#détention

Asylum seekers who claimed torture and abuse in Latvia are using the courts to fight back

Some of the people looking to take the Latvian state to court have alleged ill-treatment including beatings, electric shocks and cigarette burns.

Earlier this year, Sidya Sompare, 20, a Guinean man who had attempted to claim asylum in Latvia, tried to end his life in a Latvian detention centre by drinking shampoo in his toilet stall.

Having fled Guinea in the wake of threats against his safety due to his participation in anti-government protests, Sompare arrived in Belarus in September 2021 on a quest to find a secure life in Europe, before spending six months in the forested border zone between the country and Latvia.

There, in addition to being pushed back and forth across the border by authorities in both countries, he alleges he was severely beaten, verbally abused, and given barely any food for days on end by Latvian border guards. Sompare then spent eight months in the closed detention center after he lost his passport in the woods and his asylum efforts were denied.

When Sompare was found on the floor of his toilet stall after his suicide attempt, detention center authorities promptly took him to a hospital.

“I’m not sick, I’m alright,” he recalled saying to a doctor during an interview with Euronews. “Just I need to be free.”

He was finally released from detention in April with the help of Doctors Without Borders, an NGO, and a local Latvian human rights group. But Sompare didn’t stop there — having previously filed two unsuccessful complaints against the Latvian state last year for his detention and the dehumanizing treatment he experienced in the forest along the border, he has taken his fight to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where his case was formally registered on July 5.

Beatings and electric shocks

Sompare is not alone in turning to legal pathways to seek justice for ill-treatment by Latvian border authorities during the migrant crisis along the Belarusian border.

As allegations of torture and ill-treatment by Latvian authorities have continued to emerge since last year, an increasing number of migrants and refugees who say they have experienced life-altering trauma at the hands of Latvian security forces have been mounting court challenges against them over the last few months, aiming to hold their former tormentors and the Latvian state accountable.

These cases, which are mostly taking place at the national level with the exception of Sompare’s, represent some of the first legal efforts in Latvia since the start of the border crisis in 2021 that are specifically focused on the harrowing abuse that border authorities have allegedly inflicted on people crossing the border.

“All the Latvian institutions, even the ombudsperson of Latvia, they deny that Latvia did anything illegal with those migrants,” said Nikita Matyushchenkov, a human rights lawyer at Respect, Protect, Fulfill (RPF), the legal organisation that helped Sompare file his ECHR case. “So these will be very important judgements.”

In addition to challenging ongoing deportation procedures against him, Sompare’s ECHR case is focused on the ill-treatment he received in Latvian custody in the forests of the border area, which he and RPF claim was illegal. RPF has also filed three cases at the national level in Latvia, two in March and one in June of this year, on behalf of individuals who claim they were abused by Latvian border authorities between August 2021 and March 2022.

But these may not be the only cases that will be brought to bear against the Latvian state — Matyushchenkov said that RPF has identified up to 100 people who were abused in one way or another by Latvian border guards while in the forest in the border area.

Some of Matyushchenkov’s clients have told him that they were beaten with electric shock devices — claims that are consistent with findings documented in 2022 in an Amnesty International report on Latvia’s border. In another report published this month, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stated that it had received several claims of “severe ill-treatment” from people who were detained after crossing into Latvia, again recounting beatings and electric shocks to areas of the body “including the genitals.”

’I got sick physically and mentally’

The ongoing migrant border crisis has, according to European states, been manufactured by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has incentivised people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia to journey to Belarus before forcing them to cross the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia illegally as a means of putting pressure on the European Union.

After establishing a state of emergency along its border in August 2021, Latvia adopted new amendments to its border laws in June of this year that have been denounced by Amnesty International, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNHCR as legalising internationally-condemned pushbacks. Crucially, these amendments have also enshrined into law the State Border Guard’s broadly defined use of force to prevent illegal entry into Latvia.

Although Poland and Lithuania have both faced accusations of ill-treatment of migrants as well, Matyushchenkov said that Latvia has been much more extreme in its abuse of people crossing its border.

In one particularly gruesome case that has previously been reported in international media, Abdulrahman Kiwan, a humanitarian worker who fled Syria following pressure from the government of Bashar al-Assad, has alleged that he not only received electric shocks from Latvian guards, but that they extinguished cigarettes in the places where he had previously been injured.

Now, Kiwan said he is in touch with a Latvian human rights group about filing his own complaint against the Latvian state — and if it fails, he is also ready to escalate his efforts to the ECHR with the help of legal NGOs.

“I got sick physically and mentally because of them,” Kiwan, 28, who is now based in Germany, said of the Latvian border authorities. “I want my voice to reach the world and other migrants, that the Latvian Border Guards are liars and are extremely racist.”

A Latvian human rights group is currently working on preparing a complaint for another refugee based in Germany, Hadi, 26, from Yemen, who told Euronews that Latvian guards beat him, violently struck him in the head, and shocked him with an electric baton. In addition to seeking compensation for crimes committed against him, Hadi, who requested to use an alias due to his ongoing asylum case in Germany, also wants his experience to be a cautionary tale.

“Legally, I want this complaint [to ensure] that no human being will be harmed after me,” he told Euronews.

’The government is scared of me’

Although Matyushchenkov said the chances of success for migrant cases like these at the ECHR may be significant, the same cannot be said for complaints within the Latvian system.

“From the way it was investigated at the national level, it seems like the authorities are not willing to investigate such complaints properly,” he said, referencing Sompare’s initial complaint procedure. “In the response to his complaint, they identified a person who allegedly beat the complainant, and they interviewed that person. That security official said he didn’t beat this person, and this was basically the end of the investigation.”

The Latvian government, including the Latvian State Border Guard, have previously denied any claims of abuse and torture from migrants. As of the writing of this article however, the Latvian State Border Guard, together with the country’s Internal Security Bureau and Prosecution Office which handle legal complaints from people crossing the border, were unavailable for comment.

Sompare, who is currently living in Latvia’s capital Riga, has no plans to leave Latvia anytime soon. As he fights his still ongoing deportation procedure and the traumatic abuse he suffered in the country, he can feel he is already making an impact.

“Something is going to change in Latvia,” he said. “Right now for sure the government is scared of me.”

Despite being severely disappointed in Europe’s capacity to help desperate people like himself, Sompare said he wants to continue his university studies after he wins his case, and hopes to find work at a human rights organization for refugees in Latvia. Until then however, he understands that he is fighting an uphill battle not only to save himself, but also many other asylum seekers who are in the same situation.

“I want to be an example for the people [to whom] the Latvian government did something illegal,” Sompare said. “The things that I started, I will finish them in Latvia.

▻https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/08/01/asylum-seekers-who-claimed-torture-and-abuse-in-latvia-are-using-the-court

#justice #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme

Le système électronique d’#Entrée-Sortie en zone #Schengen : la biométrie au service des #frontières_intelligentes

https://i.imgur.com/KcTRFIK.png

Avec la pression migratoire et la vague d’attentats subis par l’Europe ces derniers mois, la gestion des frontières devient une priorité pour la Commission.

Certes, le système d’information sur les #visas (#VIS, #Visa_Information_System) est déployé depuis 2015 dans les consulats des États Membres et sa consultation rendue obligatoire lors de l’accès dans l’#espace_Schengen.

Mais, depuis février 2013, est apparu le concept de « #frontières_intelligentes », (#Smart_Borders), qui recouvre un panel ambitieux de mesures législatives élaborées en concertation avec le Parlement Européen.

Le système entrée/sortie, en particulier, va permettre, avec un système informatique unifié, d’enregistrer les données relatives aux #entrées et aux #sorties des ressortissants de pays tiers en court séjour franchissant les frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne.

Adopté puis signé le 30 Novembre 2017 par le Conseil Européen, il sera mis en application en 2022. Il s’ajoutera au « PNR européen » qui, depuis le 25 mai 2018, recense les informations sur les passagers aériens.

https://i.imgur.com/S3PUBLo.png

Partant du principe que la majorité des visiteurs sont « de bonne foi », #EES bouleverse les fondements mêmes du #Code_Schengen avec le double objectif de :

- rendre les frontières intelligentes, c’est-à-dire automatiser le contrôle des visiteurs fiables tout en renforçant la lutte contre les migrations irrégulières
- créer un #registre_central des mouvements transfrontaliers.

La modernisation de la gestion des frontières extérieures est en marche. En améliorant la qualité et l’efficacité des contrôles de l’espace Schengen, EES, avec une base de données commune, doit contribuer à renforcer la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme ainsi que les formes graves de criminalité.

L’#identification de façon systématique des personnes qui dépassent la durée de séjour autorisée dans l’espace Schengen en est un des enjeux majeurs.

Nous verrons pourquoi la reconnaissance faciale en particulier, est la grande gagnante du programme EES. Et plus seulement dans les aéroports comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui.

Dans ce dossier web, nous traiterons des 6 sujets suivants :

- ESS : un puissant dispositif de prévention et détection
- La remise en cause du code « frontières Schengen » de 2006
- EES : un accès très réglementé
- La biométrie faciale : fer de lance de l’EES
- EES et la lutte contre la fraude à l’identité
- Thales et l’identité : plus de 20 ans d’expertise

Examinons maintenant ces divers points plus en détail.

ESS : un puissant dispositif de prévention et détection

Les activités criminelles telles que la traite d’êtres humains, les filières d’immigration clandestine ou les trafics d’objets sont aujourd’hui la conséquence de franchissements illicites de frontières, largement facilités par l’absence d’enregistrement lors des entrées/ sorties.

Le scénario de fraude est – hélas – bien rôdé : Contrôle « standard » lors de l’accès à l’espace Schengen, puis destruction des documents d’identité dans la perspective d’activités malveillantes, sachant l’impossibilité d’être authentifié.

Même si EES vise le visiteur « de bonne foi », le système va constituer à terme un puissant dispositif pour la prévention et la détection d’activités terroristes ou autres infractions pénales graves. En effet les informations stockées dans le nouveau registre pour 5 ans– y compris concernant les personnes refoulées aux frontières – couvrent principalement les noms, numéros de passeport, empreintes digitales et photos. Elles seront accessibles aux autorités frontalières et de délivrance des visas, ainsi qu’à Europol.

Le système sera à la disposition d’enquêtes en particulier, vu la possibilité de consulter les mouvements transfrontières et historiques de déplacements. Tout cela dans le plus strict respect de la dignité humaine et de l’intégrité des personnes.

Le dispositif est très clair sur ce point : aucune discrimination fondée sur le sexe, la couleur, les origines ethniques ou sociales, les caractéristiques génétiques, la langue, la religion ou les convictions, les opinions politiques ou toute autre opinion.

Sont également exclus du champ d’investigation l’appartenance à une minorité nationale, la fortune, la naissance, un handicap, l’âge ou l’orientation sexuelle des visiteurs.​

La remise en cause du Code frontières Schengen

Vu la croissance attendue des visiteurs de pays tiers (887 millions en 2025), l’enjeu est maintenant de fluidifier et simplifier les contrôles.

Une initiative particulièrement ambitieuse dans la mesure où elle remet en cause le fameux Code Schengen qui impose des vérifications approfondies, conduites manuellement par les autorités des Etats Membres aux entrées et sorties, sans possibilité d’automatisation.

Par ailleurs, le Code Schengen ne prévoit aucun enregistrement des mouvements transfrontaliers. La procédure actuelle exigeant seulement que les passeports soient tamponnés avec mention des dates d’entrée et sortie.

Seule possibilité pour les gardes-frontières : Calculer un éventuel dépassement de la durée de séjour qui elle-même est une information falsifiable et non consignée dans une base de données.

Autre contrainte, les visiteurs réguliers comme les frontaliers doivent remplacer leurs passeports tous les 2-3 mois, vue la multitude de tampons ! Un procédé bien archaïque si l’on considère le potentiel des technologies de l’information.

La proposition de 2013 comprenait donc trois piliers :

- ​La création d’un système automatisé d’entrée/sortie (Entry/ Exit System ou EES)
- Un programme d’enregistrement de voyageurs fiables, (RTP, Registered Traveller Program) pour simplifier le passage des visiteurs réguliers, titulaires d’un contrôle de sûreté préalable
– La modification du Code Schengen

Abandon de l’initiative RTP

Trop complexe à mettre en œuvre au niveau des 28 Etats Membres, l’initiative RTP (Registered Travelers Program) a été finalement abandonnée au profit d’un ambitieux programme Entry/ Exit (EES) destiné aux visiteurs de courte durée (moins de 90 jours sur 180 jours).

Précision importante, sont maintenant concernés les voyageurs non soumis à l’obligation de visa, sachant que les détenteurs de visas sont déjà répertoriés par le VIS.

La note est beaucoup moins salée que prévue par la Commission en 2013. Au lieu du milliard estimé, mais qui incluait un RTP, la proposition révisée d’un EES unique ne coutera « que » 480 millions d’EUR.

Cette initiative ambitieuse fait suite à une étude technique menée en 2014, puis une phase de prototypage conduite sous l’égide de l’agence EU-LISA en 2015 avec pour résultat le retrait du projet RTP et un focus particulier sur le programme EES.

Une architecture centralisée gérée par EU-LISA

L’acteur clé du dispositif EES, c’est EU-LISA, l’Agence européenne pour la gestion opérationnelle des systèmes d’information à grande échelle dont le siège est à Tallinn, le site opérationnel à Strasbourg et le site de secours à Sankt Johann im Pongau (Autriche). L’Agence sera en charge des 4 aspects suivants :

- Développement du système central
- Mise en œuvre d’une interface uniforme nationale (IUN) dans chaque État Membre
- Communication sécurisée entre les systèmes centraux EES et VIS
- Infrastructure de communication entre système central et interfaces uniformes nationales.

Chaque État Membre sera responsable de l’organisation, la gestion, le fonctionnement et de la maintenance de son infrastructure frontalière vis-à-vis d’EES.

https://i.imgur.com/U3wC8Am.png

Une gestion optimisée des frontières

Grâce au nouveau dispositif, tous les ressortissants des pays tiers seront traités de manière égale, qu’ils soient ou non exemptés de visas.

Le VIS répertorie déjà les visiteurs soumis à visas. Et l’ambition d’EES c’est de constituer une base pour les autres.

Les États Membres seront donc en mesure d’identifier tout migrant ou visiteur en situation irrégulière ayant franchi illégalement les frontières et faciliter, le cas échéant, son expulsion.

Dès l’authentification à une borne en libre–service, le visiteur se verra afficher les informations suivantes, sous supervision d’un garde-frontière :

- ​Date, heure et point de passage, en remplacement des tampons manuels
- Notification éventuelle d’un refus d’accès.
- Durée maximale de séjour autorisé.
- Dépassement éventuelle de la durée de séjour autorisée
En ce qui concerne les autorités des Etats Membres, c’est une véritable révolution par rapport à l’extrême indigence du système actuel. On anticipe déjà la possibilité de constituer des statistiques puissantes et mieux gérer l’octroi, ou la suppression de visas, en fonction de mouvements transfrontières, notamment grâce à des informations telles que :

- ​​​Dépassements des durées de séjour par pays
- Historique des mouvements frontaliers par pays

EES : un accès très réglementé

L’accès à EES est très réglementé. Chaque État Membre doit notifier à EU-LISA les autorités répressives habilitées à consulter les données aux fins de prévention ou détection d’infractions terroristes et autres infractions pénales graves, ou des enquêtes en la matière.

Europol, qui joue un rôle clé dans la prévention de la criminalité, fera partie des autorités répressives autorisées à accéder au système dans le cadre de sa mission.

Par contre, les données EES ne pourront pas être communiquées à des pays tiers, une organisation internationale ou une quelconque partie privée établie ou non dans l’Union, ni mises à leur disposition. Bien entendu, dans le cas d’enquêtes visant l’identification d’un ressortissant de pays tiers, la prévention ou la détection d’infractions terroristes, des exceptions pourront être envisagées.​

Proportionnalité et respect de la vie privée

Dans un contexte législatif qui considère le respect de la vie privée comme une priorité, le volume de données à caractère personnel enregistré dans EES sera considérablement réduit, soit 26 éléments au lieu des 36 prévus en 2013.

Il s’agit d’un dispositif négocié auprès du Contrôleur Européen pour la Protection des Données (CEPD) et les autorités nationales en charge d’appliquer la nouvelle réglementation.

Très schématiquement, les données collectées se limiteront à des informations minimales telles que : nom, prénom, références du document de voyage et visa, biométrie du visage et de 4 empreintes digitales.

A chaque visite, seront relevés la date, l’heure et le lieu de contrôle frontière. Ces données seront conservées pendant cinq années, et non plus 181 jours comme proposé en 2013.

Un procédé qui permettra aux gardes-frontières et postes consulaires d’analyser l’historique des déplacements, lors de l’octroi de nouveaux visas.
ESS : privacy by design

La proposition de la Commission a été rédigée selon le principe de « respect de la vie privée dès la conception », mieux connue sous le label « Privacy By Design ».

Sous l’angle du droit, elle est bien proportionnée à la protection des données à caractère personnel en ce que la collecte, le stockage et la durée de conservation des données permettent strictement au système de fonctionner et d’atteindre ses objectifs.

EES sera un système centralisé avec coopération des Etats Membres ; d’où une architecture et des règles de fonctionnement communes.​

Vu cette contrainte d’uniformisation des modalités régissant vérifications aux frontières et accès au système, seul le règlement en tant que véhicule juridique pouvait convenir, sans possibilité d’adaptation aux législations nationales.

Un accès internet sécurisé à un service web hébergé par EU-LISA permettra aux visiteurs des pays tiers de vérifier à tout moment leur durée de séjour autorisée.

Cette fonctionnalité sera également accessible aux transporteurs, comme les compagnies aériennes, pour vérifier si leurs voyageurs sont bien autorisés à pénétrer dans le territoire de l’UE.

La biométrie faciale, fer de lance du programme EES

Véritable remise en question du Code Schengen, EES permettra de relever la biométrie de tous les visiteurs des pays tiers, alors que ceux soumis à visa sont déjà enregistrés dans le VIS.

Pour les identifiants biométriques, l’ancien système envisageait 10 empreintes digitales. Le nouveau combine quatre empreintes et la reconnaissance faciale.

https://i.imgur.com/FJZLqKV.png

La technologie, qui a bénéficié de progrès considérables ces dernières années, s’inscrit en support des traditionnelles empreintes digitales.

Bien que la Commission ne retienne pas le principe d’enregistrement de visiteurs fiables (RTP), c’est tout comme.

En effet, quatre empreintes seront encore relevées lors du premier contrôle pour vérifier que le demandeur n’est pas déjà répertorié dans EES ou VIS.

En l’absence d’un signal, l’autorité frontalière créera un dossier en s’assurant que la photographie du passeport ayant une zone de lecture automatique (« Machine Readable Travel Document ») correspond bien à l’image faciale prise en direct du nouveau visiteur.

Mais pour les passages suivants, c’est le visage qui l’emporte.

Souriez, vous êtes en Europe ! Les fastidieux (et falsifiables) tampons sur les passeports seront remplacés par un accès à EES.

La biométrie est donc le grand gagnant du programme EES. Et plus seulement dans les aéroports comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui.

Certains terminaux maritimes ou postes frontières terrestres particulièrement fréquentés deviendront les premiers clients de ces fameuses eGates réservées aujourd’hui aux seuls voyageurs aériens.

Frontex, en tant qu’agence aidant les pays de l’UE et les pays associés à Schengen à gérer leurs frontières extérieures, va aider à harmoniser les contrôles aux frontières à travers l’UE.

EES et la lutte contre la fraude à l’identité

Le dispositif EES est complexe et ambitieux dans la mesure où il fluidifie les passages tout en relevant le niveau des contrôles. On anticipe dès aujourd’hui des procédures d’accueil en Europe bien meilleures grâce aux eGates et bornes self-service.

Sous l’angle de nos politiques migratoires et de la prévention des malveillances, on pourra immédiatement repérer les personnes ne rempliss​​ant pas les conditions d’entrée et accéder aux historiques des déplacements.

Mais rappelons également qu’EES constituera un puissant outil de lutte contre la fraude à l’identité, notamment au sein de l’espace Schengen, tout visiteur ayant été enregistré lors de son arrivée à la frontière.

Thales et l’identité : plus de 20 ans d’expertise

Thales est particulièrement attentif à cette initiative EES qui repose massivement sur la biométrie et le contrôle des documents de voyage.

En effet, l’identification et l’authentification des personnes sont deux expertises majeures de Thales depuis plus de 20 ans. La société contribue d’ailleurs à plus de 200 programmes gouvernementaux dans 80 pays sur ces sujets.

La société peut répondre aux objectifs du programme EES en particulier pour :

- Exploiter les dernières technologies pour l’authentification des documents de voyage, l’identification des voyageurs à l’aide de captures et vérifications biométriques, et l’évaluation des risques avec accès aux listes de contrôle, dans tous les points de contrôle aux frontières.
- Réduire les coûts par l’automatisation et l’optimisation des processus tout en misant sur de nouvelles technologies pour renforcer la sécurité et offrir davantage de confort aux passagers
- Valoriser des tâches de gardes-frontières qui superviseront ces dispositifs tout en portant leur attention sur des cas pouvant porter à suspicion.
- Diminuer les temps d’attente après enregistrement dans la base EES. Un facteur non négligeable pour des frontaliers ou visiteurs réguliers qui consacreront plus de temps à des activités productives !

Des bornes d’enregistrement libre-service comme des frontières automatiques ou semi-automatiques peuvent être déployées dans les prochaines années avec l’objectif de fluidifier les contrôles et rendre plus accueillant l’accès à l’espace Schengen.

Ces bornes automatiques et biométriques ont d’ailleurs été installées dans les aéroports parisiens d’Orly et de Charles de Gaulle (Nouveau PARAFE : ▻https://www.thalesgroup.com/fr/europe/france/dis/gouvernement/controle-aux-frontieres).

La reconnaissance faciale a été mise en place en 2018.

Les nouveaux sas PARAFE à Roissy – Septembre 2017

Thales dispose aussi d’une expertise reconnue dans la gestion intégrée des frontières et contribue en particulier à deux grand systèmes de gestion des flux migratoires.

- Les systèmes d’identification biométrique de Thales sont en particulier au cœur du système américain de gestion des données IDENT (anciennement US-VISIT). Cette base de données biographiques et biométriques contient des informations sur plus de 200 millions de personnes qui sont entrées, ont tenté d’entrer et ont quitté les États-Unis d’Amérique.

- Thales est le fournisseur depuis l’origine du système biométrique Eurodac (European Dactyloscopy System) qui est le plus important système AFIS multi-juridictionnel au monde, avec ses 32 pays affiliés. Le système Eurodac est une base de données comportant les empreintes digitales des demandeurs d’asile pour chacun des états membres ainsi que des personnes appréhendées à l’occasion d’un franchissement irrégulier d’une frontière.

https://i.imgur.com/6Z403db.png

Pour déjouer les tentatives de fraude documentaire, Thales a mis au point des équipements sophistiqués permettant de vérifier leur authenticité par comparaison avec les modèles en circulation. Leur validité est aussi vérifiée par connexion à des bases de documents volés ou perdus (SLTD de Interpol). Ou a des watch lists nationales.

Pour le contrôle des frontières, au-delà de ses SAS et de ses kiosks biométriques, Thales propose toute une gamme de lecteurs de passeports d’équipements et de logiciels d’authentification biométriques, grâce à son portefeuille Cogent, l’un des pionniers du secteur.

Pour en savoir plus, n’hésitez pas à nous contacter.​

▻https://www.thalesgroup.com/fr/europe/france/dis/gouvernement/biometrie/systeme-entree-sortie
#smart_borders #Thales #overstayers #reconnaissance_faciale #prévention #détection #fraude_à_l'identité #Registered_Traveller_Program (#RTP) #EU-LISA #interface_uniforme_nationale (#IUN) #Contrôleur_Européen_pour_la_Protection_des_Données (#CEPD) #Privacy_By_Design #respect_de_la_vie_privée #empreintes_digitales #biométrie #Frontex #bornes #aéroport #PARAFE #IDENT #US-VISIT #Eurodac #Gemalto

voir aussi :
Classer pour dominer [et réprimer] : petite Histoire critique du fichage en France
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/972408

l’article comporte un résumé vidéo (sans paywall) de l’enquête

#police #frontières

“We were slaves”

The Greek police are using foreigners as “slaves” to forcibly return asylum seekers to Turkey

People who cross the river Evros from Turkey to Greece to seek international protection are arrested by Greek police every day. They are often beaten, robbed and detained in police stations before illegally being sent back across the river.

The asylum seekers are moved from the detention sites towards the river bank in police trucks where they are forced onto rubber boats by men wearing balaclavas, with Greek police looking on. Then these masked men transport them back to the other side.

In recent years there have been numerous accounts from the victims, as well as reports by human rights organisations and the media, stating that the men driving these boats speak Arabic or Farsi, indicating they are not from Greece. A months-long joint investigation with The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and ARD Report München has for the first time identified six of these men – who call themselves slaves– interviewed them and located the police stations where they were held. Some of the slaves, who are kept locked up between operations, were forcibly recruited themselves after crossing the border but others were lured there by smugglers working with a gangmaster who is hosted in a container located in the carpark of a Greek police station. In return for their “work” they received papers allowing them to stay in Greece for 25 days.

The slaves said they worked alongside regular police units to strip, rob and assault refugees and migrants who crossed the Evros river into Greece — they then acted as boatmen to ferry them back to the Turkish side of the river against their will. Between operations the slaves are held in at least three different police stations in the heavily militarised Evros region.

The six men we interviewed weren’t allowed to have their phones with them during the pushback operations. But some of them managed to take some pictures from inside the police station in Tychero and others took photos of the Syrian gangmaster working with the police. These visuals helped us to corroborate the stories the former slaves told us.

Videos and photographs from police stations in the heavily militarised zone between Greece and Turkey are rare. One slave we interviewed provided us with selfies allegedly taken from inside the police station of Tychero, close to the river Evros, but difficult to match directly to the station because of the lack of other visuals. We collected all visual material of the station that was available via open sources, and from our team, and we used it to reconstruct the building in a 3D model which made it possible to place the slave’s selfies at the precise location in the building. The 3D-model also tells us that the place where the slaves were kept outside their “working” hours is separate from the prison cells where the Greek police detain asylum seekers before they force them back to Turkey.

We also obtained photos of a Syrian man in military fatigues in front of a container. This man calls himself Mike. According to three of the six sources, they worked under Mike’s command and he in turn was working with the Greek police. We were able to find the location of the container that serves as home for Mike and the slaves. It is in the parking lot of the police station in Neo Cheimonio in the Evros region.

We also obtained the papers that the sources received after three months of working with the Greek police and were able to verify their names in the Greek police system. All their testimonies were confirmed by local residents in the Evros region.
STORYLINES

Bassel was already half naked, bruised and beaten when he was confronted with an appalling choice. Either he would agree to work for his captors, the Greek police, or he would be charged with human smuggling and go to prison.

Earlier that night Bassel, a Syrian man in his twenties, had crossed the Evros river from Turkey into Greece hoping to claim asylum. But his group was met in the forests by Greek police and detained. Then Bassel was pulled out of a cell in the small town of Tychero and threatened with smuggling charges for speaking English. His only way out, they told him, was to do the Greeks’ dirty work for them. He would be kept locked up during the day and released at night to push back his own compatriots and other desperate asylum seekers. In return he would be given a travel permit that would enable him to escape Greece for Western Europe. Read the full story in Der Spiegel

Bassel’s story matched with three other testimonies from asylum seekers who were held in a police station in Neo Cheimonio. All had paid up to €5,000 euros to a middleman in Istanbul to cross from Turkey to Greece with the help of a smuggler, who said there would be a Syrian man waiting for them with Greek police.

Farhad, in his thirties and from Syria along with two others held at the station, said they too were regularly threatened by a Syrian man whom they knew as “Mike”. “Mike” was working at the Neo Cheimonio station, where he was being used by police as a gangmaster to recruit and coordinate groups of asylum seekers to assist illegal pushbacks, write The Guardian and ARD Report Munchen.
Residents of Greek villages near the border also report that it is “an open secret” in the region that fugitives carry out pushbacks on behalf of the police. Farmers and fishermen who are allowed to enter the restricted area on the Evros have repeatedly observed refugees doing their work. Migrants are not seen on this stretch of the Evros, a local resident told Le Monde, “Except for those who work for the police.”

▻https://www.lighthousereports.nl/investigation/we-were-slaves

Joint Civil Society statement on the Schengen Borders Code

The undersigned civil society organisations would like to express their concerns with regard to several aspects of the Commission’s proposal amending the Schengen Borders Code.

Overall, the proposal embraces a very harmful narrative which assumes that people crossing borders irregularly are a threat to the EU and proposes to address it by increasing policing and curtailing safeguards. At the same time, the proposal fails to recognise the lack of regular pathways for asylum seekers, who are often forced to turn to irregular border crossings in order to seek international protection within the EU, and further complicates access to asylum. The measures put forward by the Commission would have a detrimental impact on the right to freedom of movement within the EU, the principle of non-discrimination, access to asylum and the harmonisation of procedures under EU law. Furthermore, the proposal would increase the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, without any adequate safeguards.

Freedom of movement within the EU and violation of the principle of non-discrimination

Several provisions of the proposed amended Schengen Borders Code would encroach the right to freedom of movement within the EU (art. 3(2) TEU, art. 21 and 77 TFEU) by expanding the possibility to reintroduce internal border controls and facilitating the application of so-called “alternative measures” which in practice amount to discriminatory border controls. The discretionary nature of these border checks is very likely to disproportionately target racialised communities, and practically legitimise ethnic and racial profiling and expose people to institutional and police abuse.

While the amended Schengen Borders Code reiterates that internal border controls are prohibited in the Schengen area, it also introduces the possibility to carry out police checks in the internal border areas with the explicit aim to prevent irregular migration, when these are based on “general information and experience of the competent authorities” (rec. 18 and 21 and art. 23). In addition, the proposal clarifies the meaning of “serious threat” which justifies the temporary reintroduction of border controls (which was already possible under art. 25 of the 2016 SBC). Problematically, the proposed definition of “serious threat” also includes “a situation characterised by large scale unauthorised movements of third country nationals between member states, putting at risk the overall functioning of the area without internal border control” (art. 25).[1]

Such provisions, together with the new procedure set by article 23a and analysed below, will in practice legalise systematic border controls which target people based on their racial, ethnic, national, or religious characteristics. This practice is in clear violation of European and international anti-discrimination law and a breach to migrants’ fundamental rights.

Research from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency in 2021 shows that people from an ‘ethnic minority, Muslim, or not heterosexual’ are disproportionately affected by police stops, both when they are walking and when in a vehicle. In addition, another study from 2014 showed that 79% of surveyed border guards at airports rated ethnicity as a helpful indicator to identify people attempting to enter the country in an irregular manner before speaking to them.

The new provisions introduced in the amended Schengen Borders Code are likely to further increase the discriminatory and illegal practice of ethnic and racial profiling and put migrant communities at risk of institutional violence, which undermines the right to non-discrimination and stands at odds with the European Commission’s commitments under the recent Anti-Racism Action Plan.

Lack of individual assessment and increased detention

The proposed revisions to the Schengen Borders Code set a new procedure to “transfer people apprehended at the internal borders”. According to the proposed new rules, if a third country national without a residence permit or right to remain crosses the internal borders in an irregular way (e.g., from Germany to Belgium, or from Italy to France) and if they are apprehended “in the vicinity of the border area,” they could be directly transferred back to the competent authorities in the EU country where it is assumed they just came from, without undergoing an individual assessment (art. 23a and Annex XII). This provision is very broad and can potentially include people apprehended at train or bus stations, or even in cities close to the internal borders, if they are apprehended as part of cross-border police cooperation (e.g. joint police patrols) and if there is an indication that they have just crossed the border (for instance through documents they may carry on themselves, their own statements, or information taken from migration or other databases).

The person will be then transferred within 24 hours.[2] During these 24 hours, Annex XII sets that the authorities might “take appropriate measures” to prevent the person from entering on the territory – which constitutes, in practice, a blanket detention provision, without any safeguards nor judicial overview. While the transfer decision could be subject to appeal, this would not have a suspensive effect. The Return Directive would also be amended, by introducing an obligation for the receiving member state to issue a return decision without the exceptions currently listed in article 6 (e.g., the possibility to issue a residence permit for humanitarian or compassionate reasons). As a consequence, transferred people would be automatically caught up in arbitrary and lengthy detention and return procedures.[3]

Courts in Italy, Slovenia and Austria have recently ruled against readmissions taking place under informal or formal agreements, recognising them as systematic human rights violations with the potential to trigger so-called chain pushbacks. The courts found the plaintiffs were routinely returned from Italy or Austria through Slovenia to Croatia, from where they had been illegally pushed back to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In practice, this provision would legalise the extremely violent practice of “internal pushbacks” which have been broadly criticised by civil society organisations across the EU and condemned by higher courts. The new procedure, including the possibility to detain people for up to 24 hours, would also apply to children, even though this has been deemed illegal by courts and despite international consensus that child detention constitutes a human rights violation.

Access to asylum

The new Code introduces measures which member states can apply in cases of “instrumentalisation of migrants”, which is defined as “a situation where a third country instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by actively encouraging or facilitating the movement of third country nationals to the external borders” (art. 2). In such cases, member states can limit the number of border crossing points and their opening hours, and intensify border surveillance including through drones, motion sensors and border patrols (art. 5(4) and 13(5)). The definition of instrumentalisation of migrants should also be read in conjunction with the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation addressing situations of instrumentalisation in the field of migration and asylum, which provides member states with numerous derogations to the asylum acquis.

These measures unjustifiably penalise asylum seekers by limiting access to the territory and de facto undermining art. 31 of the Refugee Convention which prohibits States from imposing penalties on refugees on account of their entry or presence in their territory without authorization, and are therefore in violation of international law.

Harmonisation of procedures under EU law and asylum acquis

The proposal lifts the standstill clause introduced by the 2008 Return Directive (art. 6(3)) which prohibits member states from negotiating new bilateral readmission agreements. When negotiating the 2008 Return Directive, both the Commission and the European Parliament had clarified that bilateral readmission agreements should remain an exception, as they undermine the objective of harmonising procedures under EU law.

By incentivising states to adopt new bilateral agreements, and proposing a new internal transfer procedure, the Commission’s proposal promotes the proliferation of exceptional procedures, which are outside the framework set by the Return Directive and the asylum acquis, and circumvents the procedural safeguards included in the Dublin Regulation.

The proposed provisions undermine the substantive and procedural guarantees for third country nationals, such as the right to request asylum, the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to an effective remedy.

As mentioned above, several national-level courts have ruled on the unlawfulness of readmissions carried out under formal and informal agreements, which often led to instances of chain-refoulement. There is a serious risk that readmission agreements, if they remain a part of the current legislative proposal, could be further abused to perpetrate chain refoulement and collective expulsions, which are in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Use of monitoring and surveillance technologies

Lastly, the proposal also facilitates a more extensive use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, by clarifying that these are part of member states’ responsibility to patrol borders (art. 2). In addition, article 23, analysed above, clarifies that internal checks, including to prevent irregular migration, can be carried out “where appropriate, on the basis of monitoring and surveillance technologies generally used in the territory”.

By removing obstacles for a more extensive use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, these provisions would create a loophole to introduce technologies which would otherwise be discouraged by pre-existing EU legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation.[4]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other automated decision-making systems, including profiling, are increasingly used in border control and management for generalised and indiscriminate surveillance. Insofar as such systems are used to ‘detect human presence’ for the purpose of ‘combating irregular migration’, there is serious concern that such systems can facilitate illegal interdiction, violence at border crossings, and further limit access to asylum and other forms of protection.

Furthermore, these technologies disproportionately target racialised people, thus further exacerbating the risks of increased racial and ethnic profiling. Indeed, monitoring and surveillance technologies which make use of artificial intelligence by nature violate the right to non-discrimination insofar as they are trained on past data and decision-making, and therefore codify assumptions on the basis of nationality and other personal characteristics, which is prohibited by international racial discrimination law.[5]

Recommendations

In light of the concerns discussed above, the undersigned civil society organisations:

– Express their concerns on the harmful impact of narratives which consider people crossing borders irregularly as a threat, and recommend the European Parliament and the Council to delete such references from recital 29, article 23 and article 25(1)(c);
– Call on the EU institutions to uphold the right to freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination, including by prohibiting the use of technologies which make use of artificial intelligence and other automated decision-making systems. In this regard, we recommend the European Parliament and the Council to amend article 23, paragraph (a) by deleting the reference to “combat irregular residence or stay, linked to irregular migration” in point (ii) and deleting point (iv) on monitoring and surveillance technologies;
– Urge the EU institutions to uphold the right to apply for asylum, and recommend deleting the definition of ‘instrumentalisation of migration’ in article 2, paragraph 27 and all the ensuing provisions which would apply in this circumstance;
– Condemn the proliferation of exceptional procedures which undermine the right to an individual assessment, and recommend deleting article 23a, annex XII, and the proposed amendment to art. 6(3) of the Return Directive;
– Express their concerns at the glaring inconsistency between some of the proposed provisions and the European Commission’s commitments under the EU Action Plan against Racism, i.e. with respect to ending racial profiling, and call on the EU institutions to uphold their commitment to address and to combat structural and institutional discrimination and include explicit references to the Action Plan against Racism in the text of the Schengen Borders Code.

▻https://picum.org/joint-civil-society-statement-schengen-borders-code

#discrimination #non-discrimination #détention #rétention #détention_administrative #réadmission

Migrants trapped in Ukrainian detention center while war rages on

Several dozen irregular migrants were reportedly trapped in a detention center in northwestern Ukraine weeks into the Russian invasion, an investigation by several media outlets found. An unconfirmed number of migrants appear to remain in the EU-funded facility, from where migrants are usually deported.

Imagine you are detained without being accused of a crime and wait to be deported to somewhere while an invading army bombs the neighboring town. This horrific scenario has been the reality for scores of migrants in northwestern Ukraine for weeks.

A joint investigation between Dutch non-profit Lighthouse Reports, which specializes on transnational investigations, Al Jazeera and German publication Der Spiegel found that over five weeks after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Afghani, Pakistani, Indian, Sudanese and Bangladeshi migrants were still detained in a EU-funded detention center near the northwestern Ukrainian city of #Lutsk.

Although several people were recently released with the support of their embassies, Der Spiegel reported there were still dozens of who remained there at the end of March.

According to the wife of one detainee who was released last week, the detention center offered no air raid shelter. Moreover, guards “ran down the street when the siren sounded,” both Der Spiegel and Al Jazeera reported.

“The guards took away the detainees’ phones,” the woman told reporters. She also said that power outlets in the cells were no longer working and the whole situation was extremely dangerous. In fact, the nearby city of Lutsk has repeatedly come under attack since March 12.

According to the investigation, the Zhuravychi Migrant Accommodation Centre is located in a pine forest in the Volyn region, near the Belarusian border. Constructed in 1961 as an army barracks, the facility was converted into a migrant detention center in 2007 with EU funds, Al Jazeera reported.

Reporters involved in the investigation spoke with recently released detainees’ relatives. They also analyzed photos and documents, which “verified the detainees’ presence in Ukraine before being placed in the center,” according to Al Jazeera.
Calls for release of detainees

Some detainees have been released since the beginning of the Russian invasion, including several Ethiopian citizens and an Afghan family, Al Jazeera reported. But politicians and NGOs have voice fear over those who remain in the Zhuravychi Migrant Accommodation Center.

“It is extremely concerning that migrants and refugees are still locked up in detention centers in war zones, with the risk of being attacked without any possibility to flee,” Tineke Strik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament from the Greens/EFA Group told reporters involved in the investigation.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also decried the ongoing detention of migrants at the facility during the war. In a report published on Monday (April 4), HRW said its staff interviewed four men by telephone who are being held in that Zhuravychi in early March. According to HRW, all four men said they had been detained in the months prior to the Russian invasion for irregularly trying to cross the border into Poland.

“Migrants and asylum seekers are currently locked up in the middle of a war zone and justifiably terrified,” said Nadia Hardman, a refugee and migrant rights researcher with HRW. “There is no excuse, over a month into this conflict, for keeping civilians in immigration detention. They should be immediately released and allowed to seek refuge and safety like all other civilians.”

According to the four interviewees, people from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and four other nationalities were being held at the facility.

Michael Flynn from the Global Detention Project told Der Spiegel that the Geneva Conventions (not to be confused with the Geneva Refugee Convention) “obliges all warring parties to protect civilians under their control from the dangers of the conflict.” He stressed that the detainees needed to be released as soon as possible.
The EU’s bouncer

According to the investigation, the European Union has funded at least three detention centers in Ukraine “for years,” effectively making the non-EU country a gatekeeper. The facility in question near Lutsk that’s apparently still in operation received EU support “to confine asylum seekers, many of them pushed back from the EU,” according to Lighthouse Reports.

Der Spiegel reported that up to 150 foreigners were detained in the facility last year. Most of them tried in vain to reach the European Union irregularly and have to stay in deportation detention for up to 18 months.

Since the turn of the millennium, according to Der Spiegel, the EU has invested more than €30 million in three detention centers.

At the facility in Zhuravychi, Der Spiegel reported, the EU provided €1.7 million for electronic door locks and protection elements on the windows. While the EU called it an “accommodation”, Der Spiegel said was a refugee prison in reality.

The European Commission did not respond to a request for comment about the facility and the detained migrants, Al Jazeera said. Ukrainian authorities also did not answer any questions.

In early March, InfoMigrants talked to several Bangladeshi migrants who had been given deportation orders and were stuck inside detention centers, including in said Zhuravychi Migrant Accommodation Centre. Around a hundred migrants were staying there back then, according to Bangladeshi and Indian citizens detained there. They were released a few days later.

“Russia has been particularly bombing military bases. That’s why we have been living in constant fear of getting bombed,” Riadh Malik, a Bangladeshi migrant told InfoMigrants. According to the New York Times, the military airfield in Lutsk was bombed on March 11.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/39678/migrants-trapped-in-ukrainian-detention-center-while-war-rages-on

Immigration Detention amidst War: The Case of Ukraine’s Volyn Detention Centre

A Global Detention Project Special Report

In early March, shortly into Russia’s war on Ukraine, the Global Detention Project (GDP) began receiving email messages and videos from individuals claiming to know people who remained trapped in an immigration detention centre inside Ukraine, even as the war approached. We also received messages from a representative of the humanitarian group Alight based in Poland, who said that they too were receiving messages from detainees at Volyn, as well as identity documents, photos, and videos.

The information we received indicated that there were several dozen detainees still at the Volyn detention centre (formally, “#Volyn_PTPI,” but also referred to as the “#Zhuravychi_Migrant_Accommodation_Centre”), including people from Pakistan, India, Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other countries. They had grown particularly desperate after the start of the war and had held a demonstration to demand their release when the nearby town was shelled, which reportedly was violently broken up by detention centre guards.

The GDP located a webpage on the official website of Ukraine’s State Secretariat of Migration that provided confirmation of the operational status of the Volyn facility as well as of two others. Although the official webpage was subsequently taken down, as of late March it continued to indicate that there were three operational migration-related detention centres in Ukraine, called Temporary Stay for Foreigners or #PTPI (Пункти тимчасового перебування іноземців та осіб без громадянства): Volyn PTPI (#Zhuravychi); #Chernihiv PTPI; and #Nikolaev PTPI (also referred to as the Mykolaiv detention centre).

We learned that the Chernihiv PTPI, located north of Kyiv, was emptied shortly after the start of the war. However, as of the end of March 2022, it appeared that both the Volyn PTPI and Nikolaev PTPI remained operational and were holding detainees. We understood that the situation at the detention centres had been brought to the attention of relevant authorities in Ukraine and that the embassies of at least some of the detainees—including India—had begun arranging the removal of their nationals. Detainees from some countries, however, reportedly indicated that they did not want assistance from their embassies because they did not wish to return and were seeking asylum.

In our communications and reporting on this situation, including on social media and through direct outreach to officials and media outlets, the GDP consistently called for the release of all migrants trapped in detention centres in Ukraine and for international efforts to assist migrants to seek safety. We highlighted important international legal standards that underscore the necessity of releasing detainees in administrative detention in situations of ongoing warfare. Important among these is Additional Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Conventions, which requires all parties to a conflict to take necessary measures to protect civilians under their control from the effects of the war.

We also pointed to relevant human rights standards pertaining to administrative detention. For example, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in their seminal Revised Deliberation No. 5 on the deprivation of liberty of migrants, conclude that in “instances when the obstacle for identifying or removal of persons in an irregular situation from the territory is not attributable to them … rendering expulsion impossible … the detainee must be released to avoid potentially indefinite detention from occurring, which would be arbitrary.” Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly found that when the purpose of such detention is no longer possible, detainees must be released (see ECHR, “Guide on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to Liberty and Security,” paragraph 149.).

In April, a consortium of press outlets—including Lighthouse Reports, Al Jazeera English, and Der Spiegel—jointly undertook an investigation into migrants trapped in detention in Ukraine and published separate reports simultaneously on 4 April. Human Rights Watch (HRW) also published their own report on 4 April, which called on authorities to immediately release the detainees. All these reports cited information provided by the GDP and interviewed GDP staff.

HRW reported that they had spoken to some of the detainees at Volyn (Zhuravychi) and were able to confirm numerous details, including that “people of up to 15 nationalities were being held there, including people from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria.” According to HRW, the detainees claimed to have “been detained in the months prior to the Russian invasion for irregularly trying to cross the border into Poland.” They said that there were more than 100 men and women at the facility, though according to Lighthouse Reports only an estimated 45 people remained at the centre as of 21 March.

The interviewees said that conditions at the detention centre deteriorated after 24 February when members of the Ukrainian military moved into the centre and guards relocated the detainees to one of the two buildings in the complex, freeing the second building for the soldiers. When detainees protested and demanded to be released, the guards refused, forcibly putting an end to the protest and beating detainees. Some detainees claimed to have been told that they could leave the centre if they agreed to fight alongside the Ukrainian military, which they refused.

An issue addressed in many of these reports is the EU’s role in financing immigration detention centres in Ukraine, which the GDP had previously noted in a report about Ukraine in 2012. According to that report, “In 2011, 30 million Euros were allocated to build nine new detention centres in Ukraine. According to the EU delegation to Ukraine, this project will ‘enable’ the application of the EU-Ukraine readmission by providing detention space for ‘readmitted’ migrants sent back to Ukraine from EU countries.”

In its report on the situation, Al Jazeera quoted Niamh Ní Bhriain of the Transnational Institute, who said that the EU had allocated 1.7 million euros ($1.8m) for the securitisation of the Volyn centre in 2009. She added, “The EU drove the policies and funded the infrastructure which sees up to 45 people being detained today inside this facility in Ukraine and therefore it must call on Ukraine to immediately release those being held and guarantee them the same protection inside the EU as others fleeing the same war.”

Efforts to get clarity on EU financing from officials in Brussels were stymied by lack of responsiveness on the part of EU officials. According to Al Jazeera, “The European Commission did not answer questions from Al Jazeera regarding its operation and whether there were plans to help evacuate any remaining people. Ukrainian authorities also did not respond to a request for comment.” The Guardian also reported in mid-April they had “approached the Zhuravychi detention facility and the Ukrainian authorities for comment” but had yet to receive a response as of 12 April.

However, on 5 April, two MEPs, Tineke Strik and Erik Marquardt, raised the issue during a joint session of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the Committee on Development (DEVE). The MEPs urged the EU to take steps to assist the release of the detainees.

In mid-April, reports emerged that some detainees who had been released from the Volyn PTPI in Zhuravychi were later re-detained in Poland. In its 14 April report, The Guardian reported that “some of those that were released from the centre in the first few days of the war are now being held in a detention centre in Poland, after they were arrested attempting to cross the Polish border, but these claims could not be verified.” On 22 April, Lighthouse Reports cited Tigrayan diaspora representatives as saying that two former detainees at the facility were refugees fleeing Ethiopia’s war in the region, where human rights groups report evidence of a campaign of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Despite being provided documents by Ukraine stipulating that they were stateless persons and being promised safe passage, Polish border guards detained the pair, arguing that there was an “extreme probability of escape.”

Separately, human rights campaigners following the case informed the GDP in late April that they had evidence of immigration detainees still being locked up in Ukraine’s detention centres, including in particular the Nikolaev (Mykolaiv) PTPI.

The GDP continues to call for the release of all migrants detained in Ukraine during ongoing warfare and for international efforts to help detainees to find safety, in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Recognizing the huge efforts Poland is making to assist refugees from Ukraine, we nevertheless call on the Polish government to treat all people fleeing Ukraine equally and without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Everyone fleeing the conflict in Ukraine is entitled to international protection and assistance and no one should be detained on arrival in Poland.

▻https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-amidst-war-the-case-of-ukraines-volyn-

I rifugiati “non bianchi” in fuga dall’Ucraina finiscono nei centri di detenzione

Un’indagine di The Independent in collaborazione con Lighthouse Reports lo dice chiaro e tondo: i residenti ucraini di origine africana che hanno attraversato il confine per sfuggire alla guerra sono stati rinchiusi in centri per l’immigrazione, alcuni di loro si trovano lì da diverse settimane.

Almeno quattro studenti fuggiti dall’invasione di Vladimir Putin sono detenuti in una struttura di detenzione a lungo termine di Lesznowola, un villaggio a 40 km dalla capitale polacca Varsavia, con pochi mezzi di comunicazione con il mondo esterno e senza consulenza legale. Uno di loro ha detto di essere stato fermato dai funzionari mentre attraversavano il confine e di non aver avuto “scelta”: ha dovuto di firmare un documento che non comprendeva prima di essere trasferito al campo. Un uomo nigeriano attualmente detenuto ha detto di essere “spaventato” per quello che gli accadrà dopo essere stato trattenuto nella struttura per più di tre settimane.

La polizia di frontiera polacca ha confermato che 52 cittadini di Paesi terzi fuggiti dall’Ucraina sono attualmente detenuti in centri di detenzione in Polonia. L’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni (Oim) ha affermato di essere a conoscenza di altre tre strutture in Polonia dove sono detenute persone non ucraine fuggite dalla guerra. Uno studente nigeriano fuggito dall’invasione russa sarebbe stato detenuto in Estonia dopo essersi recato nel Paese per raggiungere i parenti e ora è minacciato di espulsione.

Maria Arena, presidente della commissione per i diritti umani del parlamento Ue, ha dichiarato: «Gli studenti internazionali in Ucraina, così come gli ucraini, sono a rischio e rischiano la vita nel Paese. La detenzione, l’espulsione o qualsiasi altra misura che non garantisca loro protezione non è accettabile».

Jeff Crisp, ex capo della politica, dello sviluppo e della valutazione dell’Unhcr, ha affermato che è «chiaramente insoddisfacente e discriminatorio» che cittadini di Paesi terzi fuggiti dall’Ucraina vengano trattenuti nei centri di detenzione negli Stati dell’Ue. Ha aggiunto: «Dovrebbero essere rilasciati immediatamente e trattati alla pari con tutti gli altri che sono stati costretti a lasciare l’Ucraina».

L’Alto Commissario delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati Filippo Grandi ha avvertito questa settimana che, sebbene sia soddisfatto dal sostegno dei Paesi che accolgono i rifugiati ucraini, molte minoranze – spesso stranieri che vi hanno studiato o lavorato – hanno descritto un’esperienza molto diversa. «Abbiamo anche testimoniato una pessima realtà: alcuni neri in fuga dall’Ucraina – e altre guerre e conflitti in tutto il mondo – non hanno ricevuto lo stesso trattamento dei rifugiati ucraini», ha spiegato.

Se ne parla ormai da settimane. Intanto il razzismo continua. Aiutare tutti, ma proprio tutti: questo è il dovere.

Buon venerdì.

▻https://left.it/2022/03/25/i-rifugiati-non-bianchi-in-fuga-dallucraina-finiscono-nei-centri-di-detenzione

Des réfugiés fuyant la guerre en Ukraine sont détenus en Pologne

Selon une enquête menée sous l’égide de Lighthouse Reports – une ONG spécialisée dans l’investigation, à laquelle se sont joints plusieurs médias européens dont Mediapart –, plusieurs étudiants étrangers ayant fui l’Ukraine en guerre séjournent actuellement dans des centres d’accueil fermés en Pologne, en situation de détention.

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/230322/des-refugies-fuyant-la-guerre-en-ukraine-sont-detenus-en-pologne

"C’est comme si j’étais un criminel" : des étudiants étrangers enfermés en Pologne après avoir fui l’Ukraine

Une enquête réalisée par Radio France, en partenariat avec plusieurs médias internationaux et avec le soutien de l’ONG Lighthouse Reports, révèle que plusieurs étudiants d’origine africaine qui vivaient en Ukraine sont actuellement détenus dans des centres fermés pour étrangers en Pologne.

Ils faisaient des études dans les technologies de l’information, dans le management, à Kharkiv, à Lutsk ou encore à Bila Tserkva…et se retrouvent désormais enfermés dans un centre de détention pour étrangers à une quarantaine de kilomètres de Varsovie, après avoir fui la guerre en Ukraine. C’est ce que révèle l’enquête de Radio France, mercredi 23 mars, menée en partenariat avec plusieurs médias internationaux et avec le soutien de l’ONG Lighthouse Reports.

« Je ne pensais pas me retrouver dans cette situation en fuyant en Pologne, comme si j’étais un criminel », témoigne Samuel (le prénom a été changé) au téléphone, étudiant de Kharkiv, dans le nord-est de l’Ukraine. Après avoir voyagé jusqu’à Kiev, puis Lviv (près de la frontière polonaise), le jeune Nigérian explique avoir traversé la frontière le 27 février avec sa carte d’étudiant, son passeport étant resté à l’université pour des raisons administratives. « Mais quand je suis arrivé en Pologne, les garde-frontières m’ont dit qu’ils ne pouvaient pas me laisser circuler, car je n’ai pas de passeport, et pour cette raison, je devais être détenu », se remémore celui qui a de la famille en Allemagne, enfermé depuis plus de trois semaines.

Le 25 février, Michał Dworczyk, chef du cabinet du Premier ministre polonais, assurait pourtant que « toute personne fuyant la guerre serait accueilli en Pologne, notamment les personnes sans passeport ». « Difficile de ne pas y voir du racisme », observe Małgorzata Rycharska, de l’ONG Hope & Humanity Poland, qui ajoute « ne pas comprendre pourquoi ces personnes ont été enfermées ». Contactée, l’ambassade du Cameroun à Berlin, qui a identifié pour l’instant trois de ses ressortissants dans ces centres fermés, fait part aussi de sa surprise. Et assure que les étudiants camerounais avaient des documents d’identité valides avec eux.
52 étrangers fuyant l’Ukraine envoyés dans des centres fermés

Dans le centre de Lesznowola, une vingtaine de non-Ukrainiens arrivant d’Ukraine sont actuellement détenus, parmi lesquels nous avons identifié pour l’instant quatre étudiants d’origine africaine. En tout, il y aurait 52 personnes étrangères fuyant l’Ukraine envoyées dans ces centres fermés du 24 février au 15 mars, selon une lettre des garde-frontières adressée au député Tomasz Anisko.

Lettre des garde-frontières polonais indiquant que 52 personnes non-ukrainiennes mais fuyant l’Ukraine ont été envoyés du 24 février au 15 mars dans des centres pour étrangers.

Contactés, les garde-frontières indiquent ne pas pouvoir donner davantage d’informations, pour des raisons de protection d’identité. De son côté, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) explique « être au courant de trois centres en Pologne où les ressortissants de pays tiers arrivant d’Ukraine, sans documents de voyage adéquats, sont emmenés pour des vérifications d’identité » mais précise ne pas inclure celui de Lesznowola.

« Nous sommes des étudiants d’Ukraine, nous ne méritons pas d’être ici », dénonce Samuel, qui ajoute ne pas comprendre pourquoi il se retrouve dans un centre où sont enfermés des migrants ayant tenté de traverser illégalement la frontière avec la Biélorussie l’an dernier. Gabriel (le prénom a été changé), un autre étudiant nigérian qui étudiait à l’Institut national du commerce et de l’économie de Kharkiv, raconte lui qu’à son arrivée en Pologne, « les garde-frontières nous ont pris nos téléphones de force ». Dans un entretien téléphonique avec un représentant de la diaspora nigériane - obtenu par Radio France -, Gabriel indique avoir été forcé à demander la protection internationale en Pologne, « sinon ils m’ont dit que j’allais en prison ». Dans l’attente de la décision, il a été envoyé dans ce camp fermé où il séjourne depuis fin février, décrivant « une situation très mauvaise ».

Si théoriquement, la loi polonaise permet le placement en centres fermés en cas de demande d’asile dans des situations très précises (en cas de risque, par exemple, que la personne s’échappe lors de la procédure), la pratique diffère. Varsovie avait déjà été pointé du doigt par l’ONU pour la détention systématique de migrants et réfugiés lors de la crise à la frontière biélorusse l’an dernier. « Plein de gens ici sont devenus fous, je suis terrifié, il y en a qui sont là depuis neuf mois », s’effraie Gabriel. Pas d’accès à des avocats, téléphones avec caméra retirés, accès internet d’une vingtaine de minutes par jour seulement… L’étudiant, qui indique être passé devant un tribunal, menottes aux poignets, explique ne jamais avoir voulu demander l’asile en Pologne. « Nous étions juste des étudiants, répète-t-il. Ils devraient me déporter et me laisser rentrer au Nigeria, mais même cela, ça peut prendre parfois six mois », s’inquiète-t-il.

▻https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/manifestations-en-ukraine/enquete-c-est-comme-si-j-etais-un-criminel-des-etudiants-etrangers-enfe

Nigerian students who fled war in Ukraine are being told to leave Europe
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1043353

Contre la construction d’une nouvelle taule à Muret – Romain, prisonnier longue peine en lutte – Chroniques de comparutions immédiates
▻https://lenvolee.net/contre-la-construction-dune-nouvelle-taule
Présentation d’une nouvelle émission de #radio_anticarcérale : V’là la gamelle ! Petite sœur de Radio Zinzine et petite cousine de nombreuses #radios_libres et rageuses, Aïoli vient de la volonté de fabriquer et d’envoyer sur les ondes une antenne rebelle et joviale, à Avignon et aux alentours.
▻https://www.aioli-radio.org

▻https://www.aioli-radio.org/static/e34c617489209057f493cb5f67d74c94/5f169/IMG_20210414_092851-e1621464937852.webp

#rétention #détention_administrative #France #contamination #coronavirus #Lyon

Danimarca-Kosovo: detenuti in cambio di soldi per tutela ambientale

Da Pristina e Copenhagen arriva una notizia sconcertante. Il ministro della Giustizia del Kosovo Albulena Haxhiu ha annunciato che a breve arriveranno nel paese 300 detenuti, attualmente nelle carceri danesi e cittadini di paesi non UE, per scontare la loro pena in Kosovo. In cambio Pristina otterrà 210 milioni di euro di finanziamenti a favore dell’energia verde.

L’accordo fa parte di una serie di misure annunciate in settimana dalle autorità danesi per alleviare il sistema carcerario del paese per far fronte ad anni di esodo del personale e al più alto numero di detenuti dagli anni ’50.

I detenuti dovrebbero scontare le loro pene in un penitenziario di Gjilan. “I detenuti che saranno trasferiti in questo istituto non saranno ad alto rischio", ha chiarito Haxhiu in una dichiarazione.

L’accordo deve passare ora dall’approvazione del parlamento di Pristina.

In molti, in Danimarca e all’estero, si sono detti preoccupati per la salvaguardia dei diritti dei detenuti. Un rapporto del 2020 del Dipartimento di Stato americano ha evidenziato i problemi nelle prigioni e nei centri di detenzione del Kosovo, tra cui violenza tra i prigionieri, corruzione, esposizione a opinioni religiose o politiche radicali, mancanza di cure mediche e a volte violenza da parte del personale.

Perplessità rimandate al mittente dal ministro della Giustizia danese Nick Hekkerup che si è dichiarato convinto che l’invio di detenuti in Kosovo sarà in linea con le norme a salvaguardia dei diritti umani a livello internazionale. «I detenuti deportati potranno ancora ricevere visite, anche se, naturalmente, sarà difficile», ha chiosato.

▻https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Kosovo/Danimarca-Kosovo-detenuti-in-cambio-di-soldi-per-tutela-ambientale

Le Kosovo prêt à louer ses prisons au Danemark

Le Kosovo veut louer 300 cellules de prison pendant dix ans au Danemark, en échange de 210 millions d’euros. Le pays scandinave prévoit d’y « délocaliser » des détenus étrangers avant leur potentielle expulsion définitive dans leur pays d’origine. Un projet qui piétine les libertés fondamentales.

Le Kosovo s’apprête à signer lundi 20 décembre un accord de principe avec le Danemark pour lui louer 300 cellules de prison. Le Danemark prévoit donc de déporter à plus de 2000 km de ses frontières 300 détenus étrangers qui viendront purger la fin de leur peine au Kosovo avant d’être expulsés vers leur pays d’origine, si les procédures d’extradition le permettent. Mais ce n’est pas encore fait : une fois l’accord signé, il devra encore être ratifié par les parlements respectifs des deux pays, à la majorité des deux tiers.

Montant de la rente de cette « location » : 210 millions d’euros pour Pristina. L’argent « sera consacré aux investissements, notamment dans les énergies renouvelables », a précisé Albulena Haxhiu, la ministre de la Justice du Kosovo, qui a tenté de déminer le terrain. « Ce ne seront pas des détenus à haut risque ou des condamnés pour terrorisme, ni des cas psychiatriques. Les institutions judiciaires bénéficieront de la compensation financière, cela aidera à améliorer la qualité et les infrastructures du Service correctionnel. »

« Il faut s’imaginer que cela sera une prison danoise. Elle sera juste dans un autre pays », a expliqué de son côté son homologue danois, Nick Haekkerup. Mais pourquoi l’un des plus riches pays européens aurait-il besoin d’« externaliser » la prise en charge de ses détenus ? Le Danemark dit avoir besoin de 1000 places de prison supplémentaires. Pour cela, il va créer de nouvelles cellules dans les prisons existantes, et en libérer d’autres en se débarrassant de détenus étrangers. Il s’agit surtout d’envoyer un message de fermeté aux réfugiés qui souhaitent rejoindre le pays scandinave.

Les Danois ont commencé à préparer le terrain en octobre 2020, avec une visite du système carcéral kosovar. Ils ont « évalué positivement le traitement de nos prisonniers et nos capacités », s’était alors félicité le ministère de la Justice du Kosovo. Les 300 détenus resteront soumis aux lois danoises, mais les gardiens de prison seront bien kosovars. Ce projet d’externalisation carcérale est « la reconnaissance du Kosovo comme un pays sérieux », s’est félicitée Albulena Haxhiu.

“Le Kosovo se transforme en un lieu de détention pour les migrants indésirables. Pour un peu d’argent, notre gouvernement renforce le sentiment anti-réfugiés qui s’accroit en Europe.”

Mais pour le Conseil de la défense des droits de l’homme (KMLDNJ), qui surveille les conditions de détention dans les prisons kosovares, cet accord « légalise la discrimination des détenus ». « Tout d’abord, vendre sa souveraineté à un autre État pour dix ans et 210 millions d’euros est un acte de violation de cette souveraineté. De plus, les conditions et le traitement de ces détenus qui viendront du Danemark seront incomparablement meilleurs des autres 1600 à 1800 détenus du Kosovo », estime l’ONG. « Les propriétés de l’État ne doivent pas être traitées comme des infrastructures privées à louer », ajoute Besa Kabashi-Ramaj, experte en questions sécuritaires.

Cet accord a en effet surpris beaucoup d’observateurs locaux et internationaux, et ce d’autant plus que le Kosovo est actuellement gouverné par le parti de gauche souverainiste Vetëvendosje. « Le Kosovo se transforme en un lieu de détention pour les migrants indésirables. Pour un peu d’argent, notre gouvernement renforce le sentiment anti-réfugiés qui s’accroît en Europe », déplore Visar Ymeri, directeur de l’Institut pour les politiques sociales Musine Kokalari. « Aussi, quand la ministre de la Justice affirme que le Kosovo a assez de prisons mais pas assez de prisonniers, elle participe à une politique de remplacement du besoin de justice par un besoin d’emprisonnement. »

Selon le Rapport mondial des prisons, établi par l’Université de Londres, le Kosovo avait 1642 détenus en 2020, soit un taux d’occupation de 97%. Le ministère de la Justice du Kosovo n’a, semble-t-il, pas la même façon de calculer l’espace carcéral : « Nous avons actuellement 700-800 places libres. Vu qu’au maximum nous aurons 300 détenus du Danemark, il restera encore des places libres », a même fait savoir Alban Muriqi, du ministère de la Justice.

Le Kosovo a onze centre de détention : cinq centres de détention provisoire, une prison haute sécurité, une prison pour femmes, un centre d’éducation pour les mineurs et trois autres prisons. C’est au centre de détention à #Gjilan / #Gnjilane, dans l’est du Kosovo, que seraient louées les cellules au Danemark.

▻https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Kosovo-Prisonniers-Danemark

La Danimarca e le prigioni off-shore

Sono immigrati incarcerati in Danimarca. Dal 2023 rischiano di scontare la propria pena in un peniteniario di Gjilian, in Kosovo. Un approfondimento sullo sconcertante accordo del dicembre scorso tra Copenhagen e Pristina

Sebbene Danimarca e Kosovo abbiano avuto poco a che fare l’uno con l’altro, alla fine di dicembre si sono ritrovati insieme nei titoli dei giornali di tutto il mondo. Ad attirare l’attenzione della Danimarca sono state le quasi 800 celle vuote del Kosovo. I titoli dei giornali erano di questo tipo: «La Danimarca spedisce i propri prigionieri in Kosovo».

Ci si riferiva ad un accordo firmato il 21 dicembre 2021 per inviare - in un centro di detenzione nei pressi di Gjilan, 50 chilometri a sud-est di Pristina - 300 persone incarcerate in Danimarca. Le autorità danesi hanno specificato che i 300 detenuti saranno esclusivamente cittadini di paesi terzi destinati ad essere deportati dalla Danimarca alla fine della loro pena.

In cambio, il Kosovo dovrebbe ricevere 200 milioni di euro, suddivisi su di un periodo di 10 anni. I fondi sono stati vincolati a progetti nel campo dell’energia verde e delle riforme dello stato di diritto. Il ministro della Giustizia del Kosovo Albulena Haxhiu ha definito questi investimenti «fondamentali» e il ministro della Giustizia danese Nick Hækkerup ha affermato che «entrambi i paesi con questo accordo avranno dei vantaggi».

L’idea di gestire una colonia penale per conto di un paese dell’UE ha messo molti kosovari a disagio, e nonostante la fiducia espressa dal governo danese, l’accordo ha ricevuto pesanti critiche anche in Danimarca. Ma cosa sta succedendo alla Danimarca e al suo sistema carcerario da spingerla a spedire i propri detenuti in uno dei paesi più poveri d’Europa?
Problemi in paradiso?

La Danimarca e i suoi vicini nordici sono rinomati per l’alta qualità della vita, gli eccellenti sistemi educativi e le generose disposizioni di assistenza sociale. Di conseguenza, può sorprendere che il sistema carcerario danese abbia qualche cosa che non va.

Secondo Peter Vedel Kessing, ricercatore dell’Istituto Danese per i Diritti Umani (DIHR), non c’è da stupirsi, il sistema carcerario infatti «non è una priorità in molti stati. Tendono a non dare la priorità alla costruzione di prigioni. Vogliono spendere i soldi per qualcos’altro». E in Danimarca “hanno prigioni molto vecchie".

Alla fine del 2020 il servizio danese per i penitenziari e la libertà vigilata (Kriminalforsogen) ha riferito che il sistema carcerario aveva la capacità di contenere 4.073 prigionieri. In media, c’erano però 4.085 detenuti ad occupare le celle nel 2020, facendole risultare leggermente sovraffollate.

Un rapporto del gennaio 2020 dell’Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE) del Consiglio d’Europa sottolinea che la Danimarca aveva 4.140 detenuti mentre possedeva capacità per 4.035. I funzionari penitenziari hanno trovato lo spazio in più riducendo le aree comuni e dedicate ai servizi di base. Secondo un rapporto DIHR del novembre 2021, «diverse prigioni hanno chiuso sale comuni o aule per avere un numero sufficiente di celle». Il rapporto menziona anche la trasformazione di palestre, sale per le visite e uffici in celle di prigione.

In Danimarca, ogni detenuto dovrebbe avere una cella propria. Ma nelle prigioni come quella di Nykøbing, una città a 130 chilometri a sud di Copenaghen, ci sono ora due detenuti per cella, secondo un rapporto del “Danish Prison and Probation Service”.

Il rapporto includeva una previsione per il 2022: si aspettano di superare del 7,9% i posti a disposizione. Sia il Kriminalforsogen che l’importante media danese Jyllands Posten hanno stimato una possibile carenza di 1.000 posti entro il 2025, se non si trovano soluzioni strutturali.

Ora, invece di erodere ulteriormente gli spazi comuni, si pensa di inviare i detenuti a 2000 chilometri di distanza. Tra le molte cose, sono stati tanti i danesi a far notare che l’accordo viola i diritti di visita dei detenuti: diventerà molto più difficile per le famiglie e gli amici dei detenuti presentarsi all’orario di visita nel Kosovo orientale.

«Se improvvisamente ti trovi a dover andare in Kosovo per trovare tuo padre… non sarà possibile per la stragrande maggioranza delle famiglie dei detenuti. Ad esempio, un bambino di 3 anni, non è che può andare in Kosovo quando vuole e, naturalmente, il detenuto non potrà venire a trovare il bambino», sottolinea Mette Grith Stage, un avvocato che rappresenta molti imputati che si battono contro la deportazione, al quotidiano danese Politiken. «Questo significa di fatto che i deportati perdono il contatto con la loro famiglia».

Per coprire la spesa prevista di 200 milioni di euro in un decennio, il governo danese ha recentemente annunciato che intende aumentare le tasse sulla tv. L’annuncio ha causato reazioni amare. In un’udienza parlamentare all’inizio di febbraio, il direttore delle comunicazioni dell’organizzazione Danish Media Distributors, Ib Konrad Jensen, ha dichiarato: «È un’ottima idea scrivere in fondo alla bolletta [della televisione]: ’Ecco il vostro pagamento al servizio carcerario del Kosovo’».
Aiuto!

Non solo c’è una carenza di spazio nel sistema penale, ma la Danimarca ha anche difficoltà nell’assumere abbastanza guardie carcerarie ed è da questo punto di vista gravemente sotto organico negli ultimi anni.

Un rapporto del 2020 del Consiglio d’Europa mostra che l’Albania ha una proporzione di guardie carcerarie per prigionieri più alta della Danimarca. Il confronto è stato portato alla luce dai media danesi per cercare di enfatizzare la scarsa qualità delle prigioni danesi: guarda come siamo messi male, anche l’Albania sta facendo meglio di noi.

I funzionari penitenziari si sono opposti a questo tipo di parallelismo. «L’Albania è certamente un paese eccellente», ha dichiarato Bo Yde Sørensen, presidente della Federazione delle prigioni danesi, in un articolo del quotidiano Berlingske, «ma di solito non è uno con il quale paragoniamo le nostre istituzioni sociali vitali».

Anche altri media danesi hanno fatto paragoni denigratori con i paesi balcanici per evidenziare i problemi del proprio sistema carcerario. Nel penitenziario di Nyborg, situato sull’isola di Funen, la testata danese V2 ha riferito che la qualità del lavoro è più scadente di quella della Bulgaria, affermando che «in media, un agente penitenziario nella prigione di Nyborg gestisce 2,8 detenuti», mentre «in confronto, la media è 2,4 in una prigione media in Bulgaria».

La diffusa scarsa opinione tra i media danesi delle condizioni dei penitenziari nei Balcani mette chiaramente in discussione le assicurazioni che il governo danese ha dato nel garantire che i propri prigionieri a Gjilan troveranno le condizioni a cui hanno diritto per la legge danese.

Ma come è chiaro, anche in Danimarca il sistema penitenziario ha problemi a rispettare queste stesse condizioni. Nel penitenziario di Vestre, a Copenhagen, i detenuti sono chiusi nelle loro celle durante la notte perché non ci sono abbastanza guardie per sorvegliarli durante la guardia notturna. I detenuti in Danimarca avrebbero diritto al contrario di avere un alto grado di libertà di movimento all’interno della struttura carceraria, anche durante la notte.

«Non è un segreto che il servizio penitenziario e di libertà vigilata danese si trova in una situazione molto difficile. Ci sono più detenuti e meno guardie carcerarie che mai, e questo crea sfide e mette molta pressione», afferma Sørensen in una intervista per Berlingske.

Un comunicato stampa emesso dal Fængselsforbundet - servizio penitenziario danese - mostra i bisogno in termini chiari: «Prendiamo il 2015 come esempio. A quel tempo c’erano 2.500 agenti per 3.400 prigionieri. Cioè 1,4 detenuti per agente. Ora il rapporto è di due a uno. Duemila agenti per 4.200 detenuti».

In risposta ai problemi di personale, le prigioni danesi sono ricorse al chiudere a chiave le celle. «Il modo per evitare la violenza e per avere una migliore atmosfera nei penitenziari», commenta Kessing, ricercatore del DIHR, è quello di «creare relazioni tra l’istituzione penitenziaria, i detenuti e il personale della prigione». «Ma a causa della diminuzione del numero di guardie, non si ha più il tempo di sviluppare relazioni», chiosa.
La risposta? Il Kosovo

Per superare queste sfide, la Danimarca sembra aver preso esempio dalla vicina Norvegia, che ha affrontato problemi simili nel 2015. Quell’anno la Norvegia ha inviato 242 detenuti nei Paesi Bassi per risolvere i problemi di sovraccarico dei penitenziari. Ma nel 2018 il governo norvegese ha deciso di non rinnovare l’accordo di fronte a lamentele relative a riabilitazione e giurisdizione.

Ora la Danimarca ha gettato gli occhi - come recinto per i propri detenuti - non sui Paesi Bassi ma su uno dei paesi più poveri d’Europa.

«Il loro futuro non è in Danimarca, e quindi non dovrebbero nemmeno scontare la loro pena qui», ha dichiarato il ministro della Giustizia Nick Hækkerup, dando conferma di una crescente retorica anti-immigrazione in Danimarca.

Quando i detenuti cominceranno ad arrivare a Gjilan nel 2023, la prigione sarà gestita dalle autorità danesi, causando una potenziale confusione su quale giurisdizione applicare: problema simile era sorto tra Norvegia e Paesi Bassi.

Mette Grith Stage, come anche altri avvocati danesi, hanno espresso preoccupazione per questo accordo e si sono detti scettici sul fatto che le leggi penali danesi saranno applicate appieno nel sistema carcerario del Kosovo.

In un’intervista con DR, l’emittente pubblica danese, il ministro della Giustizia Hækkerup ha però ribattuto: «Il penitenziario sarà gestito da una direzione danese che deve formare i dipendenti locali, per questo sono certo che le prigioni saranno all’altezza delle leggi e degli standard danesi. Deve essere visto come un pezzo del sistema carcerario danese che si sposta in Kosovo».

Le dichiarazioni delle autorità danesi durante tutta la vicenda hanno spesso citato la loro «presenza significativa» in Kosovo. Tuttavia la Danimarca è l’unico paese scandinavo a non avere un’ambasciata a Pristina. L’ambasciata danese a Vienna, che supervisiona gli affari nei Balcani, ha esternalizzato il lavoro a uno studio legale nella capitale del Kosovo.

A seguito degli obblighi NATO della Danimarca, un totale di 10.000 componenti delle proprie truppe hanno servito nella KFOR dal 1999 ad oggi. Attualmente sono 30 i militari danesi in Kosovo. Nel 2008 la Danimarca fu uno dei primi paesi a riconoscere l’indipendenza del Kosovo.

Anche se le autorità danesi affermano di considerare il Kosovo alla pari, il semplice fatto che la Danimarca stia assumendo la gestione di una delle prigioni del Kosovo potrebbe legittimamente essere visto come una minaccia alla sovranità di quest’ultimo. Quando i prigionieri norvegesi vennero mandati nei Paesi Bassi, il penitenziario continuò ad essere sotto autorità olandese.

Ma al di là delle preoccupazioni sulla giurisdizione, gli standard delle prigioni, i diritti di visita e i costi, ci sono questioni morali più grandi. Il popolo danese vuole veramente che a proprio nome vengano gestite strutture carcerarie offshore per i suoi immigrati incarcerati? E il popolo del Kosovo vuole essere una colonia penale dei paesi più ricchi? I governi della Danimarca e del Kosovo dicono di sì, ma cosa dice la gente?

►https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Kosovo/La-Danimarca-e-le-prigioni-off-shore-215757

Ogni anima muore. La storia di Majid, morto di CIE
Un documentario a cura di Ottavia Salvador

https://www.meltingpot.org/app/uploads/2017/05/arton21807.jpg

Nella notte del 13 agosto 2013, mentre è trattenuto, da pochi giorni, nel centro di identificazione ed espulsione (CIE) di Gradisca d’Isonzo, Majid El Kodra, si procura un grave trauma cranico. Si dice che, saltando dal tetto di un edificio adibito a deposito, in un tentativo di fuga dalla struttura, sia caduto a terra, battendo violentemente la testa. Erano giorni di proteste e repressioni, nel CIE, che lo hanno spinto, con un tocco invisibile, verso una lenta morte, dopo otto mesi di coma, il 30 aprile 2014. Il suo corpo è stato rimpatriato ai familiari in Marocco, nella provincia di Taounate, in una notte di maggio, e sepolto vicino alla casa dov’era nato nel 1979 e dalla quale era partito per emigrare in Europa. Sulla sua tomba è dipinta, in rosso, l’iscrizione: “Ogni anima muore“.

Un viaggio alla ricerca delle tracce della sua vita sconosciuta, delle parole invisibili di rabbia e dolore di chi è rimasto, dei colori del suo mondo.

E’ online il teaser del documentario “Ogni anima muore” che Ottavia Salvador sta realizzando sulla storia di Majid. Ottavia e’ una dottoranda che si occupa della morte nella migrazione e ha seguito (e continua a seguire) la vicenda di Majid e della sua famiglia.

▻https://vimeo.com/217701619?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=66638623

▻https://www.meltingpot.org/2017/05/ogni-anima-muore-la-storia-di-majid-morto-di-cie
#documentaire #film_documentaire #film

Presentato un esposto alla Procura della Repubblica per i fatti del CIE di Gradisca. Morto Majid, il migrante caduto dal tetto durante le proteste dell’agosto 2013

Oggi l’associazione Tenda per la Pace e i Diritti e molte delle associazioni aderenti alla campagna LasciateCIEntrare hanno depositato presso le Procure della Repubblica di Gorizia, di Roma e di Napoli un esposto per chiedere accertamenti e indagini sugli avvenimenti dell’agosto 2013 all’interno del CIE (Centro di Identificazione ed Espulsione) di Gradisca d’Isonzo.
Si è trattato di scontri, pestaggi, lanci di lacrimogeni che iniziati l’8 agosto, sono durati diversi giorni e in circostanze ancora da chiarire, nella notte tra l’11 e il 12 agosto, uno dei migranti cade dal tetto e finisce in coma. Majid era nel centro da poche settimane: è morto il 30 aprile scorso all’ospedale di Monfalcone.

Il Centro di Identificazione ed Espulsione di Gradisca d’Isonzo è chiuso da novembre 2013 a seguito dell’ennesima protesta da parte dei trattenuti ma rimangono nell’ombra molti avvenimenti.
Nell’esposto vengono evidenziati i fatti, ricostruiti grazie alle testimonianze dei migranti, di associazioni e dei parlamentari che sono giunti sul posto chiamati d’urgenza durante quei giorni di proteste e di rivolte. Di particolare gravità risulta l’uso dei lacrimogeni CS (un gas considerato letale) da parte delle forze di sicurezza: inutile e spropositato il ricorso a questi mezzi per sedare la protesta di persone rinchiuse in una struttura chiamata “gabbia” per le alte sbarre che la circondano.
Gli scontri e i pestaggi avvengono nella “vasca”, il cortile interno semichiuso e delimitato da pareti in plexiglass che non ha consentito ai fumi e vapori irritanti di dissolversi, causando malori ai migranti.
Le associazioni e i firmatari dell’esposto si chiedono se non ci sia stato un abuso di potere da parte delle forze dell’ordine preposte alla vigilanza del centro.
Sono molte le testimonianze dell’accaduto: migranti, medici, operatori umanitari e parlamentari racconteranno cosa è stato il CIE di Gradisca, perché non deve più riaprire e perché vanno chiusi tutti i CIE presenti sul territorio italiano.

Se ne parla il 13 maggio alle ore 11.00 presso la Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana in C.so Vittorio Emanuele, 249 – Roma

Presentano l’esposto e gli sviluppi dei fatti di Gradisca:
Galadriel Ravelli Tenda della Pace e i Diritti
Gabriella Guido – portavoce della campagna LasciateCIEntrare
Alberto Barbieri – Medici per i Diritti Umani
Pietro Soldini – CGIL
Oria Gargano – BE FREE

Saranno mostrati video e testimonianze sugli incidenti di Gradisca che hanno portato al temporaneo svuotamento e chiusura del centro.
Un ennesimo episodio quello di Gradisca che dimostra il fallimento del sistema di detenzione amministrativa e l’urgenza di soluzioni alternative, mentre il Governo e gli organi preposti mostrano un colpevole silenzio e totale assenza d’iniziative volte alla revisione del sistema. Un sistema di detenzione imploso, che registra una continua violazione dei diritti umani e sul quale gravano fin troppe detenzioni “illegittime”, interrogazioni parlamentari, denunce, imputazioni per reati penali commesse dagli enti gestori (tra cui Connecting People che gestiva il CIE di Gradisca e continua a gestire altre strutture), oltre che un enorme spreco in termini di risorse finanziare.

LasciateCIEntrare denuncia inoltre quanto alla vigilia delle elezioni europee il tema dell’immigrazione venga ignorato o usato strumentalmente dai candidati di alcune forze politiche: il futuro europarlamento e l’attuale Governo italiano sono chiamati a rispondere immediatamente con soluzioni che garantiscano la difesa dei diritti umani così come l’incolumità degli uomini, donne e bambini migranti che arrivano nel nostro paese e in Europa, i meccanismi di ingresso e di soggiorno e la revisione della normativa in materia di immigrazione.

L’esposto è stato firmato tra gli altri da:
A BUON DIRITTO, ANTIGONE, ASGI, BE FREE, CASA INTERNAZIONALE DELLE DONNE, DA SUD, MELTING POT, ARCI Thomas Sankara e Ass. GARIBALDI 101. E dai parlamentari COSTANTINO, FRATOIANNI e PELLEGRINO di SEL e dai candidati all’europarlamento CASARINI, FURFARO e ALOTTO.

Contatti:
Ufficio Stampa – Paola Ferrara 328.4129242
Coordinamento campagna LasciateCIEntrare – Gabriella Guido 329.8113338
ggabrielle65@yahoo.it

La campagna LasciateCIEntrare è nata nel 2011 per contrastare una circolare del Ministero dell’Interno che vietava l’accesso agli organi di stampa nei CIE (Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione): appellandosi al diritto/dovere di esercitare l’art. 21 della Costituzione, ovvero la libertà di stampa, LasciateCIEntrare ha ottenuto l’abrogazione della circolare e oggi si batte per la chiusura dei CIE, l’abolizione della detenzione amministrativa e la revisione delle politiche sull’immigrazione.

▻https://www.articolo21.org/2014/05/presentato-un-esposto-alla-procura-della-repubblica-per-i-fatti-del-cie-

Multibillion-dollar strategy with no end in sight: Australia’s ‘enduring’ offshore processing deal with Nauru

Late last month, Home Affairs Minister #Karen_Andrews and the president of Nauru, #Lionel_Aingimea, quietly announced they had signed a new agreement to establish an “enduring form” of offshore processing for asylum seekers taken to the Pacific island.

The text of the new agreement has not been made public. This is unsurprising.

All the publicly available information indicates Australia’s offshore processing strategy is an ongoing human rights — not to mention financial — disaster.

The deliberate opaqueness is intended to make it difficult to hold the government to account for these human and other costs. This is, of course, all the more reason to subject the new deal with Nauru to intense scrutiny.
Policies 20 years in the making

In order to fully understand the new deal — and the ramifications of it — it is necessary to briefly recount 20 years of history.

In late August 2001, the Howard government impulsively refused to allow asylum seekers rescued at sea by the Tampa freighter to disembark on Australian soil. This began policy-making on the run and led to the Pacific Solution Mark I.

The governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea were persuaded to enter into agreements allowing people attempting to reach Australia by boat to be detained in facilities on their territory while their protection claims were considered by Australian officials.

By the 2007 election, boat arrivals to Australia had dwindled substantially.

In February 2008, the newly elected Labor government closed down the facilities in Nauru and PNG. Within a year, boat arrivals had increased dramatically, causing the government to rethink its policy.

After a couple of false starts, it signed new deals with Nauru and PNG in late 2012. An expert panel had described the new arrangements as a “necessary circuit breaker to the current surge in irregular migration to Australia”.

This was the Pacific Solution Mark II. In contrast to the first iteration, it provided for boat arrivals taken to Nauru and PNG to have protection claims considered under the laws and procedures of the host country.

Moreover, the processing facilities were supposedly run by the host countries, though in reality, the Australian government outsourced this to private companies.

Despite the new arrangements, the boat arrivals continued. And on July 19, 2013, the Rudd government took a hardline stance, announcing any boat arrivals after that date would have “have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees”.
New draconian changes to the system

The 1,056 individuals who had been transferred to Nauru or PNG before July 19, 2013 were brought to Australia to be processed.

PNG agreed that asylum seekers arriving after this date could resettle there, if they were recognised as refugees.

Nauru made a more equivocal commitment and has thus far only granted 20-year visas to those it recognises as refugees.

The Coalition then won the September 2013 federal election and implemented the military-led Operation Sovereign Borders policy. This involves turning back boat arrivals to transit countries (like Indonesia), or to their countries of origin.

The cumulative count of interceptions since then stands at 38 boats carrying 873 people. The most recent interception was in January 2020.

It should be noted these figures do not include the large number of interceptions undertaken at Australia’s request by transit countries and countries of origin.

What this means is the mere existence of the offshore processing system — even in the more draconian form in place after July 2013 — has not deterred people from attempting to reach Australia by boat.

Rather, the attempts have continued, but the interception activities of Australia and other countries have prevented them from succeeding.

No new asylum seekers in Nauru or PNG since 2014

Australia acknowledges it has obligations under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees — and other human rights treaties — to refrain from returning people to places where they face the risk of serious harm.

As a result, those intercepted at sea are given on-water screening interviews for the purpose of identifying those with prima facie protection claims.

Those individuals are supposed to be taken to Nauru or PNG instead of being turned back or handed back. Concerningly, of the 873 people intercepted since 2013, only two have passed these screenings: both in 2014.

This means no asylum seekers have been taken to either Nauru or PNG since 2014. Since then, Australia has spent years trying to find resettlement options in third countries for recognised refugees in Nauru and PNG, such as in Cambodia and the US.

As of April 30, 131 asylum seekers were still in PNG and 109 were in Nauru.

A boon to the Nauruan government

Australia has spent billions on Pacific Solution Mark II with no end in sight.

As well as underwriting all the infrastructure and operational costs of the processing facilities, Australia made it worthwhile for Nauru and PNG to participate in the arrangements.

For one thing, it promised to ensure spillover benefits for the local economies by, for example, requiring contractors to hire local staff. In fact, in 2019–20, the processing facility in Nauru employed 15% of the country’s entire workforce.

And from the beginning, Nauru has required every transferee to hold a regional processing centre visa. This is a temporary visa which must be renewed every three months by the Australian government.

The visa fee each time is A$3,000, so that’s A$12,000 per transferee per year that Australia is required to pay the Nauruan government.

Where a transferee is found to be a person in need of protection, that visa converts automatically into a temporary settlement visa, which must be renewed every six months. The temporary settlement visa fee is A$3,000 per month — again paid by the Australian government.

In 2019-20, direct and indirect revenue from the processing facility made up 58% of total Nauruan government revenue. It is no wonder Nauru is on board with making an “enduring form” of offshore processing available to Australia.

‘Not to use it, but to be willing to use it’

In 2016, the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention of asylum seekers in the offshore processing facility was unconstitutional. Australia and PNG then agreed to close the PNG facility in late 2017 and residents were moved to alternative accommodation. Australia is underwriting the costs.

Australia decided, however, to maintain a processing facility in Nauru. Senator Jim Molan asked Home Affairs Secretary Michael Pezzullo about this in Senate Estimates in February 2018, saying:

So it’s more appropriate to say that we are not maintaining Nauru as an offshore processing centre; we are maintaining a relationship with the Nauru government.

Pezzullo responded,

the whole purpose is, as you would well recall, in fact not to have to use those facilities. But, as in all deterrents, you need to have an asset that is credible so that you are deterring future eventualities. So the whole point of it is actually not to use it but to be willing to use it.

This is how we ended up where we are now, with a new deal with the Nauru government for an “enduring” — that is indefinitely maintained — offshore processing capability, at great cost to the Australian people.

Little has been made public about this new arrangement. We do know in December 2020, the incoming minister for immigration, Alex Hawke, was told the government was undertaking “a major procurement” for “enduring capability services”.

We also know a budget of A$731.2 million has been appropriated for regional processing in 2021-22.

Of this, $187 million is for service provider fees and host government costs in PNG. Almost all of the remainder goes to Nauru, to ensure that, beyond hosting its current population of 109 transferees, it “stands ready to receive new arrivals”.

▻https://theconversation.com/multibillion-dollar-strategy-with-no-end-in-sight-australias-enduri
#new_deal

voir aussi ce fil de discussion, où sont signalés de nombreux rapports et articles sur le complexe_militaro-industriel

The business of building walls
►https://seenthis.net/messages/810272