NJETWORK

Immigration Detention: We need to challenge routinisation of migrant imprisonment

Aigul — 2010-04-27T21:56:34Z

Virginie Semedo studied human rights law at the University of Aix-Marseille (France). She has worked as an intern in the French Courts helping to review asylum applications. She has also worked with the migrants' rights organisation, La Cimade, and has been particularly concerned with the position of detained migrants.

The UK is often seen by other Europeans as an untypical country which likes to keep its differences: English people still have a Queen, they are not using the Euro and above all they do not have a fixed limit duration for the detention of immigrants.

Indeed, the UK is one of only seven European countries that have not set a limit on how long they lock up migrants who have been refused permission to stay. France has a limit of 32 days, Italy and Spain of 40 days and Ireland of 56 days. The detention policy in the UK has been the subject of sustained international and national criticisms but remains unchanged, or changed but in an unexpected way.

The functioning of the Immigration detention Nearly 30,000 people every year experience immigration detention in the UK but it is difficult to evaluate with accuracy how many immigrants and asylum seekers are currently held on administrative detention and for how long. According to the Home Office statistics in the third quarter of 2009 there were a total of 2885 persons detained in the UKBA estate. The great majority of them (72%) were asylum detainees. The 11 Immigration Removal Centres scattered around the country hold foreign national prisoners, irregular migrants (people enter the UK without being cleared at a border, or over-stayers and other in breach of their conditions of leave), refused asylum seekers who are due to be deported or are having their cases reviewed and asylum seeker under the fast track procedure.

The power to detain is laid down on schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. An immigration officer and, since 2002, the Secretary of State, who has reasonable grounds to believe that removal directions will be issued, has the power to order the detention of the person concerned. In the 1998 White Paper “Fairer, Faster and Firmer - A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum” the government states that immigration detention “would most usually be appropriate: to effect removal; initially to establish a person's identity or basis of claim; or where there is reason to believe that the person will fail to comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release”.

All detainees have the right to apply for bail to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First tier Tribunal (the former Asylum and Immigration Tribunal) which is required to presume in favour of release: the burden of proof is on UKBA to justify detention. However, rates of release are low, particularly for detainees with criminal convictions.

The way in which the detention should be used is clear and does not require any debate: the Home Office states itself that “Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary”. Under the law, detention can be justified by the prospect of a speedy removal, the risk that they will abscond and any risk that they would commit an offence or pose harm to the public. All reasonable alternatives to detention should be considered first. Nevertheless, the detention seems to be used in first resort as a means of control immigration and not in last resort as it should be. The concern about this situation is rising.

A growing concern A wide range of organisations have expressed concerns about policy on the detention migrant. Institutional bodies such as the Children Commissioner and H.M. Inspectorate of Prisons and a large number of non-governmental organisation highlight serious problems resulting from the way the system works. At the European level, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently set out its worry about the excessive use of detention by European countries and the long list of serious problems which arise as a result.

First of all, immigration detention has harmful consequences on the physical and mental health of the detainees. Periods of detention are known to aggravate mental stress caused by traumatic experiences- very common amongst people who have fled persecution and civil upheaval. This fact is corroborated by the Home Office statistics: in 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008. Moreover, research around the world has suggested a link between detention of asylum seekers and mental health deterioration, with the effects increasing in relation to length of detention.

In its most recent annual report, the organisation Medical Justice expressed concerns about the re-traumatism of torture and rape victims when subject to detention, the denial of treatment, the non provision of anti-malarial drugs, the detention of people who are HIV-positive and the denial of treatment and access to hospital.

Moreover, frequent allegations of violence and insanitary conditions of detention are also reported. A hunger strike protest involving 50 women detainees at the Yarl's Wood “fast track” removal centre began on 5 February and continued into March. The centre is infamous for its role in detaining whole families, including those with children. During the course of the hunger strike detainees reported that 70 women were trapped by guard in an airless corridor without water or toilet facilities. Violence and racially abuse directed by the removal centre authorities against detainees has also been reported.

The practice of detaining families with children has come in for particularly harsh criticism from children's welfare groups. Around 2,000 children are detained each year for immigration purposes. Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner for England published a report in February on the conditions in which children are held at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre. He expressed his “profound concern over the treatment and management of children in that location”.

In a previous report published in May 2009, he had argued that the administrative detention of children for immigration control must end. The impact of detention on children can be devastating. Taken from their communities, with little understanding of what they have done to deserve being locked up, detention can significantly impair a child's mental and physical health.

In addition to obvious human cost of immigration detention, the financial cost to the taxpayer is also very burdensome.

Immigration detention, which costs millions of pounds each year, appears like a poor use of taxpayers' money. The estimated expense of detaining each immigrant is in the region of £1,000 a week. Recently, the immigration minister himself, Phil Woolas MP, has admitted that the Home Office is paying millions of pounds in compensation to migrants who have been wrongly detained in removal centres. A Freedom of Information request to find out exactly how much was refused by the authorities but a BBC survey has found evidence of payments totalling at least £2 million going out to dozens of cases over the last three years. This amount is based on information obtained from a limited number of law firms and the true cost could be even higher. So, how the government is responding to this indecent waste of public money and to the human concerns?

Clearly inappropriately: although the situation across much of the estate is critical and mainly results from an excessive use of detention as a first resort, the government continues to defend the policy. The Home Office states that: “Expanding the detention estate is a crucial part of the UK Border Agency's plans to increase the removal of illegal immigrants, allowing the fast removal of those who come to Britain and break the rules.” However, the danger is that as the government builds more centres, it will fill them with more people. More detention centres often means worse centres. There is the added danger that building the centres soaks up resources leaving the public purse short to run the centres and make provision for the people living there.

An issue which will continue to embarrass the government Immigration detention not only constitutes a waste of money, time and human dignity but it is also not complying with UK International obligations.

In modern democracies, the deprivation of liberty is supposed to be subject to certain conditions which consider the human and civil rights of individuals. Even initially lawful detention becomes arbitrary and contrary to law if it is not subject to periodic review. Indefinite detention without criminal conviction is incompatible with Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While temporary derogation from this provision is allowed in Article 4 of the ICCPR, such derogation is only possible “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” and “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to a prompt trial or release, and in cases of arbitrary detention, they are entitled to compensation.

Nevertheless, a restrictive immigration policy cannot justify indefinite detention. In compliance with the Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, detention must be proportionate to the objective (securing the removal of the individual from UK territory), and alternatives to detention must have been properly considered for detention to be lawful. Consequently, as long as the government keep following the same policy and practices it will contravene to its international obligations.

As long as this gap between obligations derived from international human rights law and the practices of the UK authorities remains, the government will be the subject of censor by any courts required to take these standards into account.

In addition to the surveillance of a legal community concerned about human rights standards, the immigration detention will continue to trouble the government because concerns about detention are becoming entrenched within civil society itself. Doctors, Church leaders, trades unionists and ordinary citizens are increasingly a part of the contest and numerous actions and petitions are emerging.

What changes for a better system? If we are to move away from the current position of widespread concern about this aspect of immigration policy, the Home Office will have to end the routine status of detention as a part of immigration management procedures. It must be used only in last resort and be limited to cases where there is an objective justification in line with the requirements of the 1971 Immigration Act. This implies that decision-making by UKBA and the bail courts must be evidence-based. Furthermore, the detention of vulnerable people such as disabled people, children or mentally ill people must end.

A fair and transparent system of review of detention should also be created. This one could be a monthly, automatic and independent review of detainees' detention.

Finally, the Home Office must adopt a maximum time limit for detention. Only a statutory limit can prevent abuse and reduce the unacceptable stress experienced by indefinite detainees.

In parallel, it is obvious that alternatives to the detention, cheaper and more humane, should be introduced into the immigration policy. Taking inspiration from the Council of Europe Parliament report, different alternatives should be deemed as placement in special establishments (open or semi-open); registration and reporting, release on bail/surety; controlled release to individuals, family members, NGOs, religious organisations, or others; handover of travel and other documents, release combined with appointment of a special worker and electronic documents or electronic monitoring.

These alternatives must be put into practice and would probably contribute to solve some of the numerous issues resulting from the UK immigration system.

As Winston Churchill said “Nothing is more abhorrent than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This really is the test of civilisation”. It is time for the UK government to pass the test and treat migrant with dignity in compliance with its legal obligations, as unpopular as they are.

Protest proti Pagani centru za tujce v okviru No Border Campa na Lesbosu

blanco — 2009-08-30T21:58:52Z

v polni velikosti...

- Svet za vsakogar / Svoboda gibanja, Multimedialno, Aktualno

Frontex: The Movie (feat. noborder camp in lesvos 2009)

blanco — 2009-08-05T10:57:56Z

v polni velikosti...

- Svet za vsakogar / Svoboda gibanja, Aktualno

Manifestacija Svet za vsakogar

blanco — 2008-04-18T22:57:00Z

v polni velikosti...

- Svet za vsakogar / Svoboda gibanja, Aktualno

Poziv na manifestacijo »Svet za vsakogar« (Za svobodo gibanja in pravico do bivanja!)

blanco — 2008-04-17T23:52:08Z

Najprej se bomo zbrali ob 11:00 pred Azilnim domom na Viču. Nato se bomo skupaj odpravili na Kongresni trg, kjer se bo ob 13:00 začel protestni pohod po ljubljanskih ulicah.

Država Slovenija vsako leto uniči več sto življenj žena, mož in otrok, ki so se v Slovenijo zatekli po zaščito pred preganjanjem v svojih matičnih državah. Azilna zakonodaja in administrativne prakse Ministrstva za notranje zadeve kriminalizirajo prosilce za azil. Prosilce za azil obravnavajo v nepoštenih azilnih postopkih, podvrženi so samovolji uslužbencev MNZ, ponižujočemu režimu v Azilnem domu na Viču in na koncu zaporniškemu režimu v pripornem Centru za tujce na Velikem otoku pri Postojni. Tistim, ki so se v Slovenijo zatekli po zaščito, namenja državna azilna politika deportacijo nazaj v državo, iz katere je prosilec za azil pobegnil pred preganjanjem, ali ilegalizacijo, trajni odvzem vseh pravic.

Prosilci za azil so se zato povezali v gibanje Svet za vsakogar. Javno so razkrili zločinskost azilne politike v Sloveniji in začeli boj za svojo prihodnost in prihodnost svojih otrok. Uslužbenci notranjega ministrstva so se na njihovo samoorganiziranje in javno kritiziranje azilne politike odzvali s še več represije. Protagoniste gibanja so kaznovali tako, da so jim začeli kot po tekočem traku izdajati negativne odgovore na prošnje za podelitev statusa begunca. Na uresničevanje univerzalne pravice do svobode govora in združevanja so se na notranjem ministrstvu odzvali z grožnjo izgona ali odvzema vsah pravic.

Zaradi navedenega organizirata gibanje Svet za vsakogar in Socialni center Rog manifestacijo z naslovom Svet za vsakogar. Na manifestaciji bomo zahtevali:
konec kriminalizacije prosilcev za azil in represije nad njimi;
poštene azilne postopke, prenehanje samovolje uslužbencev MNZ (Sektorja za azil in Azilnega doma na Viču);
bivanje zunaj azilnega doma za vse prosilce za azil, ki to želijo;
prenehanje samovoljnega pridrževanja prosilcev za azil in ukinitev zaprtega oddelka v Azilnem domu na Viču ter Centra za tujce na Velikem otoku pri Postojni;
prenehanje kaznovanja protagonistov gibanja Svet za vsakogar in njihovo zaščito;
revizije negativnih odločb, saj so bile izdane na osnovi nepoštenih postopkov;
spremembo azilne politike v Republiki Sloveniji, ki naj izhaja iz neodtujljive pravice vsakogar do zaščite pred preganjanjem, principov svobode, enakosti in pravičnosti ter spoznanja o nesprejemljivosti in zločinskosti evropskega režima kontrole nad migracijami, ki poglablja globalno neenakost in vodi k evropskemu apartheidu.

Prosilci za azil potrebujejo našo solidarnost, tako kot mi potrebujemo njihov pogum in odločnost. Skupaj se lahko upremo politiki, ki se na naše potrebe in želje odziva z represijo, nadzorom in odvzemanjem temeljnih pravic. Skupaj lahko izumimo nove oblike sobivanja in sodelovanja, ki bodo slonele na transnacionalni solidarnosti. Sodelovanje različnih lahko vzpostavi nove oblike državljanstva, v katerih bo več svobode in enakosti. Skupaj lahko zgradimo svet za vsakogar!

Protest proti kaznovanju prosilcev za azil, ker so spregovorili o razmerah v Azilnem domu na Viču v Ljubljani

blanco — 2008-04-14T08:29:19Z

Skupina prosilcev za azil, ki so nastanjeni v Azilnem domu na Viču, se je odločila, da slovenski javnosti spregovori o pritiskih na prosilce za azil, negotovosti, v kateri živijo, in sistematični pretvorbi azila (tako na ravni institucije azilnega doma kot na ravni azilne zakonodaje) v instrument odvračanja prosilcev za azil. Povezali so se v gibanje »Svet za vsakogar«, ki je pripravilo dokument, v katerem so natančno opisali samovoljo in pritiske osebja azilnega doma in razkrili nepoštenost azilnega postopka. Na velike stiske prosilcev za azil, ki jih povzročajo sistematične zlorabe s strani osebja azilnega doma in kriminalizacija prosilcev za azil z arbitrarnim odvzemanjem prostosti, so se odzvali solidarno. O nevzdržnem stanju v Azilem domu na Viču so spregovorili za naslednje medije: Mladina, Delo, Dnevnik, POP TV, RTV SLO, Val 202, Radio Študent, Žurnal 24, Dobro jutro, Indirekt, Vest.si itd. V teh dneh organizirajo, skupaj z aktivističimi raziskovalkami in raziskovalci, ki delujejo v okviru Socialnega centra Rog, karavano »Svet za vsakogar«. Karavana se odvija na različnih ljubljanskih fakultetah in drugih javnih prostorih, končala pa se bo 19. aprila z manifestacijo na ljubljanskih ulicah.

Na prvi javni razpravi v okviru karavane »Svet za vsakogar«, ki so jo 2. aprila na Fakulteti za družbene vede organizirali Center za kritično politologijo na FDV, gibanje Svet za vsakogar in Socialni center Rog, so udeleženci poudarili izjemen pomen samoorganiziranosti prosilcev za azil, ki uresničujejo temeljno in neodtujljivo pravico do svobode izražanja in združevanja. Samoorganizacija prosilcev za azil, njihova kritika azilne in migracijske politike ter njihovo povezovanje s civilno družbo so po mnenju udeležencev javne razprave na FDV ključni za odpravo skritega institucionalnega in sistemskega nasilja. Prav tako so ključni v političnem procesu posredovanja konfliktov, ki so povezani z migracijsko politiko, saj omogočajo spreminjanje migracijske politike v skladu z demokratičnimi idejami svobode, enakosti in pravičnosti. Na javni razpravi je bilo poudarjeno, da je treba ovrednotiti državljanstvo kot prakso in da mora biti formalno državljanstvo odprto za nove državljanske prakse. To ugotovitev podpira razvoj znanstvene in teoretske obravnave državljanstva in migracij.

Udeleženci javne razprave »Svet za vsakogar« na Fakulteti za družbene vede smo zato z veliko zaskrbljenostjo sprejeli novico, da uradniki Ministrstva za notranje zadeve in administracija azilnega doma na najbolj zavržen način kaznujejo prosilce za azil, ki so spisali tehten dokument o zločinskih zablodah azilne politike v Sloveniji in ki so se na stisko, ki jo množično doživljajo prosilci za azil v Sloveniji, odzvali s povezovanjem s civilno družbo in nastopanjem v javnosti. Javno izpostavljeni prosilci za azil so nenadoma začeli prejemati negativne odločbe, s katerimi so bile zavrnjene njihove prošnje za azil. Vsi indici kažejo, da so negativne odločbe način kaznovanja zaradi uresničevanja univerzalne pravice do svobodnega izražanja in združevanja. Drugače si ni mogoče razlagati dejstva, da so vsi javno izpostavljeni prosilci za azil dobili odločbe kot po tekočem traku, potem ko so se pojavili v medijih in je bila napovedana javna manifestacija ter se je pričela karavana javnih dogodkov. Gre za zločinski in zavržen način kaznovanja v obliki deportacije in repatriacije ljudi, ki so se v državo Slovenijo zatekli pred preganjanjem v svojih državah. S tem želijo zastrašiti vse ostale prosilce za azil, ki bi si potencialno drznili razkriti nečloveško delovanje azilne ureditve.

Udeleženci javne razprave protestiramo proti takšnemu ravnanju odgovornih oseb Ministrstva za notranje zadeve. Zahtevamo takojšnjo revizijo azilnih postopkov, ki zadevajo prosilce za azil, ki so protagonisti gibanja »Svet za vsakogar«, in sicer: Natan Isaakov, Savik Isaakov, Vladimir Krištof, Galina Krištof, Alexandr Nesterov, Nastasija Kojuševa, Arina Nesterova, Assylbek Jumagaziyev, Nurgul Zholdybayeva, Ali Abdulkhaziret, Marjam Abdulkhaziret. Zahtevamo, da se takoj prekine praksa nepoštenosti v azilnih postopkih, ki so jo v svojem dokumentu opisali prosilci za azil, povezani v gibanje »Svet za vsakogar«. Zahtevamo, da se takoj odpravi praksa samovoljnega pridržanja prosilcev za azil in da se odpravi zaprti oddelek Azilnega doma na Viču.

Vse, ki mislijo, da je svobodna kritika institucij in politik ključna za obstoj demokracije, pozivamo, da se nam pridružijo pri protestu in zahtevah, ki jih naslavljamo na administracijo Azilnega doma na Viču, Sektor za azil pri MNZ in Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve.

Podpisniki:

Doc. dr. Andrej Kurnik (Center za kritično politologijo na FDV)

Barbara Beznec (odg. ur. Časopisa za kritiko znanosti)

Aigul Hakimova (Socialni center Rog)

Polona Mozetič (Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani)

Izr. prof. dr. Andrej A. Lukšič (predstojnik Centra za kritično politologijo na FDV)

Doc. dr. Žiga Vodovnik (Fakulteta za družbene vede)

Doc. dr. Peter Stanković (Fakulteta za družbene vede)

Dr. Gregor Bulc (Fakulteta za družbene vede)

Dr. Metka Mencin Čeplak (Fakulteta za družbene vede)

Izr. prof. dr. Mitja Velikonja (Fakulteta za družbene vede in Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Mirt Komel (Fakulteta za družbene vede in Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Doc. dr. Boris Vezjak (Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Dr. Nikolai Jeffs (Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Dr. Marta Gregorčič (Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Dr. Tatjana Greif (Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

mag. Katarina Majerhold (Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Dr. Jelka Zorn (Fakulteta za socialno delo, Časopis za kritiko znanosti)

Izr. prof. dr. Gabi Čačinovič Vogrinčič (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Doc. dr. Vesna Leskošek (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Doc. dr. Srečo Dagoš (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Doc. dr. Mojca Urek (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Doc. dr. Barbara Kresal (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Dr. Ines Kvaternik (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Izr. prof. dr. Vito Flaker (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Dr. Nina Mešl (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Doc. dr. Lea Šugman Bohinc (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Amra Šabić (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Mag. Gorazd Kovačič (Filozofska fakulteta)

Katja Hrobat (Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo)

Mag. Uršula Lipovec Čebron (Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo)

Prof. dr. Avgust Lešnik (Filozofska fakulteta v Ljubljani)

Dr. Rastko Močnik

Dr. Lev Kreft

Zoja Skušek

Dr. Gašper Kralj

Katarina Juvančič

Franci Zlatar

Matjaž Oven

Marina Uzelac

Nataša Oven

Ana Lukezič

Helena Dembsky

Mag. Franci Jazbec (društvo Odnos)

Irena Zajc (društvo Odnos)

Marina Gržinić (Reartikulacija)

Staš Kleindienst (Reartikulacija)

Sebastjan Leban (Reartikulacija)

Tanja Passoni (Reartikulacija)

Dr. Bojana Piškur, višja kustosinja (Moderna galerija)

Mag. Adela Železnik, muzejska svetovalka (Moderna galerija)

Jože Barši, umetnik

Socialni center Rog

Časopis za kritiko znanosti

Društvo Politični laboratorij

Statement of asylum seekers in the Republic of Slovenia currently situated in the Asylum Home of Ljubljana, who, together with activists of the Social Centre Rog, formed the movement “WORLD FOR EVERYONE”

blanco — 2008-04-10T15:53:02Z

Absence of legal rights, endless humiliations from the part of employees of the Asylum Home of Ljubljana, constant fear of rejected asylum applications and deportations, pursuits and mobbing as reaction to asylum seekers' critics of the Asylum Home administration, have brought together individuals of different nationalities and religious affiliations: the Orthodox, Catholics, Jewish and Muslims.

It is in our belief that the system providing asylum seekers (refugees) with help in the Republic of Slovenia is nothing but a formality aimed at giving impression in front of European eyes. Official information shows that of 500 asylum seekers that the Asylum Home of Ljubljana receives annually, the Republic of Slovenia granted only three Geneva Convention refugee statuses on 2006 and 2007.

Persons who have left our countries seeking international protection are handed over to the state apparatus dictated by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Slovenia. We are left without any legal help whatsoever, without support of organisations assuring legal help, without legal representatives, translators, and even without access to information on where to seek necessary help. Asylum seekers are subjected to latent, sometimes even open pressures. The Asylum Home administration constantly manipulates with and misleads asylum seekers unfamiliar with their own rights, which the very same administration should inform them about.

Individuals like us, who have fled war zones or countries with totalitarian or dictatorship regimes, where we were subjected to persecution in various forms, were suddenly faced with the Slovenian state machinery aimed at rejecting or discouraging asylum seekers with a set of means following the principle “no person – no problem”. One such example is given by recent events in the Asylum Home, reported by all Slovenian media. Namely, the Asylum Home administration's acts based on directives issued by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Slovenia led to an escape of two Russian citizens from the Asylum Home of Ljubljana. Despite their critical health condition caused by a long hunger strike and an extensive loss of blood following a suicide attempt while still in the Asylum Home, the administration locked them in the detention ward characterised by a rigorous, isolated, 24-hour security regime.

Unable to bear conditions and circumstances created by the Asylum Home's administration, majority of asylum seekers are forced to leave Slovenia and escape to other countries. Those who try to escape are immediately deported in line with the Dublin Convention allowing the Republic of Slovenia to terminate asylum procedures and deport asylum seekers to their home countries. Consequently, Slovenia gets rid of asylum seekers without assuming any responsibility whatsoever. Moreover, this is how the system is enabled to play games with people's fate and lives.

One of the biggest problems faced by asylum seekers is a lack of information on how eligibility of our asylum applications is being examined. Namely, the Asylum Home administration systematically dissimulates information on asylum procedures, as well as information regarding consideration proceedings, deadlines and legal provisions serving as basis for decision-making processes. Furthermore, as asylum seekers, we do not have access to legal acts and other relevant provisions regulating asylum procedures, which include the Geneva Convention and the Dublin Convention, regardless of the fact that we are entitled to gain access to such fundamental information.

Asylum application and initial interview

Examination of an individual asylum application is merely a formality. The outcome of the asylum application is known and undoubtedly negative. None of the appointed individual judges running asylum procedures are willing to know what an asylum seeker had endured prior to his/her arrival to the Republic of Slovenia. The entire asylum procedure is thus unfair.

In the very beginning of the asylum procedure or during the initial contact with an appointed official, the asylum seeker is infatuated with an inaccurate designation of the procedure. Namely, they tell the asylum seeker (who is actually undergoing the initial-interview procedure) it is merely an application or identification process, etc. Yet, following this short procedure, asylum seekers end up with rejected asylum applications; it becomes obvious that the short proceeding was actually the initial interview giving as basis for the entire application procedure. The initial interview is conducted immediately following an asylum seeker's arrival to the Asylum Home (the next day), regardless of his/her physical or psychological condition. People are under immense stress caused by journey to Slovenia and sleepless nights. Formally speaking, we do receive a list of legal representatives; however, this is at the same time accompanied by the Asylum Home's employees pointing to high prices of legal representation and translation services to be covered by ourselves. Moreover, they tend to assure us that we can make it through the asylum process even without their services, since Slovenia is “a democratic state offering international protection”. The fact that there are free-of-charge professional legal representatives at our disposal is well kept from us, which is yet another way of forcing us into waiving our right to legal representation we are entitled of. Assuring that we would be given another opportunity and time to give longer explanations of our situations, we are demanded to give short accounts of our problems. When trying to give detailed explanations of reasons for our asylum applications, they try to prevent us from doing so. They put pressure on us and demand our accounts be as short as possible. Furthermore, they always try to divert us. Once the interview is finished, the translator present during the interview reads minutes aloud; however, the translator only reads sections of the interview, where the asylum seeker gives direct answers to given questions. The asylum seeker's request for a written translation of the interview is rejected immediately and holds no possibility of complaint. Inaccuracies in the translation are only amended upon the asylum seeker's protest. All this is accompanied by Asylum Home employees' assurances that we will be given opportunity to correct the mistakes during our second interview. It is needless to say that the document partly read aloud by the translator leaves substantial space for fabricated information, irregularities in translation, as well as for intentional forges. Hence, we are entirely dependent on moral values of the Asylum Home employees conducting our interviews. This is even added by the fact that an exhausted person subjected to stress and psychological pressure, who is also left without legal representation, is physically incapable to follow content of the complicated interview being read out fast. Minutes of individual interviews are therefore mostly inaccurate, as they do not contain what we stated during our interviews, and because they twist our words and consequently deteriorate our position. At the same time, the employees emphasise that refusing to sign minutes of the interview equals rejection of our asylum application. Therefore, we are eventually forced into signing an inaccurate document written in the language we do not understand.

Second interview

Following the initial interview, the asylum seeker is left in an uncertain situation and subjected to immense psychological pressure. The asylum seeker is frightened and entirely dependent on Asylum Home employees' sympathies. Living conditions and relations between asylum seekers, as well as those among asylum seekers and the employees, are defined in a manner suggesting that the Asylum Home is not a state institution, but rather a private corporate entity where all decisions are based on the administration's sympathies towards its workers.

Decisions regarding subsequent proceedings are based on information obtained during the initial interview. If the latter does give substantial reason for a “negative” the employees start putting psychological pressure on asylum seekers and manipulating consideration proceedings, which may be further stalled on basis of unreasonable apologies and banal excuses. Using all available means, the Asylum Home administration and authorised individuals maintain that asylum seekers are worthless and unimportant persons, that we will not be given any help at all, and that our asylum applications are nothing but a waste of time. Therefore, majority of asylum seekers seek refuge in other countries, which, drawing upon provisions stated by the Dublin Convention, deport them back to Slovenia that subsequently deports them to their home countries. On the other hand, those who avoid deportation, are victims of illegalisation and remain on the Slovenian territory without any documents and pertaining rights. There are only few examples of people, who have left the Republic of Slovenia and are entitled to help provided by the countries they escaped to, therefore our fate (and often our lives) depends entirely on procedures in the Republic of Slovenia.

Similarly to the initial interview, asylum seekers face the following irregularities, arbitrary measures and pressure during our second and third interview:

Forging acquired information.
Absence of written translations.
Psychological pressure imposed on asylum seekers and their representatives.
Inspectors strive to divert and deter asylum seekers during their interviews.

We believe that, when examining our asylum applications, the Ministry of Interior or the Asylum Home it represents, acts outside jurisdictions. Namely, negative decisions do not comply with valid legal acts and regulations, but are rather based on emotions, “logical references”, suppositions and assumptions denying dangers imposed on asylum seekers, as well as on basis of the “I believe or I do not believe” criteria.

Asylum Home

Additionally to above-given violations in the procedure, asylum seekers are subjected to further irregularities and humiliations in our quotidian lives in the Asylum Home of Ljubljana, which is managed by its administration and based on directives of the Slovenian Ministry of Interior. Some of them are given below:

Without any legal grounds, asylum seekers are bound to return to the Asylum Home no later than at 10 p.m. At 7.30 a.m., they undergo arbitrary inspections of their rooms, as inspectors enter their rooms, hence denying asylum seekers' their right to private space and life. The Asylum Home administration's acts thus constantly impose psychological pressure and violate asylum seeker's fundamental human rights.
Absence of help from the part of the social service within the Asylum Home, thus leaving asylum seekers entirely on their own.
Lack of information provided in languages spoken by asylum seekers.
Inaccessibility to print media (newspapers, magazines), internet radio, and television.
The administration causes conflicts among asylum seekers, and later accuses asylum seekers of intolerant behaviour toward other cultures.
Legal help is of a merely formal nature.
Absence of non-surveyed rooms, where asylum seekers would be able to meet their legal representatives, representatives of non-governmental organisations or independent legal consultants, etc. in private.
Medical help is being provided on a very formal level.
Insufficient child nutrition (2 decilitres of milk per day).
Nursery is merely a formality.
Distribution of clothes among asylum seekers is fundamentally based on the employees' inclinations toward individual asylum seekers.
The right to laundering is limited to a minimum.
Education only takes place on a formal level.
Several training programmes are conducted only by volunteers.
The Asylum Home artificially causes problems regarding allowed absence from the Asylum Home, and regarding absence for the purposes of employment.
Asylum seekers do not enjoy the right to move, namely to reside outside the Asylum Home.
Addressing asylum seekers' complaints is merely a formality.
The Asylum Home administration in advance rejects any critics of asylum seekers.
The Asylum Home administration's revenge for asylum seekers' complaints to the media. Admonitions based on fabricated facts.
The internal order of the Asylum Home gives asylum seekers only one freedom: the freedom of religious rites. All other articles refer to asylum seekers' obligations.
Unfounded inspections of asylum seekers entering or leaving the Asylum Home, also in the presence of children.
Disappearances of documents from asylum seekers' files.
Unfounded handing over of asylum seekers' dossiers to different inspectors.
Physical violence against asylum seekers imposed from the part of the Asylum Home's security and police officers of the Vič Police Station.
Locking asylum seekers in the Asylum Home's detention ward is an inhumane policy serving as a means of intimidation.
The very existence of the detention ward located within the Asylum Home is contrary to international human rights and fundamental freedoms standards. Actual detention provisions are arbitrary and insufficient in their explanation.

Our greatest regret is the fact that the established system leaves severe consequences on children constantly witnessing all the aforementioned procedures, rejected asylum applications, and deportations. Children staying in the Asylum Home are exposed to psychological burdens leading to deteriorated health and psychological conditions. Deportations may well result in children losing their parents. Striving for the protection of our rights and freedoms, we have often called upon several organisations, including those offering legal help. Furthermore, we have informed state authorities of the Republic of Slovenia, among them the National Assembly of RS, the Ministry of Interior, the European Parliament, the UNHCR office in Budapest, the Slovenian Ombudsman of Human Rights, and the media – radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. State authorities have never responded to either our pleadings or notices and warnings published by the media.

We demand objective examination of our asylum procedures, freedom of movement for asylum seekers, possibilities of integrating into the Slovenian society, and an end to the repression imposed on asylum seekers.

Social Centre Rog, Ljubljana, 22 March 2008

Izjava borca za svobodo gibanja in karavana gibanja Svet za vsakogar na FDV

Aigul — 2008-04-08T14:36:00Z

Izjava borca za pravice prosilcev za azil in svobodo gibanja ter pravico do bivanja.

Karavana gibanja Svet za vsakogarna Fakulteti za družbene vede/FDV.

Posnetek No. 1

Posnetek No. 2

Karavana gibanja Svet za vsakogar

blanco — 2008-04-07T15:05:04Z

Karavana "Svet za vsakogar" na Fakulteti za socialno delo

blanco — 2008-04-06T16:37:44Z

Zatiranje in odganjanje iskalcev/ iskalk mednarodne zaščite žal ni novost v Sloveniji, represija traja že leta, ljudem se sistematično onemogoča dostop do pravne pomoči, do korektne obravnave vlog, osebnega dostojanstva ipd. Vendar pa so se v zadnjem času zgodile pomembne spremembe in premiki: ljudje, ki bivajo (ali so bivali) v azilnem domu so se samo-organizirali v boju za svoje pravice.

Za resnične spremembe je potrebna podpora sirše skupnosti, zato vas vljudno vabimo, da spoznate izkušnje prosilcev in prosilk za azil ter slišite njihova mnenja. Kot kaže vladajoče strukture sektorja za azil, samo-zagovorništvo prosilcev in prosilk za azil vidijo kot 'osebno žalitev' ali pa 'grožnjo', saj so v zadnjem času zatiralske incidente in prakse še okrepili.

Gibanje Svet za vsakogar (prosilci/prosilke za azil in aktivistke/aktivisti Socialnega centra Rog) vabi na javno tribuno, v sredo 9. aprila ob 18. uri na Fakulteti za socialno delo (predavalnica 7, spodaj).

Na razpravi bodo sodelovali:

Artur Dzaurov (prosilec za azil)

Savik in Natan Isaakov (prosilca za azil)

Vladimir Krištof (prosilec za azil)

Assylbek Jumagaziyev (prosilec za azil)

Aigul Hakimova (Socialni center Rog)

Matjaz Oven (Fakulteta za socialno delo, študent)

dr. Jelka Zorn (Fakulteta za socialno delo)

Pogovarjali se bomo o:

izginjanju pravice do azila

kriminalizaciji prosilcev za azil

različnih oblikah nasilja, tudi zapiranju;

vlogi azilnega doma v politiki odvračanja in izključevanja prosilcev za azil;

možnostih samoorganizacije prosilcev za azil in pomenu avtonomnih prostorov;

vlogi študentk in študentov socialnega dela kot neodvisnih sodelavcev in zagovornikov.