Category Archives: Mediterranean

by | 29 Mar 2010 · 06:05

Malta Will Not Host Future Frontex Operations

Maltese PM Lawrence Gonzi said on 28 March that because of the new guidelines approved by the European Parliament addressing Frontex sea operations, Malta will no longer host Frontex operations.  “This is a major disappointment…our position is that the new rule does not make sense and unless this rule is amended, Malta will not participate in Frontex operations. However, if the rule if changed, we will take part.”

Malta objects to a provision in the new guidelines requiring that intercepted migrants be brought to the member state hosting the Frontex operation rather than the closest available port which in the past has meant that intercepted migrants would often be brought to an Italian port rather than Malta.

Click here and here for articles.

4 Comments

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , ,

by | 26 Mar 2010 · 03:52

EP Vote Allows New Guidelines for Frontex Operations at Sea to Take Effect

New guidelines governing Frontex enforcement operations at sea will now take effect even though the European Parliament voted on 25 March to reject the guidelines by a vote of 336 to 253 with 30 abstentions.  However, an absolute majority of all EP Members, 369 votes, was required in order to block the new guidelines.

Malta opposes the new guidelines.  The Times of Malta reported that “the European Commission and Council have managed to get their way and will be able to introduce new rules of engagement during this year’s anti-migration patrol missions coordinated by Frontex as the resolution to reject these rules approved by the Civil Liberties Committee last week didn’t manage to garner the necessary support of the Socialist group in the EP.”

“According to the new rules, all irregular immigrants and asylum seekers saved on the high-seas during a Frontex mission have to be taken to the mission’s host country and not to the closer safe port. This means that if Malta hosts a Frontex mission in the future, as it has done in the past two years, it will have to take all the illegal immigrants found at sea. Malta has already declared that it will not continue to take part in Frontex missions under these rules.”

An EP press release stated that the “EU guidelines say[]that border patrols have a moral duty to rescue migrants in distress at sea….  The guidelines cover ‘search and rescue situations and for disembarkation’ in the context of operations on the EU’s sea borders.  They state that Member States fleets operating under FRONTEX must render assistance to persons in distress at sea, regardless of their nationality or status, or the circumstances in which that person is found…. Disembarkation procedures should be carried out in line with international law and existing bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries.”

Click here for article.

Click here for EP Press Release.

Click here, here and here for earlier posts on the new Guidelines.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , ,

by | 26 Mar 2010 · 02:26

NRC Article: Seaborne interception of immigrants tested in ECtHR

From NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands):  “None of them have ever set foot on European soil. Most are incarcerated in Libyan detention centres. Some may have already been sent back to their countries of origin. Yet they are filing suit against the Italian state in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The plaintiffs are 24 immigrants from Somalia and Eritrea who tried to sail from Libya to Italy on May 6, 2009. They were intercepted by the Italian coast guard 35 kilometres off the island of Lampedusa and immediately sent back to Libya. Back in the north African country, the would-be immigrants were put in touch with two Italian immigration lawyers, who then brought their case to the ECHR in Strasbourg.

The case is unique, said Thomas Spijkerboer, a professor of migration law at Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit. ‘For the first time, Europe’s highest court for human rights will look into the most controversial policy combating illegal seaborne migration any European state has implemented so far,’ he said. …

The Italian lawyer Anton Giulio Lana has been granted power of attorney to act on the behalf of 24 returned would-be immigrants. Lana was put in touch with his clients by an international NGO that operates in Libya. Speaking on the phone from Rome, Lana explained: ‘I would rather not say what NGO is helping us. It needs to be able to operate in Libya for the time being.’  According to Lana, Italy has violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that prohibits ‘torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Deported immigrants run the risk of being exposed to such treatment in Libya. The convention also forbids collective expulsion of foreigners, and according to refugee law, it is illegal to deport asylum seekers to a country where they could face persecution.”

Click here for full article.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Court of Human Rights, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 18 Mar 2010 · 06:30

EP Civil Liberties Committee Rejects Rule on Frontex Operations at Sea

The European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee has rejected proposed revisions to guidelines pertaining to Frontex enforcement operations at sea.  The vote was 24 votes against the proposed revisions and 11 in favour.  MEP Michael Cashman (S&D, UK), withdrew his name as rapporteur after the vote.

According to an EP press statement, “Civil Liberties Committee MEPs rejected the proposal Wednesday, on the grounds that although the guidelines are right to affirm the duty to search for and rescue migrants at sea, this duty should be enshrined in law, not mere guidelines.”

“[R]apporteur Michael Cashman … said that the measure would ‘bring a sense of certainty’ to Member States’ obligations to intercept, search and rescue.  What we do not want is last year’s situation’ where ‘two Member States didn’t want to deal’ with possible asylum requests, he said, arguing that with the proposed text, ‘the legal obligation to search and rescue will become something that Member States can no longer shirk’. The rapporteur’s opinion was backed by Council and Commission representatives.”

The EP press statement also said that “[t]he proposed act is the focus of a legal controversy. The European Commission says the act falls under its implementing powers granted by the Schengen Borders Code, whereas Civil Liberties Committee MEPs argue that it should be examined under the ordinary legislative procedure. … The European Parliament has repeatedly called for more parliamentary scrutiny over the FRONTEX external border agency’s activities, as watchdogs criticized its procedures as abusive vis-à-vis migrants. Another proposal being examined by Parliament aims to improve the training of FRONTEX agents in fundamental rights.”

The Times of Malta reported that “[d]uring the past few days MEPs were pressured by both the Commission and the Council to approve the new rules so that they could come into force before the start of the new Frontex patrols before summer. However [Maltese MEP Simon Busuttil, EPP’s coordinator for the Committee] insisted that the new rules were ‘ultra vires’ and that the Commission had overstepped its remit in their drafting.”

Click here for EP Press Statement.

Click here for article.

Click here and here for earlier posts on the proposed Guidelines.

1 Comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Italy, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 18 Mar 2010 · 06:21

UNHCR Files ECtHR Third Party Intervention in Hirsi v. Italy

The UNHCR submitted a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09, which was filed on 26 May 2009 by 11 Somalis and 13 Eritreans who were among the first group of about 200 migrants interdicted by Italian authorities and summarily returned to Libya pursuant to Italy’s push-back practice.  The case was communicated by the Second Section of the Court on 17 November 2009.

The UNHCR’s intervention “addresses the practice and justification of ‘push-back’ operations by the Italian government, the conditions for reception and seeking asylum in Libya and the extraterritorial scope of the principle of non-refoulement and pursuant legal obligations concerning the rescue and interception of people at sea.”

Excerpts from the intervention:

“[***]  2.2.1  On 6 May 2009, the Italian government, in cooperation with the government of Libya, initiated the so-called “push-back policy” by intercepting people, including those who may be in need of international protection, on the high seas and returning them to Libya. This policy was a departure from the previous practice where Italian naval forces had regularly disembarked such persons in Lampedusa or Sicily. Based on UNHCR’s estimates, in 2008 some 75% of sea arrivals in Italy applied for asylum, and 50% of those who applied received some form of protection after their claims were assessed in the Italian asylum procedure.

2.2.2  According to the Italian authorities, from 6 May to 6 November 2009, a total of nine operations were carried out, returning a total of 834 persons to Libya. The precise modalities of the operations have not been made public and were not otherwise fully disclosed to UNHCR. …

4.1  The extraterritorial scope of the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention…

4.1.2  The territorial scope of Article 33 (1) is not explicitly defined in the 1951 Convention. The meaning, purpose and intent of the provision demonstrate, in UNHCR’s view, its extraterritorial application, e.g., to situations where a state acts outside its territory or territorial waters. Furthermore, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights obligations contained in various instruments supports this position ….

4.2  The extraterritorial scope of the principle of non-refoulement in human rights law

4.2.1  The complementary and mutually reinforcing nature of international human rights law and international refugee law speak strongly in favour of delineating the same territorial scope for all expressions of the non-refoulement principle, whether developed under refugee or human rights law….

4.3  The principle of non-refoulement in the context of interception and search and rescue operations on the high seas

4.3.1  As stated earlier, the principle of non-refoulement applies whenever a state exercises jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be based on de jure entitlements and/or de facto control. De jure jurisdiction on the high seas derives from the flag state jurisdiction.  De facto jurisdiction on the high seas is established when a state exercises effective control over persons. Whether there is effective control will depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

4.3.2  Where people are intercepted on the high seas, rescued and put on board a vessel of the intercepting state, the intercepting state is exercising de jure as well as de facto jurisdiction. While de jure jurisdiction applies when the people on board a ship are sailing under the flag of the intercepting state, it is also exercised – relevant to the case of “push-backs” – where the intercepting state has taken the persons on board its vessel, bringing them under its full (effective) control. In UNHCR’s view, as becomes clear from section 2.2 above, the Italian authorities were in full and effective control of the persons throughout the “push-back” operations until the formal hand-over to the Libyan authorities. Article 4 of the Italian Code of Navigation specifies that Italian ships on the high seas are considered as Italian territory.

4.3.3  When jurisdiction on the high seas has been established, the obligations deriving from it in relation to the principle of non-refoulement should be examined. The UNHCR’s Executive Committee has emphasized the fundamental importance of fully respecting this principle for people at sea, underlining that: ‘interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection, or result in those in need of international protection being returned, directly or indirectly, to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of a Convention ground, or where the person has other grounds for protection based on international law.’

4.3.4  In UNHCR’s view, the situation in which a state exercises jurisdiction on the high seas over people on board its vessels requires respect for the principle of non-refoulement. It follows that states are obliged, inter alia, not to hand over those concerned to the control of a state where they would be at risk of persecution (direct refoulement), or from which they would be returned to another country where such a risk exists (indirect refoulement). The state exercising jurisdiction needs to ensure that asylum-seekers are able to access fair and effective asylum procedures in order to determine their needs for international protection….

4.3.6  For interception or rescue operations carried out by EU Member States, UNHCR has clarified that, “… disembarkation of people rescued in the Search and Rescue (SAR) area of an EU Member State should take place either on the territory of the intercepting/rescuing State or on the territory of the State responsible for the SAR. This will ensure that any asylum-seekers among those intercepted or rescued are able to have access to fair and effective asylum procedures. The disembarkation of such persons in Libya does not provide such an assurance”.

5.  Conclusion

5.1  UNHCR considers that the interception of persons on the high seas between Italy and Libya, their transfer from Italian to Libyan custody, and their return to Libya, may be at variance with the principle of non-refoulement and in contradiction to Article 3 of the ECHR. By returning persons to Libya without an adequate assessment of their protection needs, the Italian authorities appear not to have sufficiently taken into account the potential risk of refoulement, including indirect refoulement, and other possible violations of fundamental rights upon return of the affected persons to Libya. The lack of an asylum system in Libya means that there are not sufficient safeguards to ensure that persons in need of international protection will be recognized as such and accorded legal status and associated entitlements that could ensure their rights, including to protection against refoulement, are not violated. The risk of chain refoulement denying international protection, especially to Eritrea, cannot be excluded.”

Click here for the full text of the UNHCR intervention.

Click here for an earlier post on the case.

1 Comment

Filed under European Court of Human Rights, Italy, Judicial, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 16 Mar 2010 · 05:15

EP Report: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

At the beginning of March, a 200+ page report assessing the cost of asylum seekers on EU member states was released by the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

The report is entitled: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

Excerpts from the Executive Summary:

“Background –  [***] Moreover, although asylum figures today are higher than in the mid 1980s, the number of asylum applications has not been steadily increasing as many assume. … There has been increased concern in tackling irregular migration among the European Member States, which has led to an increasing focus on preventing irregular migrants from reaching the EU. Consequently, joint efforts at border management, under the auspices of FRONTEX, have exposed grey areas in the international protection regime. For example, the extent of States’ responsibilities towards asylum seekers rescued or intercepted in international waters has been subject to debate. Operation Nautilus in 2008 illustrated the difficulties Member States face in agreeing on who should be responsible for asylum seekers amongst irregular migrants intercepted at sea. Member States have also been hampered by the lack of an agreed protocol to assign responsibility for any asylum seekers amongst the irregular migrants.

Some Member States, notably Malta, have protested at the uneven distribution of asylum seekers between EU Member States, and their experiences of particular pressures resulting from their geographical situation. Linked to this, European parliamentarians, NGOs, some Member States and other stakeholders have repeatedly pointed out that the Dublin system allocates responsibility for asylum seekers without attempting to share it equitably. The pressures on EU border countries have been a particularly contentious part of this discussion, but the discussion is not limited to these. In the last six years, Sweden has for example received 40% of the 100,000 Iraqis who have claimed asylum in the EU8….

Aim of the study – The current study aims to provide information and evidence to inform the ongoing debates. This is largely based on three overarching questions:

• What are the asylum related costs borne by Member States?

• Which of these costs could be shared at European level?

• How could these costs be shared? [***]

Key Findings

• Overall refugee numbers in Europe are relatively low. In 2007 Europe only hosted 14 per cent of the world’s refugees or people in refugee-like situations. In 2007 about 220,000 asylum applications were received within the EU27, only just over half the 2001-02 peak of over 420,000 asylum seekers, and about a third of the peak of 1992. This is equivalent to less than one asylum seeker per 2200 European inhabitants.

• The total size of asylum spending reported by Member States is relatively low. The total size of direct spending by each Member State has generally not been more than the equivalent of 1/14th of the international aid target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income. At €4,160m EU wide, these total asylum-related costs to EU Member States in 2007 are less than what UK citizens spent on pets and pet food in the same year….

• Some countries face disproportionately high asylum costs, with the share of asylum spending in relation to GDP being 1000 times higher in some Member States (e.g. Malta) than others (e.g. Portugal) in 2007. When cost of living is taken into account, the differences remain large….

• If no additional responsibility sharing measures are introduced and current proposals are not implemented, there will continue to be a highly uneven distribution of asylum costs and pressures across Europe. This study shows that there are critical differences between Member States and the costs they carry for receiving asylum seekers….

• Only physical relocation of asylum seekers will make a significant contribution to a more equitable distribution of asylum costs across Member States. If this is to avoid generating significant human costs and additional costs to the Member States, it is crucial that this is based on a voluntary relocation of the asylum seeker….”

Click here for the full report.

Click here for EP Press Service article about the Report.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 15 Mar 2010 · 15:13

Article: “A Contested Asylum System: The European Union between Refugee Protection and Border Control in the Mediterranean Sea”

An article in the most recent edition (Vol. 12, Number 1, 2010) of the European Journal of Migration and Law by Silja Klepp:

Abstract:

“During the past few years the border waters between Europe and Africa have become an EU-policy crucible. In the midst of the tightening of EU border controls and refugee protection claims, supranational, national and local actors find themselves in a phase of legal insecurity and negotiation. This article is based on ethnographical research carried out in Libya, Italy and Malta. It sheds light on the different actors’ practices at sea and in the surrounding border region. It also explores how new parameters for refugee protection are emerging in the border regions of the European Union. The article argues that the policy practices of the co-operation between Italy and Libya as well as the informal operational methods carried out in the Mediterranean Sea function as a trailblazer of the overall EU refugee policy. In the long term, some of these practices will affect and change the legal basis and the formal regulations of the European refugee regime. The principle of non-refoulement could first be undermined and then abolished in this process. Using an approach that combines the empirical study of border regions with a legal anthropological perspective, the article analyses the Union’s processes of change and decision-making on local, national and supranational levels and their interconnections.”

Click here for link to full article – restricted access only.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 12 Mar 2010 · 06:02

Pillay Deplores Italy’s Criminalisation of Migrants

ANSAMed reported that speaking before the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navathenem Pillay said “I deplore the tendency to criminalise illegal immigration and wonder what led to illegal immigration becoming a criminal offense [in Italy].”  “Pillay also spoke out against Italy’s policy of sending back migrants at its borders. ‘Those requesting asylum have to be able to be heard, and the policy of sending them back prevents this. The latter constitutes a violation’ of human rights.’”

Click here for article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Italy, Mediterranean, News, OHCHR

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 11 Mar 2010 · 04:35

Réaction du REMDH suite au Sommet UE-Maroc

“Réaction et commentaires du Réseau Euro-Méditerranéen des Droits de l’Homme (REMDH) suite à la Déclaration conjointe publiée lors du premier Sommet UE-Maroc qui s’est tenu les 6 et 7 Mars 2010 à Grenade:

Le REMDH note avec satisfaction que la déclaration conjointe réaffirme les droits de l’Homme comme étant « l’un des piliers fondamentaux du partenariat UE-Maroc ». Il salue l’accent mis sur la nécessité de mettre en œuvre toutes les recommandations de l’Instance Equité et Réconciliation (IER) ainsi que de poursuivre les réformes en matière de justice, de liberté d’expression, de presse et d’association.  Cependant, le REMDH regrette que la Déclaration ne mentionne pas explicitement les droits de l’Homme parmi les domaines qui requièrent une attention particulière comme la réforme de la justice ou les droits des migrants….

Le REMDH exprime par ailleurs sa plus vive inquiétude concernant la volonté réaffirmée de conclure dès que possible un accord de réadmission. La loi relative à l’entrée et au séjour des étrangers au Maroc ne garantit pas la protection des droits de l’Homme, en particulier, le droit à un recours effectif ainsi que la protection contre le retour forcé vers un pays où la sécurité de la personne ne serait pas assurée. Dans ce contexte, le REMDH estime que les droits des migrants, réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile ne sont pas garantis. Il demande à l’UE et au Maroc de respecter leurs engagements internationaux en la matière notamment en interrompant les négociations en cours en vue de la conclusion d’un accord de réadmission…..”

Cliquez ici pour le commentaire complet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Communiqués, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 11 Mar 2010 · 04:12

Déclaration Conjointe Sommet UE-Maroc

Extraits de la Déclaration conjointe Sommet Union Européenne-Maroc Grenade, 7 mars 2010:

“[***] Le Sommet couronne une intense période d’accélération dans les relations UE-Maroc, initiée par l’entrée en vigueur de l’Accord d’association en mars 2000, renforcée par la mise en place du Plan d’Action, dans le cadre de la Politique Européenne de Voisinage, en juillet 2005 et par l’adoption du document conjoint sur le Statut Avancé lors du Conseil d’Association d’octobre 2008.

Ce partenariat qui traduit un processus intense de dialogue couvrant tous les domaines politiques, économiques, sociaux et humains, reflète les aspirations des deux Parties à consolider la spécificité de leur partenariat….

I. L’UNION EUROPEENNE ET LE MAROC PARTENAIRES DANS UN MONDE GLOBAL

[***]  En matière de migration, le Maroc et l’UE conviennent de renforcer les mécanismes de coopération entre les pays d’origine, de transit et de destination, à travers la poursuite du dialogue entre les deux Parties et l’appui au processus de renforcement des capacités des parties concernées en matière de lutte contre l’immigration illégale, promotion de la migration régulière, optimisation de la contribution des migrants au développement et traitement des causes profondes de la migration. Une telle approche globale et équilibrée des questions de migration, incluant aussi une coopération pour le retour et la réadmission des migrants en situation irrégulière, doit constituer un élément fondamental du partenariat entre l’UE et le Maroc.

Le Maroc et l’UE saluent les réalisations du processus euro-africain sur la migration et le développement, lancé à Rabat en juillet 2006 et renforcé à Paris en novembre 2008, processus dans lequel le Maroc a joué un rôle moteur….

II. PREMIERS PAS VERS LA CONSOLIDATION DU STATUT AVANCE

[***]  Dimension humaine.

[***]  Le Maroc et l’UE notent avec satisfaction le consensus qui émerge au niveau international sur la nécessité d’examiner les questions migratoires dans le cadre d’une approche globale basée sur la responsabilité partagée et l’action collective concertée et associant la lutte contre la migration irrégulière, la gestion de la migration régulière et le lien entre migration et le développement.

Le Maroc et l’UE ont convenu de la nécessité de conclure dès que possible la négociation de l’accord de réadmission. La conclusion de cet accord est de nature à développer leur coopération dans le domaine de la migration, leur objectif commun étant de lutter contre la migration irrégulière, de favoriser l’utilisation de canaux réguliers de mobilité et migration, et de promouvoir l’impact positif de la migration sur le développement. La finalisation de la négociation sur l’accord de réadmission permettra une coopération globale sur la migration incluant la facilitation des visas.

III. UN AGENDA OPERATIONNEL POUR L´AVENIR

[***] Nouvel instrument qui prendra le relais du Plan d’action UE-Maroc L’actuel Plan d’action UE-Maroc adopté en 2005 pour une période de 5 ans arrivant à son échéance, les deux parties soulignent l’importance de finaliser le nouvel instrument qui doit être adopté en 2010 et qui prendra le relais du Plan d’action actuel. Ce nouveau document devra donner un contenu opérationnel aux objectifs du Statut avancé en intégrant les réformes agréées et les actions prévues dans le cadre du Plan d’action qui n’ont pas encore été mises  en oeuvre, ainsi que les éléments nouveaux qui sont prévus dans le document conjoint. Il intégrera également les éléments du programme gouvernemental de convergence réglementaire….”

Cliquez ici pour la Déclaration complete.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , ,

by | 10 Mar 2010 · 05:04

Lettre ouverte au Sommet UE-Maroc relative à l’accord de réadmission UE-Maroc

Une letter de la part des associations défendant les droits des migrants où on recommande l’arrêt de toute négociation allant dans le sens de la conclusion d’un accord de réadmission UE-Maroc:

“Depuis le début des années 2000, l’Union européenne tente d’imposer au Maroc la signature d’un accord de réadmission qui comprendrait la réadmission des ressortissants marocains en situation irrégulière en Europe ainsi que celle de tout étranger ayant transité par le Maroc avant de parvenir sur le sol européen.   A ce jour, le Maroc a pu résister aux pressions de l’Union européenne ….  En effet, les accords de réadmission sont un des instruments centraux de la politique migratoire de l’UE, réitérés dans le Pacte européen sur l’asile adopté par le Conseil européen le 16 octobre 2008. Les négociations entre l’UE et les différents pays se réalisent en général dans l’opacité la plus totale….

Suite à l’adoption du principe d’un Statut avancé pour le Maroc et dans le cadre du premier Sommet UE-Maroc, qui se déroule du 6 au 8 mars à Grenade, nous nous inquiétons des pressions de l’Union européenne sur le Maroc qui semblent de plus en plus fortes. En effet, bien que l’UE déclarait, au sujet du Statut avancé du Maroc, lors du 8ème conseil d’association,  que « ce partenariat renforcé entre l’UE et le Maroc traduit la volonté de l’UE de répondre positivement aux attentes et aux besoins spécifiques du Maroc, afin de l’accompagner dans son processus courageux de modernisation et de démocratisation (…) ». Il est pourtant clair que la signature de l’accord de réadmission UE-Maroc ne répond en rien aux attentes et aux besoins spécifiques du Maroc. Au contraire, l’UE à travers ses politiques migratoires restrictives, notamment celles des visas, a transformé les pays frontaliers de l’UE en pays de transit et cherche aujourd’hui à les ancrer dans ce rôle en expulsant vers ces territoires toute personne en situation irrégulière en Europe ayant transité par ces derniers. …

Nous dénonçons par ailleurs, le rôle ambigu de l’UE qui d’une part déclare encourager le Maroc dans son processus de démocratisation et de promotion des droits humains, tout en le poussant, d’autre part à mettre en place des mesures restrictives de contrôle des frontières et de réadmission qui mettent en péril le respect des droits humains et en particulier celui des migrants tant sur le territoire marocain qu’européen. Pour rappel, cela a été déjà le cas par le passé, notamment lors des événements de Ceuta et Melilla….”

Cliquez ici pour la letter complete.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , , ,

by | 08 Mar 2010 · 05:50

Malta’s MEP Will Try to Block EP’s Approval of Changes to Frontex Guidelines

“Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil has told the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee that the procedure used to draw up new [Frontex] guidelines for anti-immigration patrols are illegal and should not be approved. … The guidelines, recently approved by the EU Council despite the objections of Malta and Italy, need the EP’s consent to enter into force.

Intended to act as a new code of engagement for Frontex’s patrol missions, the regulations will place responsibility for rescued immigrants and asylum seekers on the country hosting the mission. … Frontex wants the new rules to come into force before the next anti-migration patrol mission off Malta, scheduled to start in April. However, the new position adopted by Dr Busuttil may derail the process….”

Click here for Times of Malta article.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Italy, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 07 Mar 2010 · 16:56

Apdha: Nuevo Informe “Derechos Humanos en la Frontera Sur 2009”

“La Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía viene realizando desde 1997 un seguimiento de la evolución de los flujos migratorios referidos a España y de las políticas desarrolladas por la Unión Europea y los sucesivos gobiernos españoles para abordarlos y en general reprimirlos y contenerlos….

Según los datos de la APDHA [Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía] viene, 8.728 personas han sido detenidas al llegar a las costas españolas durante el año 2009, trescientas más que las que recuenta el Ministerio del Interior. En todo caso, ello supone un descenso en las llegadas por esta vía de más del 45% con respecto a 2008, cuando las detenciones alcanzaron la cifra de 15.572 personas….

Sobre un 30% de las personas que intentan llegar a nuestro país, finalmente lo consiguen… Por tanto, las cifras de personas interceptadas sólo reflejan una parte de la realidad. … [L]as cifras aportadas por el Ministerio del Interior no se reflejan el número de personas interceptadas en las costas africanas. Estas son, cada vez más, otro de los resultados del control de los flujos migratorios que la política de externalización ha trasladado a los países africanos. Resulta difícil concluir cuántas personas son interceptadas en la aplicación de estas políticas de externalización en las costas africanas o aledaños.

La APDHA, con muchas dificultades, ha seguido informes de la operativa Frontex, de la Marina Nacional Argelina, de la Gendarmería marroquí y de su Gobierno, o de la policía costera mauritana. Pocas cifras proporciona la guardia costera de Senegal, por no referirnos a Guinea, Gambia o Cabo Verde. Pero de todo ello, desde la APDHA hemos llegado a la conclusión que no menos de 11.000 personas han sido detenidas en las costas africanas a lo largo de 2009, alcanzando así la cifra de 19.728 personas detenidas intentando llegar a España durante el 2009.

Insistimos en que todas estas cifras no son sino un reflejo de la realidad, que ponen de manifiesto dos cuestiones: un acusado descenso de los flujos migratorios que, paradójicamente, se solapan con un acusado incremento de las razones que obligan a la emigración….

La vigilancia de las costas es cada vez más férrea por parte de Mauritania, Senegal o Marruecos. Pero a ello hay que añadir el efecto de la implementación de crecientes y férreos controles en las fronteras que cercan el Sahel que tienen sin duda, a nuestro modesto entender, mayor importancia que los propios controles en las costas y aguas por parte de España y el Frontex….

En todo caso, no está de más resaltar aquí que esos procesos de externalización y creciente militarización de las fronteras africanas están provocando graves sufrimientos y violaciones de derechos en las mismas. La APDHA reivindica que el respeto a los derechos humanos, también en las fronteras, no puede obviarse por razones de control de las migraciones. Y entre ellos, sin duda, se encuentra el derecho a salir y regresar al propio país, tal como recoge el art. 13.2 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos….”

Click here for full Report.

Click here for article about the Report.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Gambia, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Reports, Senegal, Spain

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 05 Mar 2010 · 04:34

Las Constantes Averías del SIVE Obligan a Revisar Toda la Red de Radares en Alicante

ABC:  “Las constantes averías detectadas desde su puesta en marcha han obligado a la Guardia Civil a pedir a la empresa Amper que realice una exhaustiva puesta a punto de los cuatro radares SIVE instalados en las costas alicantinas.

Los responsables de este servicio han remitido a la Dirección General de la Guardia Civil en Madrid un informe en el que enumeran los fallos e incidencias registrados en estos dispositivos desde su instalación, el pasado mes de septiembre. A raíz de este informe, ingenieros de la multinacional Amper están revisando toda la red del Sistema Integral de Vigilancia Exterior (SIVE) en la provincia, con el objetivo de reducir su elevado índice de error….”

Click here for full article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Mediterranean, News, Spain

Tagged as , ,

by | 05 Mar 2010 · 04:25

Research Suggests 30,000 Drowning Deaths Since 1988 in Aegean and Mediterranean

The Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman reports that “Research conducted on migration patterns by a group of journalists has revealed that more than 34,000 illegal migrants drowned in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas between 1988 and 2009.”

Click here for article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Mediterranean, News, Turkey

Tagged as , ,