Nestrokovno in politično motivirano odločanje MNZ v prošnjah za mednarodno zaščito državljanov Eritreje

English below

V Delovni skupini za azil želimo opozoriti na očitne anomalije v zvezi z nedavno podanimi odločitvami o prošnjah za mednarodno zaščito državljanov Eritreje. V tednu pred novim letom je Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve namreč v primerih eritrejskih prosilcev podalo kar pet negativnih odločb in nobene pozitivne, kar kaže na velik obrat v politiki ministrstva do te skupine. Še bolj kot sprememba politike pa je zaskrbljujoča njena obrazložitev – odločbam namreč manjka resna obravnava individualnih okoliščin prosilcev, utemeljene pa so na izjemno površnih in pavšalnih sklepanjih o situaciji v regiji, ki pogosto mejijo na absurd.

Na tem mestu ne moremo povzeti vsega materiala o stanju človekovih pravic v Eritreji, poudarimo pa lahko dejstvo, da v vseh aktualnih poročilih še vedno velja konsenz o izredno slabem stanju svoboščin in človekovih pravic pod najhujšo afriško diktaturo, zato se prosilce zavrača zgolj v primerih, ko ne izkazujejo istovetnosti oz. prepričljivosti v tem, da dejansko prihajajo iz te regije. Temu konsenzu so sledile vse članice EU, zato so Eritrejci tista skupina, ki se ji je z največjo gotovostjo priznavalo pravico do mednarodne zaščite – v tretjem četrtletju 2019 se je priznal status mednarodne zaščite v kar 82 odstotkov vseh primerov širom EU (pogosteje se je priznalo status le venezuelskim in sirskim beguncem). Republika Slovenija je sledila evropskim smernicam in od leta 2016 redno priznavala status mednarodne zaščite prosilcem iz Eritreje, številne je še do nedavnega sprejemala tudi po programu relokacije.

Zato je premik k trditvi, da je Eritreja varna za vračanje, najmanj presenetljiva, še bolj pa je presenetljiva vsebina posameznih odločb. Po uvodni in zelo kratki obravnavi osebnega razgovora prosilca, se odločba loti celokupnega demantiranja dosedanje politike do Eritreje. To prične s kontemplacijo o vprašanju, koliko lahko zares verjamemo poročilom iz Eritreje: “Pristojni organ je tako ugotovil, da je Eritreja z vidika virov o stanju v državi zelo velik izziv. Zelo malo je namreč zanesljivih primarnih virov in preverljivih informacij…” Informacije o državi naj bi zaradi nedostopnosti, prepovedi novinarskega dela in dostopa mednarodnih organizacij, tako MNZ, prevečkrat izhajale iz pričevanj beguncev, ki pa naj bi imeli pri formiranju teh pričevanj “lastne interese”. Po tem ključu MNZ podvomi v zanesljivost poročil komisije Združenih narodov o človekovih pravicah, kot tudi v poročila Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch in novinarskih hiš. “Pristojni organ se bo glede na pomisleke v zvezi z vsemi obstoječimi viri osredotočil predvsem na informacije, ki so dosledno in usklajeno predstavljene v različnih neodvisno objavljenih publikacijah.”

Čeprav MNZ nadaljuje svojo obrazložitev s povsem selektivnim navajanjem teh istih poročil, v odločbi ne more zanikati, da v Eritreji še vedno velja nedoločen rok vojaškega služenja, da tudi civilno služenje pomeni obliko prisilnega dela in da je za dezerterje predvidena dolga kazen v izjemno slabih zaporniških razmerah, vendar iz časovno in vsebinsko neusklajenih poročil sestavi sklep, “da se razmere nekoliko spreminjajo”. Ta sklep utemeljuje skoraj izključno z navajanjem izjem, v smislu: “…obstajajo tudi primeri, ki kažejo na spreminjanje norm”. Tako naj bi bili dezerterji, ki so pobegnili v tujino in se tam niso udeleževali protirežimakih dejavnosti, z uradnim opravičilom državi in plačilom davka po vrnitvi podvrženi zapornim kaznim do “le nekaj mesecev ali let”, saj da jih režim potrebuje za vojsko. Tako MNZ meni, da kazen ob vrnitvi ne bi bila nerazumno huda, služenje vojski, četudi do konca živlejnja, pa naj bi bila v Eritreji tako ali tako le oblika državnega zaposlovanja. Dezerterji, ki nasprotujejo takšnemu režimu neplačanega prisilnega dela, naj torej ne bi bili politični nasprotniki režima, ampak zgolj ekonomski migranti. To MNZ dokazuje tudi z ničkolikrat demantirano krilatico, “da niso zaprosili za azil v Turčiji ali Grčiji” – kot da bi ti državi imeli delujoč azilni sistem.

V odločbah pa še najbolj bodejo v oči argumenti, na podlagi katerih se prosilcem zavrne tudi možnost subsidiarne zaščite: “…pristojni organ ugotavlja, da splošno stanje v državi in v zaporih sicer lahko pomeni nehumano in poniževalno ravnanje, vendar pa le-to ni posledica namernega ravnanja države ali organov države in ni povzročeno prosilcu namerno, zato ne zadostuje za priznanje subsidiarne zaščite”. MNZ torej kljub subjektivnemu navajanju in interpretaciji virov ne uspe izpodbiti dejstva, da dezerterje ob vrnitvi z veliko verjetnostjo čaka nehumano ravnanje, vendar ne v pravni obliki, ki bi utemeljevala zaščito ali preprečevala vračanje v izvorno državo.

Ne le, da gre za izjemno neodgovorno in nestrokovno odločanje, kakršnega si država nikakor ne bi smela privoščiti, ampak tudi za odločanje, ki nasprotuje vsem evropskim praksam. Prisilne vrnitve v Eritrejo so takorekoč neobstoječe in jih izvaja le Sudan. Evropa je izvedla zgolj eno deportacijo v Eritrejo (Francija v primeru nedokumentirane ženske, ki vrnitvi ni nasprotovala), ZDA pa po napovedani vrnitivni 700 Eritrejcev leta 2017 niso prišle do dogovora z izvorno državo, a so kljub temu okoli 100 prosilcev predvidoma “odložile” v Egipt, od koder prihaja tudi poročilo o samomoru deportiranega Eritrejca.

Upravičeno si je torej zastaviti vprašanje, kaj namerava Slovenija storiti v primeru zavrnjenih prosilcev, za katere velja načelo nevračanja? Iz vsega navedenega lahko sklepamo, da ne gre za strokovne, pač pa politične odločitve, s katerimi želi MNZ sprožiti učinek odvračanja eritrejskih prosilcev za azil, na podoben način kot je to z neutemeljenimi odločbami že nekoč storilo v primeru afganistanskih in turških prosilcev. Na ministrstvu se zagotovo zavedajo, da takšne odločbe ne morejo vzdržati sodne presoje in da tujcev v nobenem primeru ne bodo mogli vrniti v izvorno državo, a je namen odločbe vseeno dosežen. Negativna odločba ima namreč v prvi vrsti psihološki učinek, saj celotnemu eritrejskemu prebivalstvu sporoči, da je prošnja v Sloveniji izguba časa, to pa praviloma sproži skupinski odhod prosilcev v druge države. Le-ti se pač dobro zavedajo, da enaka odločba čaka tudi njih in da bodo tudi v primeru pritožbe obsojeni na večletno čakanje, preden bodo dobili dokončen odgovor.

Takšne taktike “čiščenja azilnega doma” s strani MNZ so po našem mnenju povsem nesprejemljive in terjajo resno preizpraševanje. Samovoljno, nestrokovno in politično motivirano odločanje MNZ bo številne mlade begunce iz Eritreje stalo leta življenja, hkrati pa takšno ravnanje kaže na popolno degradacijo pristojnih institucij. Vlado RS in pristojne organe zato pozivamo, naj opravijo revizijo nestrokovnih odločb in oblikujejo politiko do Eritreje, ki bo skladna z mednarodnimi standardi človekovih pravic.

Unprofessional and politically motivated decesion-making of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia in asylum applications of Eritrean citizens

In the Working group for Asylum we wish to point out the apparent anomalies concerning recently issued decisions on asylum applications of citizens of the State of Eritrea. In the week before New Year’s the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia issued a total of five negative decisions, which suggests a noticable turn in the politics of the Ministry in regards to this group of refugees. But even more alarming than this apparent change in politics is the manner in which the rejections of the asylum claims are justified – namely, issued negative decisions lack any serious examination of the individual circumstances of asylum seekers in question, and are justified on exceptionally superficial and generalized conclusions about the situation in the region which often verge the absurd.

In this statement we cannot summarize all the information on human rights violations in the State of Eritrea. Nevertheless, we can state that all recent reports consensually accuse Eritrea of being one of the most inhumane dictatorships on the African continent. Thus, Eritrean asylum seekers have been rejected only in cases when they weren’t able to prove their identity or certainty of their origin in the region. All EU member states respect this consensus, therefore Eritrean citizens have been the group with the highest percentage of positive asylum decisions: in the third quarter of the year 2019 asylum was granted to 82 percent of Eritrean refugees all over the EU (a higher percentage of successful applications can be claimed only by Venezuelan and Syrian refugees). The Republic of Slovenia has followed European guidelines and has since 2016 granted asylum to Eritrean citizens, until recently even accepting a number of asylum applications from Eritrea through the EU Relocation Programme.

A shift towards the claim that Eritrea should be regarded as a safe country for returning asylum seekers is thus suprising. But even more suprising is the content of the decisions issued by the Ministry of the Interior. Following an introductory and very brief description of the personal interview with the asylum seeker, the issued decisions turn their focus to the wholesale rejection of the politics towards Eritrea valid up to this point. They begin with a contemplation on the question of how much we can even trust reports from Eritrea: “The Ministry has thus established that Eritrea presents a great challenge from the aspect of sources on the situation in the country. There is a lack of reliable primary sources and provable information …”. The Ministry of the Interior claims that – due to inaccessibility, prohibition of journalism and access of international organizations – the source of information are too often testimonies of refugees, who have their “own interests” in formulating these testimonies. Following this logic the Ministry of the Interior expresses doubt in the reliability of reports issued by UN Commission on Human Rights as well as in the reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various journalists. “In regards to second thoughts about all existing sources, the Ministry will focus predominantly on information that is presented in a consistent and aligned manner in various independently published publications.”

Although the Ministry continues its explanation by selectively referencing many of these same reports, it cannot deny in its decisions that unlimited military service is still in force in Eritrea, that civilian service is also a form of forced labor, and that deserters are subjected to long sentences in extremely bad prison conditions. But nevertheless, taking from different reports, inconsistent in reference to date and content, the Ministry concludes that “the conditions are somewhat changing”. This conclusion is argued almost exclusively through exceptions, as for example: “… there are also cases that suggest the changing of norms”. Such is the supposedly changing situation of deserters, who escaped abroad and did not take part in anti-regime activities there. There are account in which these deserters were able to minimize jail sentences to only a few months or years by issuing an official apology and paying due taxes, as the regime needs them for their understaffed army. Thus, the Ministry assumes, that the jail sentence after their return might not be unreasonably severe and that serving in the army, although for life, is only a form of public employment in Eritrea. Deserters opposing this regime of unpaid forced labor are thus not political opponents of the regime but merely economic migrants. As proof of this claim the Ministry also makes use of the debunked claim that “they haven’t applied for asylum in Turkey and Greece”- as if these two states had a viable asylum system.

The most concerning parts of the decisions however are the arguments which justify even the rejection of the possibility of subsidiary protection: “… The Ministry has established that the general conditions in the country and in its prisons can present inhumane and degrading treatment, but as this is not a consequence of the intentional mistreatment of the state or of state organs and it is not induced intentionally, it does not present the fulfillment of the conditions to grant subsidiary protection”. The Ministry thus, despite selective referencing of reports and subjective interpretations of sources, does not succeed in rebutting the fact that returned deserters will in all probability be faced with inhumane treatment, but that this treatment does not present a legal reason for granting protection or preventing their return to the country of origin.

All of these statements demonstrate not only exceptionally irresponsible decision-making, but also decision-making that goes against all existing European practices. Forced returns of Eritrean citizens are almost nonexistent, with Sudan being the only state carrying them out. The EU has carried out only one deportation to Eritrea (France returned an undocumented women who hadn’t opposed the return), while the USA announced a return of 700 Eritrean citizens in 2017 but didn’t reach an agreement with the country of origin. The situation ended with the USA supposedly “dropping off” around 100 persons in Egypt, from where a report on the suicide of a deported Eritrean comes from.

It is thus legitimate to pose the question, what the Republic of Slovenia plans to do in the cases of rejected asylum seekers, for which the principle of non-refoulement is otherwise regularly applied? From the aforementioned statements we can conclude that the Ministry of the Interior is making a political and not professional decision, with the explicit intention of triggering a deterring effect for Eritrean asylum seekers – a practice already established in the past with unfounded decisions issued to Afghan and Turkish asylum seekers. Employees of the Ministry are namely aware that such decisions can never sustain legal scrutiny and that the state will not be able to return these particular non-citizens to their country of origin, but that the decisions will nevertheless reach their objective. Negative decisions have primarily a psychological effect, as they inform the overall Eritrean population that their asylum applications in Slovenia are a waste of time. As a rule this information triggers a collective departure of asylum seekers to other countries. These persons became quickly aware that the same negative decision awaits them as well and that they will be sentenced to several years of waiting for final response even if they appeal to the court.

These tactics of “asylum home cleaning” used by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia are entirely unacceptable and demand serious questioning. The arbitrary, unprofessional and politically motivated decision-making of the Ministry of the Interior will cost numerous young refugees from Eritrea years of their life. At the same time, such treatment demonstrates a serious degradation of the responsible institutions. Therefore, we call upon the Slovene government and public authorities to carry out a reexamination of these unprofessional decisions, and to formulate a politics towards Eritrea that will be in accordance with international standards of human rights.