UNHCR Submission Estonia UPR 10Th Session
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report - Universal Periodic Review: ESTONIA THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM I. Background information and Current Conditions The Estonian Parliament ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“1951 Refugee Convention”) on 19 February 1997. Estonia acceded to the most important international human rights conventions, including the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Ministry of the Interior (MoI) and the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) are the main government bodies responsible for persons of concern to UNHCR. Together they have an overall policy/planning responsibility for asylum issues as well as issues related to “persons with undefined citizenship”. MoI is also responsible for administering Estonian European Refugee Fund (ERF) projects. The asylum unit of the PBGB conducts refugee status determination. The Border Guards Department of PBGB is responsible for initial processing of asylum applications made at the border. The border guards may, in consultation with the PBGB asylum unit, make a decision on an asylum-seeker’s (in)admissibility. The Minister of Population Affairs had been responsible for the coordination of the Estonian integration policy. Since 2009 the duties of this post are fulfilled by the different governmental agencies. The Ministry of Social Affairs (MSA) is generally responsible for the reception of asylum- seekers and integration of refugees. MSA administrates the Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum- Seekers, which organizes the provision of services to applicants. The centre is located in a forest behind Jaama village in the rural municipality of Illuka in Ida-Viru County, about 220 km from Tallinn. The nearest town is Jõhvi, located 50 km from the center. The remote location has been a subject of critical comments (please see more details in section 3). 1 Estonia continues to stand out in the EU as the country with the lowest number of asylum claims and a low number of refugees, which is the result of the Government's strict migration policy and lack of alternative strategies in the admission of refugees. In 2009, only 36 new and four repeated asylum applications were submitted. All currently lodged asylum claims are examined in a fairly competent, albeit restrictive, manner. As of 31 December 2009, two nationals of Sri-Lanka and one national of the Russian Federation were recognized as refugees on the basis of the 1951 Refugee Convention in Estonia and one national of Uganda was granted subsidiary protection. Regarding denied claims: 11 applications were rejected on the merits (7 in 2008); 7 (2 in 2008) cases were otherwise closed; 5 (1 in 2008) cases were overturned as manifestly unfounded; and the examination of 2 (1 in 2008) applications were terminated. The overall recognition rate was 26.6% in 2009. From January to April 2010 Estonia received 12 new applications (8 for the same period of 2009). Estonia experiences predictable moderate progress in the number of arrivals. As of 30 April 2010, no applicant received a positive decision, while 12 applications have been rejected. Estonia remains a transit country for mixed-migratory movements. Illegal migration and human trafficking are rising. An increase in apprehensions of irregular migrants on the Russian Federation border, in particular of persons originating from Afghanistan, has been registered. Afghan migrants crossing the border illegally are a growing phenomenon in Estonia. The number of cases of border apprehensions rose from 40 cases involving 57 persons in 2008 to 61 cases involving 134 in 2009. In 2009, Estonian authorities registered 891 persons who stayed in the country without legal ground. Representatives of the Russian border agency estimate that about 20,000 illegal immigrants near the Estonian and Latvian borders with destinations in Scandinavian countries attempt transit through the Baltic States. II. Achievements and Best Practices The Government of Estonia cooperates with UNHCR in protecting and assisting refugees and other persons in need of international protection. The UNHCR Regional Office for the Baltic and Nordic Countries maintains regular contacts with the Government and other authorities. Since 2006 UNHCR has been involved in training activities with the authorities and in cooperation with IOM under the “MINAS” project, which is, inter alia , devoted to the training of border guards and first instance decision-makers, as well as issues related to labour market integration and mass influx planning. Article 76 of the Estonian Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens specifically mandates that MoI, MSA and PBGB cooperate with UNHCR in all matters concerning persons in need of international protection. Estonian legislation provides asylum-seekers with the right to contact and communicate with UNHCR and to request the participation of UNHCR staff during interviews. In addition to providing counseling to individual asylum-seekers and interventions in certain cases, UNHCR assists the PBGB in obtaining updated country of origin information and 2 provides guidelines on the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. UNHCR has funded the translation of a number of documents into Estonian as well as the translation of the UNHCR Refugee Status Determination Handbook. Any decision of the first instance body (PBGB) can be appealed in the regular Estonian court system (Administrative Court, Circuit Court and Estonian Supreme Court), where a legal review may include the application of the refugee definition. Thus, if an asylum-seeker decides to appeal a negative decision by the PBGB in court, he or she would keep the same set of rights and guarantees that he or she has had during the examination of the asylum application by the PBGB. In order to maintain this status, the rejected applicant shall ask the court to suspend the execution of the deportation order that normally is issued when the asylum application is rejected. In practice, in the majority of deportation decisions the administrative courts of Estonia suspend forcible execution of deportation orders, if the decision is appealed. III. Challenges and Constraints 3.1. On the basis of the remarkably low number of registered asylum-seekers at the border, 1 UNHCR has identified the possible lack of access to the asylum procedure for persons in need of international protection who are being turned away at the border. The concern has been substantiated through reports of apprehensions and forcible removals of citizens of Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries, as well as an increasing number of arrivals in neighbouring countries following the extension of the Schengen zone in December 2007. At the same time, no cases of refoulement have been reported to UNHCR. However, it is not possible to verify this independently because of the absence of a comprehensive and systematic monitoring system in Estonia, UNHCR’s lack of a permanent presence in the country and the weak capacity of Estonian NGOs. The current border guard practice is to undertake an initial interview and fact gathering only if asylum is explicitly requested. In reality, many aliens coming to Estonia might not have the awareness and necessary background knowledge to claim asylum specifically and immediately. In addition, persons in need of international protection do not always have the confidence to reveal personal information that would trigger an asylum procedure. 3.2. UNHCR identified other protection concerns including: the absence of time limits for the detention of asylum-seekers; lack of procedural guarantees in accelerated procedures; remote and isolated location of the only reception centre for asylum-seekers; limited access to and low quality of state legal aid and free interpretation services; and the insufficient number of procedural guarantees for vulnerable groups. 3.2.1. According to the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens , the border guards have the competency to conduct the initial examination of asylum claims submitted at the border, and they have the power to refuse entry, if there is a manifestly-unfounded case. In such situations, the asylum-seeker is immediately sent away from the Estonian border. It remains 1 According to official statistics, no person applied for asylum at the border in 2009. A year before, only two persons lodged an asylum claim, and in 2007 four persons and in 2006 only one. 3 unclear, however, how such a rejected asylum-seeker may use the legally granted right to appeal, bearing in mind not only the very limited time spent in the territory of the country, but also such individuals’ lack of knowledge of the Estonian language, institutional framework and the extremely limited availability of free legal aid. The immediate review of asylum claims by border guards places constraints on procedural safeguards and the fair review of asylum applications. The accelerated asylum procedure could prevent asylum-seekers from fully presenting their claims, and increase the risk of refoulement to a country where the asylum-seekers may face persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. UNHCR proposed to the Government that it conclude an agreement on modalities of mutual cooperation to support the access of asylum-seekers to the territory and the asylum procedure. However, this initiative has been postponed because of a 2009 reorganization of the Board of Border Guards. 3.2.2. Article 32(3) of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens stipulates excessive and far-reaching preconditions for detention. For example, an asylum-seeker may be detained if “he or she has repeatedly or seriously violated internal regulations of the Reception Centre for Asylum-Seekers” or “if the applicant fails to comply with the surveillance measures applied with respect to him or her, or fails to perform other duties provided by law.” UNHCR would like to reaffirm the general principle that asylum-seekers should not be detained. UNHCR believes the Government should follow the guidance provided by UNHCR’s Executive Committee in its Conclusion No.