Statement by UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres on Refugee Crisis in Europe

Full text of Statement by UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres on Refugee Crisis in Europe:

Geneva, 4 September 2015

STATEMENT BY UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, ANTÓNIO GUTERRES ON REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE

The European Union is preparing key emergency meetings to take decisions in its response to the present refugee and migration crisis. The situation requires a massive common effort that is not possible with the current fragmented approach. Europe is facing its biggest refugee influx in decades. More than 300,000 people have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea so far this year. Over 2,600 didn’t survive the dangerous crossing, including three-year-old Aylan, whose photo has just stirred the hearts of the world public. After arriving on Europe’s shores and borders, they continue their journey – facing chaos and suffering indignity, exploitation and danger at borders and along the way. The selfless generosity of private citizens and civil society organizations reaching out to welcome and help the new arrivals is truly inspiring. And there has been exemplary political and moral leadership from a number of countries. But overall, Europe has failed to find an effective common response, and people have suffered as a result. To address this untenable situation, we all must keep in mind a number of fundamental points:

  1. This is a primarily refugee crisis, not only a migration phenomenon. The vast majority of those arriving in Greece come from conflict zones like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan and are simply running for their lives. All people on the move in these tragic circumstances deserve to see their human rights and dignity fully respected, independently of their legal status. But we cannot forget the particular responsibility all states have vis a vis refugees, in accordance with international law.
  2. Europe cannot go on responding to this crisis with a piecemeal or incremental approach. No country can do it alone, and no country can refuse to do its part. It is no surprise that, when a system is unbalanced and dysfunctional, everything gets blocked when the pressure mounts. This is a defining moment for the European Union, and it now has no other choice but to mobilize full force around this crisis. The only way to solve this problem is for the Union and all member states to implement a common strategy, based on responsibility, solidarity and trust.
  3. Concretely, this means taking urgent and courageous measures to stabilize the situation and then finding a way to truly share responsibility in the mid to longer term. The EU must be ready, with the consent and in support of the concerned governments – mainly Greece and Hungary, but also Italy – to put in place immediate and adequate emergency reception, assistance and registration capacity. The European Commission should mobilize the EU asylum, migration and civil protection agencies and mechanisms for this purpose, including the resources of member states and with the support of UNHCR, IOM and civil society. From our side, UNHCR is fully committed to step up its efforts. It is essential that refugee families that disembark in Europe after having lost everything are welcomed into a safe and caring environment.
  4. People who are found to have a valid protection claim in this initial screening must then benefit from a mass relocation programme, with the mandatory participation of all EU member states. A very preliminary estimate would indicate a potential need to increase relocation opportunities to as many as 200,000 places. This can only work if it goes hand in hand with adequate reception capacities, especially in Greece. Solidarity cannot be the responsibility of only a few EU member states.
  5. Those who are found not to be in need of international protection and who cannot benefit from legal migration opportunities should be helped to return quickly to their home countries, in full respect of their human rights.
  6. The only ones who benefit from the lack of a common European response are the smugglers and traffickers who are making profit from people’s desperation to reach safety. More effective international cooperation is required to crack down on smugglers, including those operating inside the EU, but in ways that allow for the victims to be protected. But none of these efforts will be effective without opening up more opportunities for people to come legally to Europe and find safety upon arrival. Thousands of refugee parents are risking the lives of their children on unsafe smuggling boats primarily because they have no other choice. European countries – as well as governments in other regions – must make some fundamental changes to allow for larger resettlement and humanitarian admission quotas, expanded visa and sponsorship programmes, scholarships and other ways to enter Europe legally. Crucially, family reunification has to become a real, accessible option for many more people than is currently the case. If these mechanisms are expanded and made more efficient, we can reduce the number of those who are forced to risk their lives at sea for lack of alternative options.

Beyond the immediate response, it is clear that this situation will require us to reflect seriously about the future. This massive flow of people will not stop until the root causes of their plight are addressed. Much more must be done to prevent conflicts and stop the ongoing wars that are driving so many from their homes. The countries neighbouring war zones, which shelter 9 in 10 refugees worldwide, must be supported more strongly, along with the funding required. At the same time, it is also essential that development cooperation policies are reoriented with the objective of giving people the opportunity to have a future in their own countries.

Europe is facing a moment of truth. This is the time to reaffirm the values upon which it was built.

News contacts:

UNHCR Headquarters, Switzerland

Melissa Fleming: +41 79 557 9122

Adrian Edwards: +41 79 557 9120

William Spindler: +41 79 217 3011

Leave a comment

Filed under General

UN Security Council Likely to Consider Resolution Authorising EU Action Against Migrant Vessels

AP is reporting that the Russian UN Ambassador has said that “the United Nations Security Council is discussing a draft resolution to address Europe’s migrant crisis, likely by authorizing the inspection of suspected migrant ships [in international waters and not in Libyan territorial waters].” A resolution may be adopted this month.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Migrants, Refugees, Russia, UN Security Council

ECtHR: Italy’s Use of Summary Procedures to Return Tunisian Migrants Constituted Unlawful Collective Expulsion

The ECtHR, Second Section, issued a judgment on 1 September in Khlaifia et autres c. Italie (Requête no 16483/12) (official judgment in French) finding that the summary procedures used by Italy in 2011 to quickly return thousands of Tunisians who were reaching Italy by sea during the height of the Arab Spring violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens contained in Art. 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. (Judges SAJÓ and VUĊINIĊ did not find that collective expulsion had occurred and filed a dissenting opinion.) The Court also found violations of Art. 3, Art. 5, §§ 1, 2, 5, and Art. 13 (inhuman or degrading treatment, failure to promptly explain basis for detention, inability to challenge detention, lack of an effective remedy).

This is the fifth time that the ECtHR has found a violation of the collective expulsion prohibition. (See Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 62-63, ECHR 2002‑I; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 175, ECHR 2014;  Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 185, ECHR 2012; Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, no. 16643/09, 21 October 2014.)

The Court acknowledged that unlike the applicants in Hirsi Jamaa, the Tunisian applicants in Khlaifia had been subjected to individualized identification and processing by Italian authorities, but under the circumstances the Court did not consider an identification procedure standing alone to be sufficient:

“156. [T]he Court is of the opinion that the mere implementation of an identification procedure is not sufficient to exclude the existence of collective expulsion. … [T]he expulsion orders did not contain any reference to the personal circumstances of the affected persons; the Government did not produce any document that could prove that individual interviews regarding the specific situation of each applicant would have occurred before the adoption of these [expulsion] orders; many people of the same origin experienced, at the time of the incriminating facts, the same fate as the applicants; [Italy’s] bilateral agreements with Tunisia … have not been made public and provided for the repatriation of irregular Tunisian migrants through simplified procedures, based on the simple identification of the person concerned by Tunisian consular authorities.”

The procedures at issue occurred during the 2011 Arab Spring when North Africa and the EU experienced significant movements of migrants and refugees. The Court took note of these exceptional circumstances but made clear that such circumstances do not excuse a state from complying with its obligations under the ECHR.  (See paras 127-128.)

The Court’s judgment should serve as a caution to the European Commission, EASO, Frontex, and EU member states as they consider new streamlined procedures to process the refugees and migrants reaching Europe; procedures must provide for meaningful individualized processing and individuals must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to challenge an expulsion order, among other requirements. The dissenting opinion of Judges SAJÓ AND VUĊINIĊ (in English), concluding that there had not been a collective expulsion, is well reasoned and reviews the history of the collective expulsion prohibition.

This is an excerpt from the Court’s judgment. The official version is only available in French, the English translation is mine:

“2. Appréciation de la Cour
2. Findings of the Court

153. La Cour observe qu’en l’espèce les requérants ont fait l’objet de décrets de refoulement individuels. Ces derniers étaient cependant rédigés dans des termes identiques, les seules différences étant les données personnelles des destinataires.

153. The Court observes that in this case the applicants were the subject of individual expulsion orders. They were, however, drafted in identical terms, the only differences being the personal information of the recipients.

154. La Cour a déjà précisé que le fait que plusieurs étrangers fassent l’objet de décisions semblables ne permet pas en soi de conclure à l’existence d’une expulsion collective lorsque chaque intéressé a pu individuellement exposer devant les autorités compétentes les arguments qui s’opposaient à son expulsion. La Cour a également jugé qu’il n’y a pas violation de l’article 4 du Protocole no 4 si l’absence de décision individuelle d’éloignement est la conséquence du comportement fautif des personnes intéressées (Hirsi Jamaa et autres, précité, § 184).

154. The Court has already held that the fact that multiple foreigners are subject to similar decisions does not in itself lead to the conclusion that there was collective expulsion when each person was individually able to present arguments against expulsion to competent authorities. The Court has also held that there is no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 if the absence of individual expulsion decisions is due to the wrongful conduct of the affected persons (Hirsi Jamaa and Others, cited above, § 184).

155. La Cour relève de surcroît qu’à la différence de l’affaire Hirsi Jamaa et autres (précité, § 185), en l’espèce, à l’instar des autres migrants débarqués sur l’île de Lampedusa en septembre 2011, les requérants ont fait l’objet d’une procédure d’identification. Le Gouvernement le souligne à juste titre (paragraphe 152 ci-dessus). Les requérants reconnaissent par ailleurs qu’immédiatement après leur débarquement à Lampedusa, les autorités de frontière italiennes ont enregistré leur identité et relevé leurs empreintes (paragraphe 149 ci dessus).

155. The Court further notes that, unlike the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others (cited above, § 185), in this case, like the other migrants who landed on Lampedusa in September 2011, the applicants were the subject of an identification procedure. The Government rightly points this out (paragraph 152 above). The applicants also recognize that immediately after landing in Lampedusa, the Italian border authorities registered their identity and took their fingerprints (paragraph 149 above).

156. La Cour est cependant d’avis que la simple mise en place d’une procédure d’identification ne suffit pas à exclure l’existence d’une expulsion collective. Elle estime de surcroît que plusieurs éléments amènent à estimer qu’en l’espèce l’expulsion critiquée avait bien un caractère collectif. En particulier, les décrets de refoulement ne contiennent aucune référence à la situation personnelle des intéressés ; le Gouvernement n’a produit aucun document susceptible de prouver que des entretiens individuels portant sur la situation spécifique de chaque requérant auraient eu lieu avant l’adoption de ces décrets ; un grand nombre de personnes de même origine a connu, à l’époque des faits incriminés, le même sort des requérants ; les accords bilatéraux avec la Tunisie (paragraphes 28-30 ci dessus) n’ont pas été rendus publics et prévoyaient le rapatriement des migrants irréguliers tunisiens par le biais de procédures simplifiées, sur la base de la simple identification de la personne concernée de la part des autorités consulaires tunisiennes.

156. However, the Court is of the opinion that the mere implementation of an identification procedure is not sufficient to exclude the existence of collective expulsion. It considers moreover that several factors lead to the consideration in this case that the expulsion at issue was indeed of a collective nature. In particular, the expulsion orders did not contain any reference to the personal circumstances of the affected persons; the Government did not produce any document that could prove that individual interviews regarding the specific situation of each applicant would have occurred before the adoption of these orders; many people of the same origin experienced, at the time of the incriminating facts, the same fate as the applicants; the bilateral agreements with Tunisia (see paragraphs 28-30 above) have not been made public and provided for the repatriation of irregular Tunisian migrants through simplified procedures, based on the simple identification of the person concerned by Tunisian consular authorities.

157. Cela suffit à la Cour pour exclure l’existence de garanties suffisantes d’une prise en compte réelle et différenciée de la situation individuelle de chacune des personnes concernées (voir, mutatis mutandis, Čonka, précité, §§ 61-63).

157. This is sufficient for the Court to rule out the existence of sufficient guarantees of a genuine and differentiated consideration of the individual circumstances of the persons involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Čonka, cited above, §§ 61-63).

158. Au vu de ce qui précède, la Cour conclut que l’éloignement des requérants a revêtu un caractère collectif contraire à l’article 4 du Protocole no 4. Partant, il y a eu violation de cette disposition.

158. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the expulsion of the applicants took on a collective character contrary to Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. Accordingly, there has been a violation of this provision.
[***]”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Italy, Judicial, Tunisia

NY Times: The Outlaw Ocean Series – Murder at Sea, Captured on Video, But Killers Go Free

Murder at Sea, Captured on Video, But Killers Go Free” is the second article in a four article NY Times series, The Outlaw Ocean, by Ian Urbina ( 点击查看本文中文版 ):

“The man bobbing in the sea [likely the Indian Ocean in 2012 or 2013] raises his arms in a seeming sign of surrender before he is shot in the head. … A slow-motion slaughter unfolds over the next 6 minutes and 58 seconds. … Despite dozens of witnesses on at least four ships, those killings remain a mystery. No one even reported the incident — … Law enforcement officials learned of the deaths only after a video of the killings was found on a cellphone left in a taxi in Fiji last year, then posted on the Internet. With no bodies, no identified victims and no exact location of where the shootings occurred, it is unclear which, if any, government will take responsibility for leading an investigation. Taiwanese fishing authorities, who based on the video connected a fishing boat from Taiwan to the scene but learned little from the captain, say they believe the dead men were part of a failed pirate attack. But maritime security experts, warning that piracy has become a convenient cover for sometimes fatal score-settling, said it is just as likely that the men were local fishermen in disputed waters, mutinied crew, castoff stowaways or thieves caught stealing fish or bait. ‘Summary execution, vigilantism, overzealous defense, call it what you will,’ said Klaus Luhta, a lawyer with the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, a seafarers’ union. ‘This boils down just the same to a case of murder at sea and a question of why it’s allowed to happen.’…”

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, News

NY Times: The Outlaw Ocean Series – Stowaways and Crimes Aboard a Scofflaw Ship

The first instalment of a four part NY Times series, The Outlaw Ocean, by Ian Urbina was published yesterday. The first instalment, Stowaways and Crimes Aboard a Scofflaw Ship, follows the activities of one particular ship, including an incident where two stowaways were forced overboard and left adrift on a makeshift raft while the ship was at sea off West Africa. From the NYT: “The Outlaw Ocean series was a deep collaboration, with many parts of the newsroom working with Ian Urbina on a quest to reveal lawlessness on the high seas. The hope for the project was to take readers inside that lawlessness, using video, photography, mapping and design tied closely together.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Maps, News

Frontex Director: EU Military Operation Near Libya May Shift Migration Routes to Eastern Mediterranean

In an interview published earlier this week in Les Echos, Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri noted that there already exists a small shift in migration flows from the central Mediterranean to the eastern Mediterranean: “The pressure is growing stronger on the eastern Mediterranean. … Since early 2015, and before last weekend, there were slightly more arrivals from Turkey: 40.000 irregular crossing in the Greek islands, against 37,000 in Italy. The number of Syrian refugees is decreasing steadily in Italy. Syrian families prefer to avoid Libya because the security conditions there have worsened significantly. The smugglers are much more violent in Libya.”

[“La pression est de plus en forte sur la Méditerranée orientale. … Depuis le début 2015, et avant le week-end dernier, il y avait légèrement plus d’arrivées en provenance de Turquie : 40.000 franchissement irréguliers dans les îles grecques, contre 37.000 en Italie. Le nombre de réfugiés syriens diminue de manière constante en Italie. Les familles syriennes préfèrent éviter la Libye car les conditions de sécurité s’y sont nettement dégradées. Les passeurs sont beaucoup plus violents en Libye.”]

Director Leggeri noted that an EU military operation near Libya may simply move some of the migration flow further to the east: “Migration routes are extremely flexible and can change rapidly. There is strong pressure [migratory] on the European Union in general from those who come from the African continent and the Middle East. … If there is a military operation in the vicinity of Libya, this may change the migration routes and make them move to the eastern route.”

[“Les routes migratoires sont extrêmement flexibles et peuvent se modifier rapidement. Il y a une forte pression sur l’Union européenne de manière générale qui vient du continent africain et du Proche-Orient. … S’il y a une opération militaire au voisinage de la Libye, cela peut changer les routes migratoires et les faire basculer vers la route de l’Est.”]

4 Comments

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Mediterranean

Efforts to Secure Security Council Resolution on EU Migrant Plan “Paused”

From ANSA: “Preparation of a draft UN Security Council resolution to authorize a European mission against migrant traffickers in the Mediterranean ‘has been suspended until the issue of the consent of the Libyan authorities has been resolved,’ a diplomat of the UN Security Council told ANSA on Wednesday. … However, the same source said that ‘regarding implementation, cooperation is necessary from all parties in the country’; and the Libyan government [in Tobruk] can not give authorization because it does not control the whole territory.”

From Reuters: “A senior U.N. diplomat said drafting of the resolution had been ‘paused’ until it was ‘clear there will be Libyan consent’. … [A] senior U.N. diplomat said that legally a letter from a representative of the internationally-recognised Libyan government was needed to authorise the EU mission, but that to ensure successful implementation of the operation ‘cooperation with a wide variety of authorities’ would also be required.”

From Libya Herald: “[Libyan Foreign Minister Mohamed Dairi (Tobruk)] went on the record today [in Brussels] saying that while Libya was interested ‘in cooperation with Europe in order to address the growing terrorism inside the country as well as in order to address the problem of illegal immigration’, it would not approve any military operation.”

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Libya, Mediterranean, United Nations