Tag Archives: Italy

by | 01 Aug 2011 · 06:45

[Post Updated 4 August] Spanish Defence Ministry: NATO Instructed Spanish Navy to Transfer Rescued Migrants to Tunisia

A press release issued yesterday by the Spanish Ministry of Defence states that the 114 migrants who were rescued by the Spanish frigate Almirante Juan de Borbón on 11 July were transferred to Tunisian authorities on 16 July pursuant to orders issued by NATO command.

I previously have sought clarification from both NATO and the Spanish Defence Ministry regarding who made the decision to turn the rescued migrants over to Tunisian authorities and what procedures, if any, were followed to screen rescued migrants before the transfer.  NATO’s Operation Unified Protector press office informed me that all inquiries had to be directed to the Spanish Defence Ministry.  The Defence Ministry’s press office in turn has ignored my inquiries.

[Update – 4 August – I received information today from Communication Office of the Spanish Ministry of Defence reiterating that the Spanish frigate was under NATO command as an asset participating in NATO’s Operation Unified Protector.  According to the Communication Office, after the Spanish frigate commander made the decision that the migrants needed to be rescued, all of the frigate’s subsequent actions were carried out pursuant to specific commands issued by the NATO command, including the final order to transfer the migrants to Tunisian authorities.  Spanish authorities were never involved in discussions or negotiations with other countries regarding the rescued migrants.  The Communication Office referred me to NATO’s OUP Press Office for information regarding any further details of the operation.  I will try again with NATO.]

The press release issued yesterday pertains to a visit made to the Spanish  frigate Almirante Juan de Borbón by Italian Rear Admiral Filippo Maria Foffi, Commander of the NATO naval task group for Operation Unified Protector, where he praised the crew of the frigate for the rescue operation.

The press release goes on to state that after the migrants were taken on board the frigate on 11 July, “on orders from NATO command, the Juan de Borbón sailed to Malta and took a position 40 miles off the coast of that country. On 16 July, instructed by the command of NATO, the Spanish frigate headed for the coast of Tunisia to start the transfer to the Tunisian Navy patrol boat Carthage of the 106 immigrants who were still on board, after the earlier evacuation of eight persons for health and medical reasons.”

(“…siguiendo órdenes del mando de la OTAN, la ‘Juan de Borbón’ puso rumbo a Malta posicionándose a 40 millas frente a las costas de ese país.  El pasado 16 de julio, siguiendo instrucciones del mando de la Alianza, se dirigió hacia las costas de Túnez para iniciar el traslado al patrullero Carthage de la Armada tunecina, de los 106 inmigrantes que aún permanecían a bordo tras la evacuación de ocho personas por motivos médicos y de salud…”)

The Spanish government and NATO are rightfully to be praised for the rescue operation.  What is unfortunate is the lack of transparency on the part of both NATO and the Spanish Defence Ministry in regard to why the decision was made to transfer the migrants to Tunisia and what procedures, if any, were used to screen the migrants for claims to international protection.

Click here for Defence Ministry Press Release. (ES)

Click here for my last post on this topic.

2 Comments

Filed under Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Spain, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 29 Jul 2011 · 05:08

20th Anniversary of the Arrival at Bari, Italy of 15,000 Albanian Boat People

Twenty years ago, on 8 August 1991, several ships carrying approximately 15,000 Albanian migrants succeeded in entering the port of Bari, Italy.  The Italian government’s response was harsh.  Most of the Albanians were detained in a sports stadium without adequate food, water, or access to bathrooms.  Italian authorities dropped supplies to the detained migrants by helicopter.  Within several weeks most of the migrants were deported to Albania.  Their harsh treatment was criticised by human rights organisations and the Pope, but was justified by the Italian government as necessary to deter further irregular migration from Albania.

Excerpts from the 27 January 1992 PACE Report on the Exodus of Albanian Nationals:

“[***]

THE MASS EXODUS FROM ALBANIA

13.       Albania’s forty years of isolation from the rest of the world, combined with its disastrous economic, social and political situation, have had a traumatic effect on its citizens. They feel overwhelmed by hopelessness in the face of Albania’s domestic situation, and although their knowledge of other countries is based solely on what they have heard, or seen on Italian television, they long for the opportunity to start a new life abroad.

14.       This general mood became evident after mid-1990 when increasing numbers of asylum-seekers started to leave the country. Distressing images reminded the public in the rest of Europe of a part of the continent which they had forgotten existed.

15.       In July 1990, Western embassies in Tirana were besieged by large numbers of Albanian nationals. Some 5 000 people sought to leave the country. Thanks to the mediation of international organisations, and after intensive negotiations, a large number of them managed to obtain visas and were granted political asylum in several European countries, particularly Germany, Italy and France. Some have apparently since returned to Albania.

16.       At the end of 1990, some 3 000 Albanian nationals had arrived in Greece by crossing the border between the two countries without meeting any resistance from Albanian border guards. By mid-March 1991, 20 000 Albanians, many of them of Greek ethnic origin, were estimated to have entered Greece. Some of these Albanian nationals have applied to the Greek authorities for political asylum. However, interviews of asylum-seekers have shown clearly that the exodus was not politically motivated but directly linked to the difficult situation prevailing in Albania. The Greek authorities granted work permits to those who found a job and temporary residence permits to the others. Repatriation programmes for all those wishing to return voluntarily were carried out in close co-operation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

17.       On 5 March 1991, a large number of Albanians gathered before the German, French, Greek and Italian Embassies in Tirana, where it was rumoured that visas were going to be distributed. The following day (according to various sources), several boats left the Albanian port of Durres with 20 000 Albanians on board.

18.       On 7 March 1991, Albanian ships began arriving at ports in southern Italy (Brindisi, Bari, Otranto and Monopoli). In spite of the Italian authorities’ public refusal to allow the Albanians to land, many managed to do so.

19.       On the following day, 8 March 1991, hygiene on the boats had deteriorated to such an extent that landing was unavoidable. Crowds of Albanians settled on the quays of Italian ports to await aid which took several days to arrive, as the Italian authorities were overwhelmed by their sheer number.

20.       The Italian authorities claim that 20 000 Albanians arrived in Italy between 7 and 10 March 1991. Negotiations between the authorities in Tirana and Rome subsequently brought the exodus to an end, and Italy has undertaken to discuss with Albania how to eliminate its root causes.

21.       Also in March 1991, an undetermined number of Albanians of Serbian and Montenegrin origin attempted to enter Yugoslavia illegally.

22.       In June 1991, the Albanian authorities requested the United Nations Development Programme to organise an interagency mission in order to undertake an assessment of Albania’s urgent humanitarian needs. In the field of migration, the mission concluded that the great majority of Albanians who had left the country were seeking improved economic conditions and recommended to the Albanian government that it provide incentives so as to encourage Albanians to remain in their country.

23.       During the first days of August 1991 thousands of Albanians reached the western port of Durres and the southern port of Vlora, in the hope of going on board ships that would take them to Italy.

24.       The Albanian authorities tried in vain to prevent its citizens from leaving the country by putting the ports under military control and halting passenger trains.

25.       On 8 August 1991 an estimated 10 000 Albanian nationals aboard several ships forced their way into the port of Bari in the south-east of Italy and approximately 1 000 into the port of Otranto. Moreover, 675 Albanians aboard two other ships who tried unsuccessfully to land at ports in Sicily, were diverged to Malta and later returned to Albania.

26.       After several hours of waiting in the port of Bari, the Italian authorities allowed the Albanians to disembark for humanitarian reasons and led them to La Vittoria Sports Stadium. As the Italian authorities started forced repatriation using military transport planes and ferries, clashes broke out between policemen and Albanians. The Albanians barricaded themselves in the stadium refusing to return to their country; some 300 succeeded in escaping.

27.       The Italian authorities offered the Albanians 50 000 lire (40 US dollars) each and new clothes if they would return home. As this offer did not attract the Albanians, forced repatriation continued.

28.       At the same time the Italian Government increased its financial aid to Albania. Right after the repatriation operations food and emergency aid was sent to Albania. On 12 August 1991, the European Community announced an extra 2,3 million US dollars of emergency aid to be used to buy food and medicines.

29.       The large majority of Albanians arriving in Italy were claiming to be looking for work and escaping the poor economic situation in their country. The failure to repatriate the 7 000 Albanians who arrived in March 1991 as well as rumours of an immigration agreement between Albania and Italy seemed to encourage this last flow.

30.       All of Europe witnessed the dramatic scenes, captured on television news, showing the Albanians being expelled by Italian officials. Although repatriation was legally justified, the way in which the operation was conducted was problematic. The vast majority of the Albanians, according to their accounts of the exodus, fled their country because they felt “buried alive” there. They explained that when the news spread like wildfire that it was possible to leave Albania, lorries were seized in the ensuing rush, ships commandeered, and their crews forced to set sail. It was a form of mass psychosis. It is difficult to determine whether this psychosis was triggered deliberately; rumours suggest that this was the case, but there is no conclusive evidence to support this.

31.       The Albanians’ deportation from Italy was beset with problems, and on a number of occasions the police were deployed. The Albanians were particularly distressed to find that despite promises from the Italian authorities to allow some of them to travel to new homes in Italy, they were still sent straight back to Albania.

32.       It should be noted, however, that the Italian authorities provided the Albanians with food, clothing and some money.

33.       Although there was remarkable sympathy for the Albanians in Italy, the official Italian position was that these persons were seeking economic betterment in Italy and consequently could not be considered as political refugees.

34.       From 15 to 17 August the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and UNHCR sent a joint mission to Albania. It discussed with the Albanian authorities issues related to migration, such as:

–       the continuation of voluntary return projects from neighbouring countries;

–       the planned and orderly emigration of a small number of Albanians to work in industrialised countries;

–       the implementation of an information project aimed at informing Albanians of the economic and social situation in neighbouring countries;

–       the need to promote, in the mid-term, the reinsertion of returning Albanians, through appropriate vocational training before their return.

35.       It must also be recalled that, at the request of the Italian authorities, IOM and UNHCR, in conjunction with the Italian Red Cross, established a programme of voluntary return. As at the end of August 1991, 1 130 Albanians had been assisted by IOM in their voluntary return. The programme was financed by the Italian Government.

36.       By the end of December 1991 more than 200 000 Albanians were estimated to have left their country since the exodus began in July 1990. However, the UNHCR considers this figure could be substantially higher.

[***]”

Click here for 27 January 1992 PACE Report on the Exodus of Albanian Nationals:

Click here and here for articles about events in Bari marking the anniversary. (IT)

32 Comments

Filed under Council of Europe, Italy, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 20 Jul 2011 · 05:56

Call for a Humanitarian Flotilla to Stop Deaths in the Mediterranean

A coalition of migrants’ rights organisations, including Migeurop, Cimade, Gisti, FIDH, and others hope to organise a humanitarian “flotilla which will undertake maritime surveillance so that assistance is finally provided to people in danger. The participatory organisations call on European bodies and governments on both sides of the Mediterranean to establish relations within this common area on the basis of exchange and reciprocity. This flotilla will embark political figures, journalists, artists, and representatives of the organisations involved in the project.  Any organisation, trade-union, political representative, seafarer, journalist, artist or other individual interested in this initiative may join this mailing list : « Mediterranean Intervention ».” To subscribe to the mailing list, please send an email to migreurop07@yahoo.it.

Click here for full Migreurop statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Statements, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 16 Jul 2011 · 16:50

NATO Transfers Rescued Migrants to Tunisia

According to information provided by the Spanish Ministry of Defence, the Spanish frigate Almirante Juan de Borbón sailed to Tunisia earlier this morning (16 July) and, while remaining outside Tunisian waters near Zarzis, transferred the remaining 106 rescued migrants to the Carthage, a Tunisian naval vessel.  114 migrants were initially rescued by the Spanish ship.  5 of the migrants were airlifted to Malta for medical reasons on 13 July.  On 11 July, shortly after the initial rescue of the migrant boat, 3 migrants were evacuated and turned over to Tunisian authorities.  The original 114 consisted of 88 men, 20 women (5 of whom are pregnant), and 6 children. The Defence Ministry said that the decision to transfer the migrants to Tunisian authorities was a NATO decision.

While the decision to disembark the migrants in Tunisia is better than sending them to eastern Libya (something I was fearful would occur), Tunisia is problematic for several reasons.  The migrant boat was reportedly carrying Tunisians.  To the extent that any of them may have had claims for international protection, the claims have been effectively eliminated.   It is not known whether any efforts were made to assess whether any of the Tunisians had claims for international protection.   And to the extent that any of the non-Tunisians have claims for international protection, Tunisia is clearly less able to handle such claims and less able to provide care for asylum seekers relative to Malta, Italy, or Spain (or any of the NATO countries participating in Operation Unified Protector).

[17 July update – NATO’s OUP Press Office informed me earlier today that any questions regarding who made the decision to transfer the migrants to Tunisia and whether any of the migrants were screened for claims for international protection had to directed to the Spanish Ministry of Defence.]

Click here (EN), here (ES), and here (ES) for articles.

Click here for Spanish Ministry of Defence press statement and additional photos. (ES)

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

4 Comments

Filed under General, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Spain, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 15 Jul 2011 · 17:25

Malta Says the 111 Rescued Migrants Aboard Spanish Frigate Are NATO’s Problem, Not Malta’s Problem

The stand-off between Malta, Spain, and NATO continues.  111 rescued migrants remain on board the Spanish Navy frigate, the Almirante Juan de Borbón.  Maltese authorities criticised the attempt to bring the rescued migrants to Malta and have said that the migrants should have been taken to Tunisia or Italy because both locations were closer to the original point of rescue.  Malta has now allowed a total of 5 migrants to be airlifted to Malta for medical care.  The frigate remains at sea near Malta with the 111 migrants, including women and children, and a crew of 250 sailors.

At a press conference yesterday, Maltese Interior Minister, Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, said that while Malta decided to allow the transfer of several rescued migrants to Malta for emergency medical treatment, it has no intention of allowing the other rescued migrants to be disembarked in Malta.  According to the Times of Malta, Mifsud Bonnici said “the problem is not Malta’s, it is Nato’s.  Malta is a sovereign state and it demands that it be respected as such. This is not a standoff with Spain or Italy and we await Nato’s replies.”

It is unclear from various media reports whether Italian authorities formally refused permission to the Spanish frigate to dock in Lampedusa, but some reports suggest there was communication with Italian authorities who said that Lampedusa’s immigrant reception facilities were at capacity.  Well over a thousand migrants have landed in Lampedusa in recent days.

There are also some media reports which suggest that the Spanish government may be taking the position that since the Spanish frigate is under NATO command as part of Operation Unified Protector, NATO therefore must decide where the migrants are to be disembarked.

The head of the Armed Forces of Malta has taken the bizarre position that the Spanish ship is well-equipped to care for the rescued migrants and that therefore there is no urgency in regard to removing the migrants from the ship for humanitarian reasons.

Meanwhile, the NATO naval embargo of Libya is missing one ship.  NATO had 17 ships under its command patrolling the Central Mediterranean, now there are 16 ships.  The Spanish frigate has been effectively removed from its embargo duties as it waits for a resolution to the stand-off.  If and when another migrant boat requires rescue by a ship under NATO command, will the NATO embargo be further weakened?  The obligations of NATO ships to rescue migrant boats in distress under SOLAS are clear, and NATO has repeatedly said that it will rescue migrant boats when required, but one must be fearful of a situation arising, as it does with commercial ships, where a NATO vessel’s commander may be less willing to conclude that a migrant boat is in need of rescue knowing that the act of rescuing the migrants may result in the NATO ship being removed from its mission because it is unable to quickly disembark the rescued migrants.

Click here (EN), here (EN), here (ES), here (IT), and here (IT) for articles.

1 Comment

Filed under Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Spain

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 14 Jul 2011 · 17:00

Aditus Calls for Immediate Disembarkation of Stranded Migrants

A statement from Aditus, “an independent, voluntary & non-profit organisation established with a view to monitor, act & report on access to fundamental human rights by individuals & groups”, which is based in Malta:

14 July 2011

“’Once again, political discussions take precedence over human lives.  It is at times like these that our consciences are called to do what is right, to ensure a full respect for the fundamental human rights of all persons irrespectively of colour, origin and status.’

It appears that the Maltese and Italian authorities are once again disagreeing over where to disembark a group of around 100 rescued migrants.  Rescued earlier today by a Spanish frigate, the Almirante Juan de Borbón, the group of migrants seems to be largely composed of men but also includes several women and children.  According to news reports, the stranded migrants were rescued in Sunday morning yet the date of departure from Libyan shores is as yet unconfirmed.

It is important to emphasise that the rescued persons have fled a situation of civil war, and have possibly been through several harrowing experiences.  ‘It is unclear when they left Libya, yet they have definitely been out at sea for over 5 days.  This can only mean that they are probably exhausted, dehydrated and are in urgent need of physical and psychological assistance.  A warship is definitely not the place to provide this urgent assistance’, commented aditus Chairperson Dr. Neil Falzon.

aditus applauds the crew of the Juan de Borbón for rescuing the persons in distress, yet urges the Italian and Maltese authorities to immediately relieve the warship of rescued migrants, in the interests of both the latter and of the crew itself.  aditus further recalls that international maritime law requires a prompt disembarkation at a place of safety for all persons rescued at sea, and that any prolonged period spent aboard the warship poses severe security, humanitarian and human rights concerns.

aditus therefore appeals to the Italian and Maltese authorities to allow the immediate disembarkation of the rescued persons so that their safety may be guaranteed.

For the longer-term, the two States are urged to seek resolution to this on-going legal impasse that too often has resulted in these tragic incidents.  To this end, aditus strongly recommends the involvement of competent international and regional agencies particularly the European Union, the International Maritime Organisation and NATO.”

Click here for statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, Spain, Statements

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 14 Jul 2011 · 15:59

Italy and Malta Turn Back NATO Ship Carrying 100 Rescued Migrants

A political and diplomatic standoff is underway between Malta, Italy, Spain and NATO.  The Times of Malta is reporting that the Spanish frigate, the Almirante Juan de Borbón, carrying the 100 rescued migrants attempted to dock at Lampedusa after the rescue, “but the Italian authorities refused it entry  and directed the vessel to Malta, which also refused entry, arguing that Lampedusa was the nearest safe port.”  “The Spanish warship is now off Maltese waters while talks are held between Maltese, Italian and Spanish diplomats.  A meeting which included the Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici was being held this afternoon at the Auberge de Castille.  Nato is understood to have appealed to both Italy and Malta to accept the migrants.”  The Times of Malta also reported that a 10 month old baby was flown yesterday from the Spanish frigate to Malta for medical treatment and that a man and pregnant woman were airlifted to Malta today.

Click here for Times of Malta article.

Click here and here for previous posts.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 12 Jul 2011 · 05:27

NATO Warship Rescues 100 Migrants from Boat Off Libya; Where Will Migrants Be Disembarked?

A Spanish Navy frigate, the Almirante Juan de Borbón, participating in NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, on Sunday rescued approximately 100 migrants who were in a disabled boat that reportedly left Zawiyah, Libya several days ago.  The migrants have been without food and water for at least two days.  Among the rescued persons are pregnant women and children.

It is not clear where the migrants will now be taken.  Some reports indicate that the Spanish Defence Ministry is hoping that Tunisia, Malta, or Italy will receive the migrants.  NATO is reportedly seeking a country to accept the migrants.  The migrants are reportedly from Libya, Tunisia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Hopefully the migrants will be disembarked quickly (assuming it has not already happened) in an appropriate location where any claims for international protection can be properly considered.  It would be problematic if the migrants are required to remain on the Spanish warship for an extended period and if nearby countries refuse to permit the disembarkation.

Click here (EN), here (ES), here (ES) and here (ES) for articles.

Click here and here for Spanish Defence Ministry and Navy press statements.  (ES)

These photos were released by the Ministerio de Defensa de España.

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

Photo Credit: Ministerio de Defensa de España (mde.es)

 

4 Comments

Filed under Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 06 Jul 2011 · 05:44

Head of Armed Forces of Malta Describes Malta’s Interpretation of Its SAR Responsibilities

Brigadier Martin Xuereb, the head of the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM), spoke at a recent seminar sponsored by the European Parliament, “Europe’s new Mediterranean reality: Migration and asylum in Malta, Greece and Cyprus,” and summarised Malta’s interpretation of its search and rescue obligations.  Xuereb said that Malta is obligated to coordinate search and rescue operations within its SAR zone, but is not required to perform all rescue operations.

Xuereb said Malta believes rescued persons should be disembarked at the nearest place of safety which, given the size and location of the Maltese SAR, will sometimes mean that Italian territory, particularly Lampedusa, is closer.  Xuereb acknowledged that this interpretation is not shared by others.  Xuereb “said that Malta had consistently insisted that the arrangement that best represented the interests of rescued persons was one that saw them disembarked in the nearest place of safety.”  He said the Maltese Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) has coordinated or assisted with 54 SAR cases so far this year.

Xuereb also confirmed that Malta would continue its refusal to host Frontex joint operations because of its objections to Frontex guidelines which are based “on a number of grounds, including the fact that [the guidelines] addressed matters deemed to be outside community competence and attempted to erode the rights that Malta enjoyed under the international legal framework. … In light of these guidelines, Malta considered the hosting of [Frontex] joint operations to be detrimental to its national interest.”  Malta objects to the guidelines because it believes they would require rescued migrants to be disembarked in the country hosting the joint operation.

Click here and here for articles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Frontex, Italy, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 01 Jul 2011 · 05:37

Italian Coast Guard: 44,000 Migrants Reach Italy by Boat in First Half of 2011

In a presentation on 28 June before the Italian Parliament’s Schengen Committee (Comitato parlamentare di controllo sull’attuazione dell’accordo di Schengen), officials from the Italian Coast Guard reported that at least 44,000 migrants have reached Italy by boat so far in 2011.

1,000 additional migrants arrived in Lampedusa over the 24 hour period Wednesay to Thursday of this week.  With the exception of one small boat carrying 8 Tunisians, all of the boats are believed to have left from Libya in recent days.

Click here, here, and here for articles.  (IT)

Leave a comment

Filed under Data / Stats, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 24 Jun 2011 · 05:56

Boat Carrying 840 Migrants Arrives in Lampedusa

A boat carrying 840 sub-Saharan asylum seekers from Libya reached Lampedusa on 22 June.   According to media reports this landing constitutes the largest single landing of a migrant boat on Lampedusa, though boats carrying larger numbers of persons have arrived elsewhere.   Among the 840 persons were 117 women and 28 children.   932 migrants landed in Pozzallo, Ragusa, several weeks ago.  Because the 20-metre long boat was dangerously overcrowded and unstable, Italian authorities boarded the vessel as it approached Lampedusa in order to redistribute weight and to steer the boat into the harbour in an effort to prevent the vessel from capsizing.

Click here (EN) and here (IT) for articles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 23 Jun 2011 · 20:25

PACE Appoints Tineke Strik as Rapporteur to Investigate Mediterranean Sea Deaths

The Migration Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has appointed Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC) to prepare a report on the deaths of boat people who have died in the Mediterranean since January 2011.

From the PACE press statement: “‘There have been allegations that migrants and refugees are dying after their appeals for rescue have been ignored,’ said Mrs Strik. ‘Such a grave allegation must be urgently investigated.  I intend to look into the manner in which these boats are intercepted – or not – by the different national coastguards, the EU’s border agency FRONTEX, or even military vessels. I also intend to speak to witnesses directly involved in reported incidents, and put questions to national authorities, the UNHCR, FRONTEX and NATO, among others.’  On 8 May, the Guardian newspaper reported that 61 boat people escaping from Libya had died after their appeals for rescue had been ignored by armed forces operating in the Mediterranean. The following day PACE President Mevlüt Çavusoglu called for ‘an immediate and comprehensive enquiry’ into the incident.”

Click here for PACE press statement.

1 Comment

Filed under Council of Europe, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 23 Jun 2011 · 16:18

Hirsi v Italy: UNHCR’s Oral Intervention Before ECtHR Grand Chamber

UNHCR released the text of its oral submission as a third party intervener before the ECtHR Grand Chamber in Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09.  The oral submission was made by Madeline Garlick, Head of Policy and Legal Support Unit, Bureau for Europe.

Note UNHCR’s disagreement with the Government of Italy’s position on the extraterritorial applicability of Article 4 of Protocol 4’s prohibition of collective expulsion:  “Although it is of primary importance to this case, UNHCR today will not address Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights covers it comprehensively in its written submission. UNHCR supports and shares the views expressed in that submission, holding that the prohibition of collective expulsion is at stake in this case including in relation to extraterritorial acts.”

Click here for the full text of UNHCR’s oral submission.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 23 Jun 2011 · 04:43

Hirsi v Italy: Summary of Oral Submission made by Govt. of Italy to Grand Chamber ECtHR

I have watched a portion of the web cast of yesterday’s oral submissions before the ECtHR Grand Chamber in Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09.  Here is a summary of the oral submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Government of Italy by Mrs. Silvia Coppari, Co-Agent, and Mr. Giuseppe Albenzio, Adviser.  NB while I think my notes are accurate, do not rely on them for exact quotes of any of the oral remarks.

Oral Submission by Mrs. Silvia Coppari, Co-Agent, Government of Italy

Introductory Remarks Critical of Applicants:

Coppari began her oral submission by saying that the Italian government did not intend to enter into the controversy raised by Applicants in their written submissions where the Italian government and its representatives were insulted and provoked by the Applicants’ statements that the arguments relied upon by the Italian government were purely formal or quite absurd and tendentious.  Coppari described the Applicants’ written submission as a political and ideological manifesto against the government and its policy.

Questioning Why Italy Was Singled Out:

Coppari said that the issues raised by the Applicants related to European public policy in general and therefore all EU Member States should be involved in the case.  Italy’s policies and actions were adopted and carried out in a manner consistent with the guidelines, objectives, and guidance set by the EU to curb illegal migration.

Reminding Court that Case is Limited to the Events of 6 May 2009 and is Not a Challenge to Italy’s Migration Policies:

Coppari emphasised that the Application was lodged only with respect to the events that took place on 6 May 2009 when the push-back operation involving the Applicants occurred and that the Application does not deal with the public policy or practices of the Government.

Admissibility Challenge No. 1:

Coppari recalled that the allegations lacked specific supporting evidence and noted that the Applicants themselves have not testified in any domestic proceedings and have not otherwise personally participated in the case. Coppari expressed misgivings about the validity and authenticity of the authorisations given to the Applicants’ legal representatives.  Coppari said there was no certainty as to the identity of the Applicants and therefore no likelihood of individually assigning a particular alleged offence to them or a possible violation of their rights under Art. 34 of the Convention.

Admissibility Challenge No. 2:

Coppari made a second inadmissibility objection due to the failure of the Applicants to lodge an appeal with the Italian courts in line with Art. 13.  The pursuit of such domestic remedies would have given the Italian authorities the opportunity to check whether those who were rescuing illegal migrants on the high seas were possibly liable for any rights violations.  Coppari emphasised that at present there are criminal proceedings underway at the domestic level in cases very similar to the instant case and that these cases will determine whether there was compliance with national and international standards and whether there was effective access to procedures for international protection for unidentified migrants intercepted at high seas and transported to Italian vessels. The existence of these ongoing domestic cases proves that domestic remedies do exist which were not pursued by the Applicants.

The Events of 6 May 2009:

Coppari said that the operations carried out on 6 May 2009 to intercept 3 makeshift migrant vessels were done to protect the migrants from danger and to control the flows of illegal migration towards Europe.  The migrant vessels were in distress on high seas in the Maltese SAR zone.  The migrants were rescued and returned to Libya on board Italian military vessels.  There is no evidence suggesting that requests for international protection were made to Italian authorities.  The migrants were in fact welcomed upon arrival in Libya.  The returns did not breach any basic rights of the Applicants.

Prohibition Against Collective Expulsions Does Not Apply Extraterritorially:

Coppari said that prohibition of collective expulsions provided by Art. 4 of Protocol 4 is not applicable to the case.  Coppari said that the use of the word “expulsion” is an obstacle to its application in the case of extraterritorial exercise of state jurisdiction.  Not only is it an apparent obstacle, it is in fact a logical obstacle which cannot be circumvented because an “expulsion” can only happen to people who are already on national territory or who have illegally crossed the border.  The transfer to a vessel on the high seas cannot be equated with entry upon national territory or permanent residence on national territory.

Giuseppe Albenzio, Adviser, Government of Italy

Introductory Remarks – Italy’s Policies Consistent with EU Principles:

Italy has acted in respect of principles handed down by the EU. The European pact on immigration and asylum provides for limits on migratory flows, the need to control illegal immigration by ensuring that illegal immigrants are returned to the country of origin or to a country of transit, the need to make border controls more effective, and to make partnerships with countries of origin or transit.

At the Time of the Events in Question, Libya Was a Country with an Adequate Protection System in Place:

Italy’s bi-lateral agreements with Libya at the time they were implemented recalled the general principles of international law and of human rights and therefore in face of these principles recognised in the agreements, the misgivings regarding Libya’s non-subscription to the UN Refugee Convention should not exist and are not justified especially since Libya has signed the similar African Union Convention for refugees.  It should also be underlined that at the time of the events in question, the UNHCR and IOM were both active in Tripoli and the operations that were carried out in the months after the bilateral treaty was implemented should be seen in this context.

After the first phase of the implementation of the bi-lateral treaty when Italian authorities took note of the fact that Libyan authorities had ordered the UNHCR office in Tripoli to close, which in turn made it difficult to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights on its territory, Italy’s methods for rescuing migrants on the high seas were modified and people who were on vessels coming from Libya would be accompanied to Italian soil after rescue.

The web cast of the hearing is available here.  (I was able to view this with IE but not with Firefox.)

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 22 Jun 2011 · 04:12

22 June, 09.15 CEST, ECtHR Grand Chamber Hearing in Hirsi and Others v. Italy

[Update:  A web cast of the hearing is available here.  (I was able to view this with IE but not with Firefox.)]

The case of Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09, will be heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights today, 22 June, 09.15 am CEST.

Given the events in Libya and the resulting halt to the Italian push-back practice, there may have been a moment some weeks ago when the question of mootness of the case might have been considered, but given the recently executed Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and the Libyan National Transitional Council and the public promises made by the leadership of the NTC to respect and implement the migration and other agreements made by the Gaddafi government, it would appear Italy hopes to revive the push-back practice at some point in the future.

From the Registrar’s Press Release:

“The case concerns a group of Somalian and Eritrean migrants travelling from Libya who were intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities and sent back to Libya. The applicants are eleven Somalian and thirteen Eritrean nationals. They were part of a group of about 200 people who left Libya in 2009 on board three boats bound for Italy. Among them were women who were pregnant at the time and children. On 6 May 2009, when the boats were 35 miles south of Lampedusa (Agrigento), in waters under Maltese jurisdiction for search and rescue purposes, they were intercepted by Italian Customs and Coastguard vessels. The passengers were transferred to the Italian military vessels and taken to Tripoli. The applicants say that during the journey the Italian authorities did not tell them where they were being taken, or check their identity. Once in Tripoli they were handed over to the Libyan authorities. At a press conference on 7 May 2009 the Italian Minister of the Interior explained that the interception of the vessels on the high seas and the return of the migrants to Libya was in accordance with the bilateral agreements with Libya that entered into force on 4 February 2009, marking a turning point in the fight against illegal immigration. The applicants consider that their case falls within the jurisdiction of Italy. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they argue that the decision of the Italian authorities to intercept the vessels on the high seas and send the applicants straight back to Libya exposed them to the risk of ill-treatment there, as well as to the serious threat of being sent back to their countries of origin (Somalia and Eritrea), where they might also face ill-treatment. They also complain that they were subjected to collective expulsion prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens). Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no effective remedy against the alleged violations of Articles 3 of the Convention and 4 of Protocol No. 4. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2009. The Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber on 15 February 2011.”

From my previous post of 16 March:

The case of Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09, has been scheduled for a hearing on 22 June 2011, 9.15 am, before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.

Proceedings before the Grand Chamber were initiated on 1 March 2011 when the Second Section of the Court relinquished jurisdiction.  On 17 November 2009 the Second Section of the Court communicated the case.  The case 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 under the terms of the Libya-Italy agreement which took effect on 4 February 2009.  The Applicants were intercepted on 6 May 2009 approximately 35 miles south of Lampedusa.

The Applicants allege violations of numerous provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Protocol 4, Art. 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens;

Art. 3 Torture;

Art. 1 (1) General undertaking/HPC;

Art. 13 Effective remedy/national authority; and

Art. 3 Inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Statement of facts, complaints and questions (EXPOSÉ DES FAITS et QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES ET DEMANDES D’INFORMATIONS) issued by the Second Section to the parties is available only in French:

GRIEFS

Invoquant l’article 3 de la Convention, lu en conjonction avec l’article 1 de la Convention, les requérants se plaignent de ce que les modalités de leur renvoi en Libye, ainsi que leur séjour dans ce pays ou leur rapatriement dans leurs pays respectifs les soumettrait au risque de subir des tortures ou des traitements inhumains et dégradants.

Invoquant l’article 4 du Protocole no 4, lu en conjonction avec l’article 1 de la Convention, ils affirment avoir fait l’objet d’une expulsion collective atypique et dépourvue de toute base légale.

Invoquant l’article 13, les requérants dénoncent l’impossibilité de contester devant les autorités italiennes leur renvoi en Libye et le risque de rapatriement dans leurs pays d’origine.

QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES ET DEMANDES D’INFORMATIONS

QUESTIONS

1.  Les faits dont les requérants se plaignent en l’espèce relèvent-ils de la juridiction de l’Italie ?

2.  La décision des autorités italiennes d’intercepter en haute mer les embarcations et de renvoyer immédiatement les requérants, compte tenu notamment des informations provenant de sources internationales et concernant les conditions des migrants clandestins en Libye, a-t-elle exposé les requérants au risque d’être soumis à des traitements contraires à l’article 3 de la Convention dans ce pays ?

3.  Compte tenu des allégations des requérants (voir formulaire de requête annexé), y a-t-il des motifs sérieux de craindre que le rapatriement dans leurs pays d’origine, soit la Somalie et l’Érythrée, les exposerait à des traitements contraires à l’article 3 ?

4.  Le renvoi des requérants en Libye de la part des autorités italiennes s’analyse-t-il en une expulsion contraire à l’article 4 du Protocole no 4 ?

5.  Les intéressés ont-ils eu accès à un recours effectif devant une instance nationale garanti par l’article 13 de la Convention pour faire valoir leurs droits garantis par les articles 3 et 4 du Protocole no 4 ?

DEMANDES D’INFORMATIONS

Le gouvernement défendeur est également invité à fournir à la Cour toute information disponible concernant :

– Le nombre de migrants irréguliers arrivés mensuellement sur les côtes italiennes, et en particulier à Lampedusa, au cours des dernières années ;

– L’entité et l’origine du phénomène migratoire en Libye ; la législation en la matière en vigueur dans ce pays ; le traitement réservé par les autorités libyennes aux migrants irréguliers arrivés en Libye directement ou suite au renvoi depuis l’Italie.

Le Gouvernement est également invité à produire à la Cour les textes des accords signés par les gouvernement italien et le gouvernement libyen les 27 décembre 2007 et 4 février 2009.

Il est enfin invité à expliquer à la Cour le rapport existant entre les opérations prévues par les accords bilatéraux avec la Libye et l’activité de l’ « Agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures des États membres de l’Union européenne (Frontex) ».

Click here (FR) for EXPOSÉ DES FAITS et QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES ET DEMANDES D’INFORMATIONS.

Click here, here, and here for my previous posts on the case.

Also, click here for a post by Costanza Hermanin, an Open Society Justice Initiative consultant.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,