mr Robert Evans (UK - European socialist party) on the Commission Communication on asylum (of November 2000) was adopted by the Committee of Citizen's Rights and Freedoms on September 13 and now is due to be voted in plenary in October 2. Please find the link to the information about this report on

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=PRESS-NEWSRP&L=EN&PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+PRESS-NEWSRP+NR-20010914-1+0+DOC+SGML+V0//EN&LEVEL=2#SECTION2

Report by Mr. Watson on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status

The report by Mr. Watson on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status was adopted by the Parliament on 20/9. The Parliament adopted almost all of the 110 amendments presented except that which recommended member states abandon accelerated procedures.

This report was formerly to be prepared by Mr. Schmitt (EEPP/ED, Germany) but Mr. Watson was forced to take it over after Mr. Schmitt refused to present it to the assembly following the outcome of the vote in the Committee of Civil Freedoms and Citizens Rights at the end of August. Mr. Schmitt said on behalf of his group that this report opened the road to an increased number of requests for asylum by reducing control possibilities.

Mr Watson report has substantially improved the text proposed by Schmitt and went even further than the Commission original proposal in providing legal guarantees. We hope that the Council will take the Parliamentary amendments into account.

You can find the full text of <Titre>the report by Mr. Watson on:

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?L=EN&PROG=REPORT&PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0291+0+NOT+SGML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3&SAME_LEVEL=1

Report by Valenciano Martinez -Orozco (committee on women's rights and equal opportunities, Spanish Socialist group) on female genital mutilation

The Parliament adopted on September 21 a report by Valenciano Martinez -Orozco (committee on women's rights and equal opportunities, Spanish Socialist group) on female genital mutilation, encouraging the Council and the Member states to recognise the right of asylum for women, adolescents and girls threatened by this practice.

Please find the full text of this report on

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&SORT_ORDER=D&S_REFERENCE=%25&MI_TITLE=female+genital+mutilation&F_MI_TITLE=female+genital+mutilation&MI_TEXT=&F_MI_TEXT=&I_TYPE_SEARCH=TITLE&I_WORDS=female+genital+mutilation&LEVEL=2

Minimum standards of reception of asylum seekers

The Spanish MP Hernandez-Mollar (PPE) is currently working on a report on minimum standards of reception of asylum seekers that has to be presented in around two weeks. ECRE has sent to Mr. Mollar its comments on this subject.

ecran news

The 15th ECRAN meeting will take place in Brussels on the 8th and 9th of October to discuss the advocacy strategy on the EU agenda and the Laeken Summit.