CIR Report Regarding Recent Search and Rescue Operations in the
Mediterranean
INTRODUCTION
The Italian Refugee Council is deeply concerned
about the way Search and Rescue operations have been recently carried out in
the Mediterranean.
This report deals with the situation faced by four
boats carrying persons in need of urgent help, and the very different
rescue-at-sea responses to that need.
The Italian Council for Refugees is providing legal support to the 27
persons forced to cling to the "Budafel" tuna pen and who, after
disembarkation in Italy thanks to the Italian Navy, have been admitted to the
asylum procedure.
The cases described below show once again that
immigrants coming by sea face both the difficulties involved in crossing the
Mediterranean and dangers deriving from the highly differing search and rescue
responses in operation in these waters. This is mostly due to the different
value accorded by States to the saving of lives, on the basis of their own
immigration priorities.
These accounts further indicate another hard fact
evident in some parts of the Mediterranean: the reluctance of fishermen to
rescue people in distress at sea, frequently because of a fear of losing
working days on the sea or huge amounts of money, and sometimes also due to an
awareness of their own statesÕ policies.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the great
majority of these people are asylum-seekers in need of international
protection. The Italian Council
for Refugees condemns the attitude of some States violating directly or indirectly the principle of non
refoulement.
On the other hand, the Italian Council for Refugees
praises the attitude of both Italian and Spanish authorities, as well as the
Spanish private fishing boat "Monfalco" which acted according to the
International Maritime Law and the respect of Human Rights legislation.
CASE 1: Boat with 53/57
people in distress at sea missing south of Malta.
A boat carrying 53-57 people has been confirmed
missing since Wednesday 23 May (the Maltese had Ólost contactÒ since late
Monday 21 May). The group includes women, children and, in all likelihood,
individuals fleeing persecution and armed conflict. Some, if not all, persons
in this group are reportedly Eritrean. Relatives of those on board who live in
Malta and Italy, and who had received phone calls from the boat, had raised the
alarm early on Monday 21 May by contacting the Italian and Maltese maritime
authorities. At 9 am, a Maltese Armed Forces aircraft located the boat about 80
nautical miles south of Malta and took a number of photos. The images appear to
show the boat to be adrift while the 53 persons , some of whom are wearing life
jackets, seem to be bailing out water with a jerry can; one of the men on board
is waving a piece of red cloth.
A Maltese navy patrol – one of a number of fast
vessels donated by the Italian government – reached the spot where the
boat had last been located at 6 pm on Monday, but failed to find it. A search
operation carried out by Maltese aircraft in the afternoon was also
unsuccessful. Search and rescue activities were called off by the Maltese
authorities on Wednesday morning, 48 hours after the boat was spotted.
On Thursday 24 May, the Italian Navy, having been
alerted, announced that it was committing an Atlantic aircraft to the search,
while seven patrol boats belonging to the Italian Coast Guard left Lampedusa
and the southern shores of Sicily on the same day. The Italian authoritiesÕ
search and rescue operation was initially limited to the Italian SAR waters,
but then extended to the Libyan SAR zone. The boat carrying the 57 people was not found, but the Italian Navy
spotted and rescued another 27 people clinging to a Maltese tugÕs tuna pen on
Saturday 26 May.
On Saturday 26 May, an Eritrean opposition website[1]
claimed that the 53-57 people on board the boat were alive and in a detention
center in Libya. One of the Eritreans on the boat reportedly called his sister
in Europe to tell her that the persons had been rescued by the Libyan
authorities, that they were at the moment detained in a Ôsecret prisonÕ in
Libya, and that they would be repatriated shortly, before UNHCR or Human Rights
organizations had been informed of their whereabouts. UNHCR received five names
of people who were allegedly on the missing boat from relatives in Italy,
France and the United States.
Though it is not yet certain that the 57 people have
been intercepted and rescued at sea and/or they have in fact reached Libya,
there are ongoing efforts to locate the persons in one of the many detention
centers in Libya.
CASE (2) 27 persons cling to a fish pen belonging to Maltese trawler
in Libyan SAR waters for 3 days.
On Saturday 26 May, the Italian news agency ANSA was
informed by a reliable source in Malta that a number of persons were clinging
to a Maltese trawlerÕs tuna fish pen north of Libya. The source claimed that
the Maltese tug, the "Budafel", had communicated with the Maltese
maritime authorities about the fact late on Thursday 24 May. ANSA called the
Italian Coastguard and Navy to verify the story, prompting the Italian
Coastguard, who were unaware of the incident, to send an informal query to the
Maltese authorities. Malta denied the claims made by ANSAÕs source.
Even the Italian CoastguardÕs phone call to Malta was
met with another negative reply. Then the Italian maritime authorities sent
Malta a formal request for information in writing. On Saturday 26 May, the
Maltese authorities replied, confirming the reports and specifying the exact
location of the Maltese trawler.
By 1:18 pm the story had been published by ANSA. The
ship-owner, Charles Azzopardi, who later spoke to ANSA, claimed that his crew
could not take the migrants on board. The migrantsÕ boat had reportedly gone
down 60 miles off the coast of Libya, in Libyan Search And Rescue waters, and
the Maltese and Libyan authorities were apparently engaged in a diplomatic
standoff as to who should take responsibility for the migrants.
An Italian patrol vessel, the "Orione", and
an Atlantic aircraft belonging to the Italian navy were in Libyan SAR waters
and Libyan airspace, respectively, as part of the search for the
above-mentioned boat carrying 53/57 persons, which had been reported missing
south of Malta. Prior to 26 May, when ANSA ran the story and published photographs
(taken by the Italian aircraft) of the migrants clinging to the pen, Malta had
not circulated information about the incident for at least 40 hours and, on
Saturday morning, had denied reports about it.
The Italian navy vessel reached the "Budafel"
at about 9 pm on 26 May and by 10:50 pm all 27 persons were on board the
"Orione", which then headed to Lampedusa. The "Orione"
docked in Lampedusa at about 8 am on Sunday 27 May and those on board were able
to join the 77 persons then in the islandÕs screening center.
Interviews of the people conducted in Lampedusa and by
the Italian Council for Refugees in Crotone, showed that the 27 persons, all
men, are from Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Niger, Senegal and
Togo. Previous news items had reported that the persons had clung to the narrow
walkway surrounding the Maltese tugÕs tuna pen for 24 hours. The persons,
however, claimed that they had left the Libyan port of Al Zwarah 9 days before
they were rescued, on 17 May. During the crossing they had reportedly attempted
to seek help from two fishing boats, one of which attempted to rescue them
whilst the second one, whose crew spoke English and Arabic, apparently rebuffed
the peopleÕ attempts to climb on board.
On their sixth day at sea, Wednesday 23 May, the
persons came across the "Budafel" and its floating tuna pen,
surrounded by buoys propping up the 50 cm-wide walkway, which the fishermen use
to feed the fish. The people reportedly tried to grasp the ropes linking the
Maltese tug to the pen in an attempt to tie their water-logged boat to them,
but the boat capsized. The 27 men then swam to the walkway and spent the next
three days clinging to the buoys for dear life. The "Budafel"Õs 4-man
crew reportedly only gave the persons water and some fruit during the first
day, when a Maltese reconnaissance plane apparently flew over the area. The
captain refused to allow the persons on board the "Budafel", stating
that ÒAs a Maltese, I'm prepared to assist people, but there's a limit to
everything. What if these 24 [sic] strong men rebelled and tried to assume
control of the boat?[2]Ó.
The captain also argued that he could not take the persons to Malta as he could
not risk losing the Û 1 million-worth catch of tuna being hauled by the ship,
which was heading to Spain.
As the persons clung to the walkway and endured harsh
weather conditions (fierce sunshine during the day and cold nights), Libya and
Malta wrangled over who should take responsibility for the 27 men. The Libyan
authorities reportedly sent Malta a fax saying they would pick up the persons,
but then failed to do so. On Saturday 26 May the Maltese authorities finally
confirmed that the persons were stranded on the buoys and gave the Italian navy
the exact location of the tug.
Maltese Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg,
however, told reporters on Monday 28 May that the government had made it very
clear to the captain of the Budafel that he was obliged to take the persons on
board if they were in any danger. At the time of the incident, according to Mr.
Borg and Brigadier Carmel Vassallo of the Armed Forces of Malta, the Budafel
was 23 nautical miles outside Malta's SAR zone.
CASE (3) 26 people saved by Spanish fishing
boat ÒMonfalcoÕ Ó in Libyan SAR waters but refused disembarcation in Malta
The Italian news agency ANSA reported on Saturday 26
May that 26 people had been rescued by the Spanish tug "Monfalco".
The ship was apparently operating in Libyan SAR waters about 60 nautical miles
from the Libyan coast. Spanish daily ÔEl Pa’sÕ, however, claims that the
trawler came across the persons on Friday night and that they were found about
100 nautical miles from both Libya and Malta. The "Monfalco"Õs
six-man crew reportedly gave the persons water, food and fuel and urged them to
continue their journey. The captain, Ruben Vasquez, told ÔEl Pa’sÕ that Òthere
was no room for all those people on board[3]Ó
the "Monfalco".
On Saturday morning the fishermen of
"Monfalco" realized that the boat was sinking and hauled the 26 men
on board.
According to news reports, the Maltese authorities
refused to allow the people to disembark and have told the shipÕs captain that
Libya is responsible for the stretch of water where they were rescued.
On Monday 28 May, the "Monfalco" was
reported to be floating 83 nautical miles south of Malta. The Maltese media
claim that the 26 persons were supposed to have been picked up by the Italian
navy patrol which rescued the 27 sub-Saharans who had been clinging to a
Maltese tugÕs tuna pen for 3 days, but that this did not occur.
The Spanish ambassador in La Valletta has reportedly
met officials from the Maltese Foreign Affairs Ministry in an attempt to find a
solution to the crisis. On Monday 28 May, Maltese Interior Minister, Tonio
Borg, told the Italian press that Òthe issue concerns Spain and Libya, given
that the rescue took place in Libyan waters and that the clandestine immigrants
are on a Spanish fishing vessel[4]Ó.
ÒMaltaÓ, Borg added, Òcannot welcome all the clandestine immigrants who say
that they do not want to go back to Libya. We do not have competence over this
case and cannot take on the responsibility of othersÓ.
During a press conference on Monday, the Maltese
government insisted that the incident took place 27 miles inside Libya's search
and rescue area and 17 miles outside MaltaÕs SAR zone, and that Libya was
therefore responsible for the people' safety. ÒThe AFM [Armed Forces of Malta]
has risked many lives in rough seas and strong winds this year in order to save
many livesÓ, Mr. Borg told reporters, Òlives that would have been lost were it
not for the AFM's effortsÓ.
Spanish Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Alfonso
Barnuevo told ÔEl Pa’sÕ that no negotiations with Malta and Libya had taken
place. Spain, Barnuevo claimed, would take in the persons as they are
Òpotential asylum seekers who appear to come from Ivory Coast, a country at war[5]Ó.
On Monday afternoon Barnuevo stated that the "Monfalco" was heading
towards Spain, but the boatÕs captain flatly denied the government spokesmanÕs
claims. ÒThe boat is still hereÓ, he told ÔEl Pa’sÕ, Òwe cannot abandon the
fish pensÓ. The head of the Navy company for Tugs and Services (Nareser) also
said that the weather was rough and that water and food supplies on board were
running low. Pedro Peredo, the captain of the Montroig, another boat in the
area, told Europa Press that Òthe situation on board [the Monfalco] is
desperate. The crew feel abandoned[6]Ó.
On Tuesday 29 May, the Spanish media widely echoed the
decision of the Spanish Government to bring these persons to Spain. The media
also mentioned that, given the alleged nationalities of these persons, they
would probably seek asylum in Spain.
The head of Nareser said he had faith in the
negotiations underway between Malta, Spain and Libya, but affirmed that if no
solution was forthcoming he would have to head back to the Spanish port of
Tarragona, 755 nautical miles away, a distance which, according to ÔEl Pa’sÕ,
the "Monfalco" would take at least three days to cover.
The "Monfalco" reportedly began its journey
towards Spain at 3 pm on Tuesday 29 May. The boatÕs speed, according to ÔEl
Pa’sÕ, was initially 14.8 km/h, but rough weather forced the crew to slow down
to a speed of 4 knots. ÔEl Pa’sÕ reported on Wednesday 30 May that the
"Monfalco" was due to meet a Spanish Coastguard vessel, the Clara
Campoamor, which had left the Spanish island of Palma de Mallorca on Tuesday
night, south of Sardinia during the night. The 27 men will then reportedly be
taken to Spain, though ÔEl Pa’sÕ was not able to specify which port they will
dock at.
The "Clara Campoamor" met the
"Monfalco" on May 31 in
order to effect the transfer. On
June 2 the rescued persons were admitted to Spanish territory.
CASE (4) Maltese aircraft spots boat full of
persons, but fails to initiate rescue operation
According to information received in Lampedusa a boat
carrying 52 people from Algeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Morocco and Sudan,
including a child and seven women, was sighted by a Maltese aircraft two days
after the group left Libya. However, no rescue operation was launched and the
Italian authorities were only alerted as to the boatÕs presence when a Tunisian
fishing boat contacted them. The persons arrived in Lampedusa on 25 May.
Possible violations of the European
Convention on Human Rights and the International Maritime law
CIR is very concerned about the
current attitude of some States, in particular Libya and Malta, putting lives
at risk and causing unnecessary suffering to people in distress at sea, most of
whom are asylum seekers.
CIR stresses the need for
preserving the integrity of the longstanding maritime tradition as well as the obligation
enshrined in International Law of maritime search and rescue services.
Considering the
recent events described above, CIR is worried about the violations
perpetrated by Maltese Authorities
of both the International Maritime Legislation and the protection obligations
by virtue of the non refoulement principle, deriving from
Article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
Article 3 of the UN Convention
against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment
as well as Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
There is an urgent need to
define more precisely the conditions under which a Member State is obligated to
assume responsibility for examining asylum claims of people rescued at sea, in
particular when it takes part in operations carried out in the territorial or
contiguous waters of another State or in the high seas. However, States are not
exempted from complying with their obligations under Community and
International Law.
First, according to
the information obtained by ANSA, UNHCR, and rescued persons interviewed by CIR
on how facts have evolved in Case 2 (Budafel tug) and Case 4, the behavior of
the competent Maltese Authorities in launching and conducting the Search and
Rescue operations was unclear.
This leads one to believe that not all efforts have been made in order
to intervene urgently on behalf of people in distress at sea, taking into
consideration- inter alia- that nowadays, distress signals can be
rapidly transmitted by satellite and terrestrial communication techniques both
to search and rescue authorities ashore, and to ships in the immediate vicinity.
Several maritime
Conventions define the obligations of State Parties to ensure arrangements for
distress communication and coordination in their area of responsibility and for
the rescue of persons in distress at sea around their coasts.
1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
Convention) imposes an obligation on every coastal State Party to
ÒÉpromote the
establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search
and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where
circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate
with neighbouring States for this purposeÓ Art. 98 (2).
1974
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) requires State Parties
ÒÉ to ensure that
necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and co-ordination in
their area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea
around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation
and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable
and necessary ÉÓ (Chapter V, Regulation 7)
Secondly, Maltese
Authorities should have obliged the shipmaster of the Maltese tug, the Budafel,
to get the 27 rescued persons on board instead of leaving them clinging to the
buoys for three days in very harsh
weather conditions. The Budafel put these people's lives at risk and submitted
them to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 2 and 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights.
The Authorities
should have required the master of "Budafel", who embarked the 27
persons in distress at sea, to treat them with humanity, within the
capabilities of the ship. The Master of the Budafel refused to let them on
board of the tug in order to avoid the risk of
losing E 1 million-worth catch of tuna being hauled by the ship which was
heading to Spain.
The Maltese
Authorities should verify specific responsibilities of the Master of Budafel
and, if found guilty, prosecuted him according to Maltese legislation, for not
having given adequate assistance to people in danger.
1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
Convention) provides that:
Ò Every State
shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so
without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:
(a) to render
assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) to proceed
with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of
their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected
of him.Ó (Art. 98 (1)).
1974
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the
Òmaster of a ship
at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving
information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to
proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the
search and rescue service that the ship is doing so.ÉÓ
(Chapter V,
Regulation 33(1)).
Furthermore, Maltese
Authorities should have intervened to release the "Budafel" and the
Spanish vessel from their
obligations with minimum further deviation from the ship's intended voyage.
The amendments to
the SOLAS and SAR Conventions, entered into force on 1 July 2006, aim at maintaining the integrity of the SAR services, by ensuring that
people in distress at sea are assisted while minimizing the inconvenience for
the assisting ship. They require the Contracting States/Parties to
■ co-ordinate
and co-operate to ensure that masters of ships providing assistance by
embarking persons in distress at sea are released from their obligations with
minimum further deviation from the shipÕs intended voyage; and
■ arrange
disembarkation as soon as reasonably practicable.
They also oblige
masters who have embarked persons in distress at sea, to treat them with
humanity, within the capabilities of the ship.
Guidelines on the
Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee Resolution 167 (78) in May
2004 which provide guidance to governments and to shipmasters in implementing
these amendments.
Malta should ratify
these amendments in order to comply with the maritime obligations and to ensure
that the obligation of the ship Master to render assistance is complemented by
a corresponding obligation of States to co-operate in rescue situations,
thereby relieving the Master of the responsibility to care for survivors, and
allowing individuals who are rescued at sea in such circumstance to be
delivered promptly to a place of safety.
Thirdly, Malta
should have intervened in order to deliver the rescued persons to a place of safety as established by International Maritime Law. In particular, according
to 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) State
Parties are obliged to
ÒÉensure that
assistance be provided to any person in distress at seaÉregardless of the
nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that
person is foundÓ (Chapter 2.1.10) Ò [É]
provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place
of safety.Ó (Chapter 1.3.2)
According to the
Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea
● The
government responsible for the SAR region in which survivors were recovered is
responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of
safety is provided. (para. 2.5).
● A place of
safety is a location where rescue operations are considered to terminate, and
where:
♠ the survivorsÕ safety or life is no longer threatened;
♠ basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can
be met; and
♠ transportation arrangements can be made for the survivorsÕ next
or final destination.
(par. 6.12)
● While an
assisting ship may serve as a temporary place of safety, it should be relieved
of this responsibility as soon as alternative arrangements can be made. (para.
6.13).
Furthermore, as
regards asylum seekers, the Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued
at Sea foresee that
●
Disembarkation of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea, in territories
where their lives and freedom would be threatened should be avoided. (para.
6.17)
● Any
operations and procedures such as screening and status assessment of rescued
persons that go beyond rendering assistance to persons in distress should not
be allowed to hinder the provision of such assistance or unduly delay
disembarkation. (para. 6.20)
Maltese authorities
in case 1 ( "Budafel" tug) and in particular in case 3
("Monfalco" boat) did not intervene to relieve ships of their
responsibilities and didn't even attempt to make arrangements to find a place
of safety. Thanks to the Italian
Authorities in case 1 and the Spanish Authorities in case 3, after refusal of
Malta to relieve both "Budafel" and "Monfalco" boats of
their responsibilities, rescued persons were admitted to the Italian and
Spanish territory.
Moreover, Maltese
Authorities should have taken into consideration that Libya has not ratified
the 1951 Geneva Convention and
cannot be considered a safe third country for asylum seekers. Maltese
Authorities tried to make arrangements with Libyan Authorities to bring back to
Libya rescued persons in case 1 ("Budafel" tug) and case 3
("Monfalco"). In these
cases sending these persons - mostly asylum seekers - to Libya,
considered responsible for the SAR zone where they were rescued, would
imply that Malta indirectly was not complying with the non-refoulment principle foreseen by article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees . This provision prohibits that refugees or asylum-seekers be expelled or returned in any way
" to the frontiers of territories where his (or her) life or freedom would
be threatened on account of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership of
a particular social group or political opinion" (Article 33).
This refers
principally to the country from which the individual has fled but also includes
any other territory where he/she faces such a threat.
Maltese Authorities
were aware of Libyan practices towards migrants and asylum seekers and of the
fact that they were indirectly violating article 2 and article 3
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
As most likely occurred
in Case 1 (boat with 53/57 people in distress at sea), once people are
intercepted and/or rescued they are generally detained in prisons or centers
where no lawyers and Human Rights Organizations have access to them.
It should also be
emphasized that the local UNHCR office has huge difficulties in getting
information on asylum seekers detained in Libya in order to intervene and avoid
forced repatriation.
The fact that a State has
intercepted and rescued people in distress at sea under its jurisdiction does
not mean that it is automatically responsible for examining their asylum
claims. This State, in fact, is required to verify in practice whether the
people concerned are at risk of being submitted to torture or degrading and
inhumane treatment when sent -directly or indirectly- to countries that are
considered unsafe.
The same obligation must be met
by any State whose vessels fly the
flag and have intercepted and /or rescued people in distress at sea. This obligation has been respected by
the Italian Navy and Spanish authorities respectively in Case 2
("Budafel" tug) and in
Case 3 ("Monfalco"), avoiding "Refoulement
en cascade".
Besides the
principle according to which the State responsible for the SAR zone should
provide such a safe place or to make sure that a place is found, there is no
rule designating by default a State responsible for receiving the rescued
passengers such as, for example, the State of nationality or of residence of
the persons, the flag State, or the State from which the ship departs.
In spite of the
recent revision of the SAR regime undertaken by the International Maritime
Organization, one of the problems that needs to be solved would be the
determination of the most appropriate place of disembarkation following rescue
at sea and/or interception, as well as the connected question of the sharing,
between the State participating in the interception and search and rescue
operations, of responsibilities regarding the persons intercepted or rescued
seeking international protection.
Specific
action to be taken by the European Union and specifically by the European
Parliament: organisational and policy actions
The European Parliament may wish:
-
to
urge EU Member States to comply
with the International Law on Human Rights, as well as Asylum and Refugee Law,
in particular the non refoulement principle;
-
to
call upon Member States to observe and honour International Maritime Law;
-
to
invite States that have not done so yet, to ratify the amendments to SAR and
SOLAS Conventions and to establish a regional agreement on Search and Rescue
situations;
- to demand the
European Commission to urgently continue actions to adopt specific legislation
in order to fill the gaps in the existing law about the disembarkation and the
admission to the asylum procedure
or, on the other hand, repatriation. These actions have to be adopted within the existing policy
framework which aims towards reinforcement of the southern maritime external
borders management in order to improve the capacity of the Community and its
Member States to deal with critical situations, such as the massive influx of
illegal immigrants by sea;
-
to invite the
European Commission to strengthen its dialogue and co-operation policy with the
non-EU Mediterranean States concerned with the search and rescue operations at
different levels, as well as with countries of origin and transit in order to
prevent illegal immigration and trafficking of persons.
-
to promote the establishment of a specific
fund to cover the costs to shippers, such as delays, diversions and other
inconveniences which can arise as a result the launching of rescue operations.
Sources
Ô57 Eritrean asylum seekers reportedly saved from a
sinking boat but secretly incarcerated in LibyaÕ, Asmarino.com (26/05/07):
http://asmarino.com/content/view/64/11/
Articles on migrants clinging to fish pen, La
Repubblica
(26-27/05/07):
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/05/sezioni/cronaca/barcone-scomparso/gabbie-tonni/gabbie-tonni.html
ANSA news agency report on migrants clinging to pen
(27/05/07):
http://www.ansa.it/opencms/export/site/visualizza_fdg.html_2125808541.html
ÔEuropeÕs shameÕ, The Independent, 28/05/07:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2588985.ece
ÔThis obscenity is a wake-up call for EuropeÕ, The
Independent,
28/05/07:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2588916.ece
ÔSalvados por los atunesÕ,
El Pa’s, 28/05/07:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Salvados/atunes/elpepuint/20070528elpepuint_14/Tes
ÔIllegal immigrants floating in limboÕ, The Times
of Malta,
28/05/07:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=263078
ÔUn barco espa–ol lleva tres
d’as al sur de Malta con 26 n‡ufragos que nadie quiereÕ, El Pa’s, 29/05/07:
ÔUN rebuke as governments squabble over immigrants
found clinging to tuna netsÕ, The Guardian, 29/05/07
http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/story/0,,2090156,00.html
ÔIrregular migration: weekend rescue operations
Òoutside Malta's responsibilityÓÕ, Malta Independent, 29/05/07
ÔUn buque de Fomento recoger‡ en alta mar a los n‡ufragos de MaltaÕ, El
Pa’s, 30/05/07:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/buque/Fomento/recogera/alta/mar/naufragos/Malta/elpepuesp/20070530elpepinac_20/Tes