Asylum law, policies and practices

in Cyprus – An Overview

based on asylum cases

June 20005

Funded by the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND

P.O.Box 22113, 1517 Nicosia, Tel: +35722878181, Fax: +35722773039,
e-mail: kisa@cytanet.com.cy

Asylum is a relatively new, challenging phenomenon for Cyprus as a new Member State of the European Union. The present memorandum attempts to give an overview of the policies and practices followed by the Government of Cyprus in the field of asylum, through selected cases that KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism has dealt with, in the context of the provision of services offered to asylum seekers through its Migrant Support Centres.

Cyprus’s recent membership of the European Union, the continuing delay of the government to develop and adopt an integrated migration policy and to harmonise the latter to the acquis communautaire, the continuing deadlock in the ‘cyprus problem’ and the ensuing inability of the government to effectively control its borders, the inability of the government to effectively combat the exploitation and corruption networks, even in the police ranks, as well as the continuing lack of structures for the reception of asylum seekers and examination of asylum applications, all these constitute the major factors for the increase of asylum applications to some 12.000. This makes Cyprus the largest receiver of asylum seekers compared to its population among all member states of the European Union.

1. The legal and administrative context

Cyprus, although a signatory state to the Geneva Convention from the times it was a British colony, it only started implementing the Convention in 1998. As there were no implementing asylum and administrative structures in 1998, when the first asylum seekers came to Cyprus, the UNHCR offices in Cyprus started handling the cases. In 2000, mainly because of its obligations to the E.U. as a candidate country, Cyprus passed its first Refugee Law, which was amended several times since then, while the necessary asylum structures were set up much later and only started examining asylum applications in 2002.

Even though the law provides for at least the minimum standards on asylum procedures that the UNHCR expects signatory members to fulfil, the practices of the authorities are still very far from adhering to these standards.

2. Access to the Procedure

There have been constant violations of the right of the asylum seekers to access the asylum procedures. More specifically:

· National law provides that applications can be submitted at any entry point of the Republic and at any police station. In practice, applications may be submitted only in one police station in every city, with the exception of Nicosia where there are two. No asylum applications have been submitted at the borders as yet. At the police stations designated to receive asylum applications there is rarely any professional translator present. Consequently, asylum seekers are never informed of their rights and obligations and of the required procedures even though this is a right recognised to asylum seekers also by European Community law.

· Asylum seekers who do not have travel documents or any kind of identity papers can submit their applications only at the Paphos Gate police station in Nicosia.. They are systematically denied access to the procedures and, in the majority of cases, they have been instructed to secure those documents as a condition for submitting an application. In some cases, asylum seekers were holders of national passports that had been considered false by the police and thus access was denied. Assumed nationality is, in many occasions, a factor for discriminatory treatment in relation to access to the procedure in the absence of documentation. Recent information from asylum seekers reveals that everybody, even undocumented asylum seekers are sent to Paphos Gate police station in Nicosia to apply, where access is denied unless asylum seekers present themselves with a lawyer. Submission of application through certain specific lawyers is always accepted by the police.

Case

ü A Congolese national visited KISA´s Migrant Support Centre in Nicosia seeking advice on how to apply for asylum. We directed him to the police station in Nicosia where he could submit his application. The man did not have any identity documents and the policeman on duty told him that unless he showed him a passport or any other identity paper proving his nationality he would not accept his application. The man tried unsuccessfully to submit an application on several occasions, so he came back to our Centre for further advice. KISA intervened with the police by sending them a letter complaining about the treatment of asylum seekers and to inform them of their legal obligation to accept any application even in the absence of documentation. The submission of the application occurred approximately 1 1/2 months after he first visited the police station and only when one of the Centre’s legal advisers accompanied him to the police station. Todate there is no official response to KISA’s complaint with regard to the police unlawful practices.

Problems arising out of denial of access: The aforementioned man also suffered from diabetes but the medical authorities refused to provide him with medical treatment unless he possessed a ‘confirmation letter of submission of asylum application’. It was only after the case went public that the authorities accepted to provide him with insulin on an ad hoc basis. Even though the man was practically dying without insulin, he was not even accepted in Casualties as an emergency incident. He was accepted by the hospital as a ‘normal’ patient only after he had been issued with a medical card (much later after he submitted his asylum application).

3. Closed Files

National Refugee legislation regulates the circumstances under which the authorities have the right to close the file of an asylum seeker. In practice, there have been a number of violations of the powers and discretion of the competent authorities, such as:

· Asylum seekers are obliged by law to inform the authorities of their residential details and to report any change of address, otherwise their file may be closed and the procedure discontinued. Many asylum seekers attempt to report to the local immigration offices their new address but they are repeatedly told to return on another day or to provide further documentation proving their residential status (contract, etc), requirements that are not provided for in the law. This policy leads to extreme delays in complying with the above-mentioned obligation and it exposes asylum seekers to the risk of being detained, their application being rejected on procedural grounds and finally of deportation.

· In several cases, files have been closed because asylum seekers have not presented themselves at the scheduled interview with the asylum authorities because they had not received the notification letters sent to their previous addresses. The administration has a legal obligation under the national refugee law as well as under the general principles of administrative law to make an overall examination of the decision to close the file and to make sure that the asylum seeker is to be blamed for not fulfilling his/her obligations. The administration is also legally obliged to use its discretionary power not to discontinue the procedure in case the asylum seeker provides the authorities with reasonable explanations why he/she does not fulfil his/her obligations under the law. This discretion, however, is never exercised in favour of asylum seekers. Decisions for closing files are taken in cases where the authorities simply fail to notify the asylum seeker about his/her appointment with the authorities or to send a letter to the wrong address or they call a friend of the asylum seeker and delegate the responsibility to notify him/her about the interview details.

· As a consequence, asylum seekers are being deported without having the opportunity to have the substance of their claim examined by the competent authorities, which constitutes a clear breach of the principle of non-refoulement. KISA has in several occasions received information that asylum seekers were detained illegally upon their return to their countries or are missing.

Case

ü An asylum seeker visited the immigration office in Nicosia to inform the police of his change of address as required by law. The police told him that he could not register his new address in his ‘alien book’ unless he produced a contract proving that he the tenant of the residence. The asylum seeker informed his landlord about this but the landlord refused to co-operate. The asylum seeker reported this to the immigration offices but their answer remained the same. A month later he was informed that his file had been closed because he failed to appear for his interview with the Asylum Service. The asylum seeker came to KISA´s Migrant Support Centre in Nicosia to seek advice. We informed the Asylum Service of the events that took place and also submitted an appeal to the Review Authority for the decision of the Asylum Service to close his file. Todate we have received no reply.

4. Illegal Detention and Degrading Treatment by the Police

According to the Geneva Convention and the national legislation, asylum seekers cannot be punished for illegal entry. In practice, however, a great number of asylum seekers are being detained on the basis of detention and deportation orders by the Immigration Officer due to the strict interpretation of the provision that ‘asylum seekers need to communicate to the authorities their intention to apply for asylum in due time. This practice has worsened after a decision of the Supreme Court, according to which asylum seekers may not be detained for illegal entry with a Court decision under the refugee law but they may be detained on detention and deportation orders of the Immigration Officer on other grounds under the aliens and immigration law, particularly if they are ‘illegal’ (undocumented) migrants. ‘Illegal’ migrants are also considered those who enter or reside illegally in the Republic of Cyprus. Sometimes, a month or even a few days are considered a long enough period for asylum seekers to be branded as ‘illegal´ migrants, which leads either to their long-term detention until their claim is examined at a final stage (by the Refugee Review Authority) or to their deportation (for illegal deportation see below). Both measures are used without court orders and on the basis only of a decision of the Immigration Officer.

In cases where asylum seekers have committed a crime under either the criminal code or any other law and have been sentenced by the court, on completing their sentences they are not released. They are removed from Central Prison but they remain in custody in detention centres on detention and deportation orders of the Immigration Officer, which are normally suspended until their asylum claim is examined at a last stage. These practices could lead up to 8 - 10 months´ detention without a court order. According to the Aliens and Immigration Law, the state has the right to deport any alien residing in Cyprus if they are considered to be a threat to public order or public security. Every asylum seeker falling in the above category, even if the ‘crime’ committed is a minor offence or it falls within the scope of immigration rules, is considered as a threat to public order and thus detained and, in most cases, deported. Their extended detention is not supported by any court order.

An order is always required if a detention is to be considered legal. Depending on the circumstances, the order could be issued either by the court or by the Immigration Officer. In the latter case, the Immigration Officer issues a detention and deportation order based on information provided by the police. In the majority of cases, the information relayed is either false or is not verified. The fact that there is no system to verify the information provided by the police and also the fact that the Immigration Officer is not willing to conduct any further examination of the case leads to a large number of illegal detentions which more often than not result in refoulement.

There have also been complaints on the conditions of detention of asylum seekers either in the prison or, particularly, in detention centres, that have been branded as inhuman by international and European organisations, NGOs and other institutions both in Cyprus and abroad. A recent opinion of the Ombudswoman in Cyprus has caused the same concerns to NGOs and it has also underlined the illegal character of the extended periods of detention mentioned above. There have also been a number of complaints about torture and inhuman and degrading treatment against asylum seekers in detention or when trying to submit their applications to the police stations. These cases have been reported by KISA to all the competent authorities and some have also been examined by independent criminal investigators appointed by the Attorney General. Due to the lack of knowledge and will on the part of the authorities, these complaints have never reached the national courts and the perpetrators have never been punished.

Cases

ü An asylum seeker from Iran was convicted by the court for aiding an ‘illegal’ migrant to remain in the country because he gave him a lift in his car. The “illegal” migrant was an asylum seeker and the convicted asylum seeker was only trying to help him by giving him a lift to the police station to file an asylum application. He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, after which he was taken to a detention centre in Larnaca on detention and deportation orders of the Immigration Officer. As he was never informed that he would not be released from prison as he had expected, he tried to commit suicide, after which the police handcuffed and severely battered him to the extent that he required hospitalisation for one night. After he was released from the hospital he was sent to another detention centre in Nicosia. He remained there for 3 weeks, after which he was transferred to another detention centre in Limassol, where he stayed for 2 days only to be moved as yet again to another detention centre in the Limassol District. The continuous transfers from one detention centre to another caused a lot of problems of communication of the asylum seeker with his family as well with KISA’s legal advisers. During his period he detention (about two months) he was hospitalised 3 times because of medical problems, the beatings and a hunger strike. He was finally considered by the court to be mentally unstable and was sent to a mental hospital in Nicosia. He remained there for 1 month, after which the doctors decided that he had recovered so they called the police to return him to prison. Gripped by despair, when he saw the police he pushed himself through a glass window and cut his hand completely. He was hospitalised for 5 days. He now needs to have further operations as his hand is now paralysed. On leaving the hospital, the doctors told him he was free to go home. After he informed KISA about his release, we asked the Immigration Office to explain to us the legal status of the asylum seeker and whether the detention and deportation orders against him had been cancelled. The immigration police informed us that he was considered to be a fugitive since he left hospital without informing the authorities that he was ready to go, a situation that caused additional stress to the asylum seeker and his family. Todate, the authorities have neither arrested him nor replied to our letters asking for the grounds the police have for arresting him again. KISA has informally received the information that the detention order has been cancelled. His case is currently being reviewed by the Review Authority. The asylum seeker is still taking anti-depressants and his son is visiting a child-psychiatrist on a weekly basis.

ü A number of Congolese asylum seekers with nowhere to live, slept for a few nights at a mosque in Nicosia, as many homeless asylum seekers very often do. After getting desperate because the person responsible at the mosque told them that they had to leave, homeless and moneyless, because they were not allowed to work and did not receive any welfare benefits either, they went to the Asylum Service to complain about their situation. Distressed as they were, they raised the tone of their voice to the officer at the Asylum Service. The police were immediately called in and the asylum seekers were arrested and detained. The Immigration Officer then considered them as ‘illegal’ migrants under the Aliens and Immigration Law because they were obstructing public order and public peace and detention and deportation orders were issued against all of them. They remained in detention centres until their asylum applications were examined, some were deported and some are still in detention pending the examination of their applications.

5. Illegal Deportation – Refoulement

According to the Refugee Law, deportation orders are supposed to be issued by the Immigration Officer when the file of an asylum seeker is considered to be closed either because the case is finally examined and rejected or because the procedure is discontinued. However, there have been cases when -

• · the decision to close a file was taken because of negligence and the applicant was deported without being given the opportunity to have the substance of his claim examined by the competent authorities at all stages provided for in the law;
• · deportation orders were issued for asylum seekers whose files were still open and whose applications were either pending first stage examination by the Αsylum Service or second stage examination by the Refugee Review Authority. Although the authorities were informed by KISA of these cases and had all the relevant documents proving the asylum status prior to deportation, they were nevertheless deported. The authorities claimed that the deportation was a ‘mistake’ due to the ‘work load’ and the ‘huge number of asylum cases’. It is important to stress that there was no attempt to rectify the mistake by bringing the asylum seeker back to Cyprus;
• · asylum seekers had an additional ground for remaining in Cyprus (for example, because they got married to Cypriot citizens or EU nationals). When visiting the immigration police to ask what to do about this, immigration police advised them to withdraw their asylum application because they could still remain in Cyprus anyway and there was no point for their asylum application to be examined. Immediately after the withdrawal of their applications they were arrested, detained and deported without any consideration of the other grounds to remain in Cyprus, without any consideration that their asylum claim had not been examined and, most importantly, with no regard to the fact that the applications had been withdrawn because of false information given by the authorities themselves;
• · asylum seekers under detention for a long time were “convinced” by the police to withdraw their asylum applications or asylum seekers detained under deportation orders were told by the police that they would remain in detention for three or four years and thus it would be better to withdraw their applications and they were “convinced” to do that.

Amongst the asylum seekers deported without examining their applications or prohibiting access to the asylum procedure there were Iranians, Kurds from Turkey and Syria, Palestinians, Congolese, as well as unaccompanied minors.

Cases

ü An asylum seeker from Pakistan was arrested on the charge of ‘illegal stay in the Republic’ as the immigration authorities claimed that his file had been closed. He was detained in the detention centre in Paphos based on a detention and a deportation order of the Immigration Officer. The Asylum Service confirmed to KISA that his file was indeed closed due to the fact that he had not informed the authorities of his change of address, which meant he did not receive the invitation letter for his interview and eventually he missed the appointment. KISA´s legal advisers reviewed his documents and found out that not only had he informed the authorities for his new address but that they had been sending all correspondence to his new address. The lawyers informed the Immigration the Asylum Service and the Immigration Officer immediately in writing. All attempts to communicate with the competent authorities by phone, because of the urgency of the situation, failed. The Asylum Service was eventually reached and the responsible officer agreed with KISA´s lawyers that the Service was at fault but the decision to withdraw the orders had to be made by the Immigration Officer. The latter was reached 1 hour before the execution of the deportation order and was informed in detail by the lawyers of KISA and by the administrative officers of her department about the case. Eventually she informed the lawyers during a telephone conversation half an hour before the execution of deportation that there was no negligence of any kind by the authorities since the old flat mate of the asylum seeker received the interview letter and should have informed him. The asylum seeker was deported and he has been missing since then despite the attempts to locate him. The Ombudswoman is now examining the above case. This example illustrates both a clear breach of the asylum seeker’s right to be informed personally and in writing of any decision relating to his claim but also the authorities´ unwillingness to rectify their mistakes.

ü An unaccompanied Kurdish minor from Turkey was detained 24 hours after his entry to Cyprus and although he had clearly indicated his wish to seek asylum he was denied access to the procedure. Two days later he was deported as an ´illegal immigrant and without prior notice to the Welfare Office, a legal obligation of the police and the Asylum Service in cases of minor asylum seekers. When KISA contacted the Immigration Office in Limassol, they informed us that the minor never requested for asylum. To our questions on whether he spoke English and if not whether arrangements were made for a translator, the reply was negative on both counts.

6. Confiscation of Personal Documents

In all cases of interviews by the Asylum Service, an asylum seeker is obliged to submit his/her passport and any other personal documents so that their authenticity can be verified by the police. These documents are returned to asylum seekers only if they are granted the refugee status or if they are deported.

The authorities base this policy on a provision in the law, which states that ‘asylum seekers shall assist the authorities in examining their claim and shall submit any relevant documents to them’. Notwithstanding the reasoning of such a provision, it is certain that in no circumstances does it does legalize the confiscation of personal documents for an indefinite period of time without informing the holder as to when and if they will be returned to his/her possession and without giving the asylum seeker a written notice about the fate of his/her travel or other documents.

7. Authorities Responsible for Examining Applications

Applications are examined in the first instance by the Asylum Service and in case of rejection by the Refugee Review Authority. The large number of asylum seekers in Cyprus and the inadequate, if any, training of the staff responsible for examining applications, most of whom have no legal background, results in negligence which breaches the rights of asylum seekers as the examples cited concerning the closure of files above clearly indicate. It is important to note that, for the last two years, which in essence is its whole lifespan, the Refugee Review Authority has failed to repeal any negative decision issued by the Asylum Service and thus there has been no recognition of any asylum seeker in the second stage of the procedure. With a measly 1.4% for all protection status provided in the Refugee Law (refugee status, subsidiary protection, temporary leave to remain on humanitarian grounds), Cyprus has the lowest rate of recognition amongst the member states of the E.U.

It is further noted that there are no internal regulations or any specific legislative measures regulating the procedures to be observed by the Refugee Review Authority. More often than not, this leads to misconceptions and breaches of the rights of asylum seekers. For example, when an asylum seeker contacts the said Authority requesting information about his/her rights after a negative decision by the Asylum Service, the staff will put a stamp on his rejection letter, signifying that the date of the inquiry is the date of the submission of an appeal. This clearly breaches the right of an asylum seeker to be represented by a lawyer at the appeal stage and his/her right to be informed in a language understandable to the asylum seeker on the procedures regarding his/her case.

In addition, the justification of decisions by either of the two bodies is, in most cases, insufficient, unfounded and with very clear indications of total absence of research in relation to the country of origin, which they are legally obligated to do.

8. Harassment of Lawyers involved in Asylum Law Cases

In Cyprus, there is only a handful of lawyers that are adequately trained in refugee and asylum law, and even less actually engaged in the field. Currently, there are only 4 lawyers working in NGOs providing legal advise to asylum seekers. As a consequence, these lawyers are often stigmatised and confronted with harassment, especially by the police. On several occasions, KISA´s lawyers have been told by the police that they could be incriminated for aiding and abetting asylum seekers to make up false cases so they could remain in Cyprus and there were cases where lawyers were arrested and detained under such charges.

The harassment of lawyers is becoming an issue of even greater concern in view of the fact that there are no state provisions for effective legal aid to asylum seekers and refugees and the only alternative that asylum seekers have is to seek means of legal representation that are too costly and thus non-accessible to them.

9. Access to Social Rights

Asylum seekers and refugees have several social rights safeguarded by the Refugee Law. Even though the EU Directive regarding the minimum guarantees on asylum reception conditions has not yet been transposed into the national legislation, the administration claims that in practice it is implemented in practice. Reality is, however, very different. These social rights are either granted after long delays or severely limited and sometimes not granted at all.

· One of the biggest problems relating to social rights is the requirement of the possession of a ‘pink slip’ (residence permit) prior to applying for a medical card, social welfare, basic education for the children of asylum seekers and, in some cases, for registering with the labour office.. The issue of the pink slip may take anything from 4 months to 2 years, during which time asylum seekers are denied access to one or more of these crucial social rights.

· The authorities have recently taken a decision to alter the format of the pink slip and have required all asylum seekers to re-apply for the new one. This creates a huge gap as asylum seekers that have managed to receive their pink slip after months and/or years of waiting are now obliged to apply for another one and wait for perhaps another year before they can have access to their rights.

· The decision of the Ministry of the Interior to facilitate the access of asylum seekers to social rights only with the confirmation letter given by the police upon submission of application has improved the situation; however, not all relevant authorities (such as hospitals and sometimes Welfare Offices) accept that as official documentation, which complicates the procedure and access to these services.

10. , Access to the labour market and welfare benefits

According to the law, asylum seekers have the right to apply for employment permit during their stay in Cyprus as well as the right to welfare benefit under the same conditions as Cypriots if they are not employed.

According to a decision of the Ministerial Committee on Employment, asylum seekers have limited access to the labour market and are only entitled to work in animal farming and agriculture as seasonal workers.

The government is well aware and so are the trade unions, who have negotiated the last collective agreement for the animal farming and agriculture, that the conditions of employment in these sectors of the economy are very poor and below the standards provided for in the Community law on social policy and in the International Labour Organisation Conventions that Cyprus has ratified. The majority, if not all, of the workers in these sectors are migrants and asylum seekers. The terms of employment provide for a minimum salary that is lower than the minimum wage determined by the Minister of Labour and the trade unions in other sectors of the economy and also provide for the obligation of the employer to provide housing and food. Housing and provision of food is very poor in most of the cases. People are sometimes literally expected to live in sheds together with pigs and other animals or in makeshift barns next to the farms. They are also obliged to have health insurance (which is paid by both the worker and the employer), as they cannot make use of the state national health system.

KISA has received a lot of complaints from migrants in general, for severe exploitation in these sectors of the economy. Some of these cases amounted to trafficking in human beings.

This policy is implemented for all asylum seekers, irrespective of their situation and/or vulnerability. For example, persons with families are sent to work in farms without taking into consideration that the rest of the family would have either no housing or be obliged to live under the same conditions as the working member of the family. Minors and women with young children are sent to work under those conditions and children have to abandon school because of this policy to be with their families. This policy forces asylum seekers and their families to complete isolation and social exclusion.

If an asylum seeker refuses to be employed under these conditions, he/she is considered to be voluntarily unemployed and is not, therefore, entitled to welfare benefit.

Asylum seekers, who do take on jobs in animal farming and agriculture, under these conditions and with wages well below the national minimum standard and apply for supplementary welfare benefit in order to survive, are in most cases denied supplementary welfare benefit.

Asylum seekers that have not been able to find a job in those sectors of the economy are entitled to welfare benefits. The level of support must be evaluated in relation to the independent circumstances of the living conditions of the asylum seeker. This evaluation is conducted several months after the application and thus access to basic social rights is once more delayed.

Although the law providing for emergency welfare benefits to cover a person’s immediate needs, prior to the final evaluation of their application, this is very rarely implemented with regard to asylum seekers, contrary to what is happening with Cypriots.

Cases

ü An asylum seeker from Iran, living in Cyprus with his family, underwent an emergency operation and was hospitalised for several days at the General Hospital in Nicosia. When he was released from hospital he was asked to pay CYP 600. KISA´s social adviser was told by the Ministry of Health that, although he was an asylum seeker and thus entitled to a medical card, the Ministry was unable to issue the card because he was not a holder of the new pink slip, even though he had applied for it and had the competent authority’s stamp to prove it.

ü An asylum seeker applied for welfare benefit and for a period of 3 months he was given only the sum of CYP 50, while he was entitled to approximately the sum of CYP 300. The Welfare Office never responded to the intervention of KISA in order to restore his rights, therefore KISA submitted a complaint to the Ombudswoman. The Ombudswoman concluded that the rights of the asylum seeker had been violated and that the Welfare Office was obliged to provide him with the full amount of the welfare benefit he was entitled to according to the law.




ü An asylum seeker suffering from diabetes was denied access to medical care by the General Hospital in Nicosia, despite the provisions of the law for the right to free medical care for asylum seekers. The Hospital based its refusal to submit him on the lack of a medical card, issued by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry refused to issue the medical card because the asylum seeker was not a holder of an Alien Registration Number. The Ministry of the Interior, responsible for issuing the Alien Registration Numbers, declared itself unable to issue these documents immediately, due to its workload, which resulted in long delays in issuing the necessary documentation for asylum seekers. The competent authorities finally provided access to medical care to the said asylum seeker, whose life was at great risk, after the intervention of KISA to the Minister of Health and the case was made public in the Media.

ü An Iranian family of asylum seekers submitted an application to the Welfare Services for supplementary welfare benefit, as the family income from the work of the parents was not enough to cover the needs of the family. Even though the income of the family was much lower than the one provided for in the relevant legislation for a family in the same situation, the application of the family was rejected and a lot of pressure was put on the mother of the family from the Welfare Services to secure full time employment in order to increase their income, knowing however that this was impossible as the mother had also to take care of her very young children. The mother, left without a choice, finally secured a full time job and as a result, the children remained unsupervised from their parents.. Unfortunately, one day, one of the children died of electric shock while at home with one of his brothers and with the parents away at work.

ü An asylum seeker was taken to hospital with head injuries after his employer had hit because he had asked to be paid the salaries owed to him. After his treatment was concluded, the Hospital confiscated his documents in order to oblige him to pay the medical expenses, which contravenes the law, which provides for free medical care for asylum seekers. Finally, after persisting efforts from KISA, his documents were returned without him having to pay for the medical expenses.

Nicosia, June 2005