Imprisoned Lawyers in Turkey: how can we show solidarity?

 

How to show solidarity with the situation of lawyers in Turkey? Most of the initiatives of the next months have been cancelled or postponed, to explore the possibilities of continuing our political work you are invited to participate in a zoom conference on Thursday 2nd of April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO PROSECUTION FOR THE EL HIBLU 3

(La versión en español más abajo)

 

As European Democratic Lawyers we are deeply concerned about the proceedings against two minors and a nineteen-year old, who have been under investigation by Maltese authorities for almost a year.

 

The context

In the night from 25th to 26th of March 2019, a rubber boat left Libya with approximately 114 people on board, including 20 women and at least 15 children. The boat was rescued by the oil tanker El Hiblu 1. A few hours later, the rescuees realized they were being returned to Libya.

As described by testimonies, scenes of despair and panic started, with many shouting that they would rather die at sea than be returned to Libya. According to the information gathered by Amnesty International, at no point during the journey did the rescues engage in any violent action against the captain, the chief officer or any other member of the crew. While the precise circumstances of the events on the El Hiblu 1 will be established at a later stage, nevertheless the responsible crewmembers of El Hiblu 1 decided to direct the vessel towards Malta. Maltese military escorted the ship to Malta where the passengers disembarked.

Three of the 108 rescued passengers – two minors (15 and 16 year old at the time) as well as a nineteen year old teenager were immediately arrested and imprisoned for eight months. They were released on bail in the end of November, 2019 and are known as the El Hiblu 3.

Maltese authorities charged the three teenagers with a series of grave offences, including acts of terrorism as well as for allegedly hijacking the ship and forcing it to go to Malta. Some of these crimes are punishable with life imprisonment. A inquiry is ongoing in Malta to gather evidence, which will be submitted to the court once the Attorney General issues a formal indictment against the youth.

 

The association AED is concerned that Maltese authorities are not appropriately taking into account European and International law, including the fundamental rights of refugees and migrants in distress at sea and the human rights of vulnerable groups like minors.

 

As lawyers we would like to underline the regulations to be followed:

 

Sea rescue to a place of safety (POS) is a fundamental right

  1. The Law of the Sea and international customary law contain the obligation to rescue at sea and determine how this is to be carried out in detail
  2. According to the Hamburg Convention, followed by others, a place of safety[1] is the place where rescue operations are considered to terminate because the survivors’ life is no longer under threat and their basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met, a place of safety in no way jeopardises their fundamental rights, since the notion of ‘safety’ extends beyond mere protection from physical danger and takes into account the fundamental rights of the place of disembarkation. The need to avoid disembarkation in territories where the lives and freedoms of those alleging a well-founded fear of persecution would be threatened has to be taken in consideration as a legal principle of international and European law.

 

  1. International agreement, which includes the EU, state Libya, very clearly, is not a place of safety for the disembarkation of refugees and migrants rescued at sea. UN and European human rights reports document systematic human rights violations against migrants in Libya, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, torture and inhuman detention conditions, alarming rates of malnutrition, sexual and gender-based violence including gang rape, slavery, forced labour and extortion.[2]

 

  1. In addition, EU Member States have to respect their obligations under international refugee law (non-refoulement principle of the 1951 Refugee Convention) and human rights law: the protection against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment as an absolute right and the right to life based on the European Convention on Human Rights/ ECHR. According to ECHR settled case law, the security of the place of safety refers principally to the physical security of the individuals involved but also, to the effective possibility to request asylum. These obligations exist wherever states exercise jurisdiction in the meaning of effective and exclusive control, including places outside their territory e.g. on the high seas.[3] In the light of these clear responsibilities resulting from the ECHR, likewise the principle of non-refoulement of the Refugee Convention has to be interpreted in the same manner: the principle of non-refoulement binds states in each moment of effective and exclusive control.

 

  1. Taking the above into consideration, any instruction of a State to disembark rescued people in Libya is an unlawful order and a violation of several international and European laws. On the one side non-state vessels and their shipmasters have the duty and obligation to obey lawful orders on the other side they have the legal obligation to the national constitutions and domestic laws not to become partner in crime and not to obey unlawful instructions violating international and human rights law. Confronted with these conflicting obligations they are independent not to obey unlawful orders and the people who issue them. Since the Nuremberg trials following World War II, it is clear that individuals must not obey orders of state representatives if these orders violate international and human rights law: “The justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”[4]

 

  1. Considering the above mentioned legal situation the refugees on board of the El Hiblu 1 acted to defend their right to life and their absolute right of not being subjected to torture, rape, slavery and other cruel and inhuman treatment, as forbidden in international and human rights treatis. In a similar case the Tribunal of Trapani acknowledged the proportionality of the defendants’ acts, since the right to life and not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatments cannot be limited by the right of the crew. In the eyes of the judge, if such defensive actions had not been taken, the migrants would have been surely brought back to Libya; the naturally necessity of those actions has to be acknowledged since the defendants did not have the possibility to escape the vessel and its destination.[5] Especially important in the El Hiblu Case is the young age of the minors who tried to save their and the life of all other people on board having in mind what would happen to them when they returned to the “hell of Libya”. There are strong indications that their acting on board was justified under the legal institute of self-defence.

 

AED calls on Maltese authorities

  • to fully implement all obligations stemming from international, European, human rights and refugee-law as well as the obligation regarding the UN Convention on the rights of the child;
  • to respect the right of justified self-defence against unlawful acts subjecting people to torture, rape, slavery and other cruel and inhuman treatment forbidden in international and human rights law;
  • to ensure that fair trial guarantees are fully upheld;
  • to ensure, that the defendants have adequate access to all their rights without any kind of restriction;
  • to recognize that the defendants are vulnerable minors with special needs to be met and to implement all obligations resulting from the UN Convention on the rights of the child in this regard;
  • to stop any kind of cooperation with Libya on migration, ensuring the respect of the rights of refugees and migrants in the country.

 

  • We therefore strongly recommend the establishment on an independent trial observation regarding the criminal proceedings against the “El Hiblu 3”. We call on democratic society to observe the trial and the future of these youngsters.

 

27/03/2020

Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Berlin, Brussels, Athens

[1]               1979 Hamburg Convention, which provides that the State that conducts a rescue operation – even if not in the SAR zone of its competence – is responsible for the landfall and the disembarkation of the individuals in a safe harbour (the so called place of safety, POS); two supplementary protocols to the SOLAS Convention (Ris. MSC. 153 (78), 20 May 2004) and the SAR Convention (Ris. MSC. 155 (78), 20 May 2004), which entered into force on 1 July 2006 and the Guidelines in the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea, IMO Resolution MSC.167(78), 10. Mai 2004, IMO Doc. MSC 78/26/Add.2, Annex 34; (IMO, Facilitation Committee, Principles Relating to Administrative Procedures for Disembarking Persons Rescued at Sea, IMO Doc. FAL.3/Circ.194, 22. January 2009; Council of Europe, Res. 1821(2011) on the Interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers,refugees and irregular migrants, 21th of June 2011)

[2]               https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24569&LangID=E

[3]               ECtHR (GC), Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy, Ap.No.27765/09, 23.02.2012, para 73, 76 et seqq

[4]               United States v. Keenan, Court of Military Appeals, 39 C.M.R. 108, 110 (1969)

[5]               Date of Decision: 23-05-2019, Tribunal of Trapani/ Italy, https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/decision-tribunal-trapani-preliminary-judge-23-may-2019


 

ALTO AL PROCESAMIENTO DE LOS TRES DE EL HIBLU-1

 

Como abogados y abogadas europeos/as demócratas deseamos mostrar nuestra preocupación por las diligencias de investigación abiertas por las autoridades de la Republica de Malta (país integrante de la UE) contra dos menores y un joven de 19 años desde hace casi un año.

 

El contexto

 

En la noche del 25 al 26 de marzo de 2019, una patera, embarcación de goma, que había partido de Libia con aproximadamente 114 personas, incluyendo 20 mujeres y al menos 15 menores fue rescatada por el buque de aprovisionamiento de combustible El Hiblu 1. Varias horas mas tarde los rescatados de la patera comprobaron que les llevaban a Libia. Por los testimonios descritos, se produjeron escenas de desesperación y pánico con protestas en los que se gritaba que preferían morir en el mar que retornar a Libia. Según información recabada por Amnistía Internacional, en ningún momento durante el trayecto hubo acciones violentas contra el capitán, el primer oficial, o ningún otro miembro de la tripulación. Con independencia de que las concretas circunstancias producidas a bordo de El Hiblu 1 sean declaradas probadas mas adelante, lo cierto es que los responsables de la tripulación decidieron llevar su embarcación hacia Malta, al tiempo que militares malteses acompañaron al buque a la costa de Malta donde los pasajeros desembarcaron.

 

Tres de los 108 pasajeros, dos menores de 15 y 16 años (edad a marzo de 2019) así como un joven de 19 años fueron inmediatamente detenidos y enviados a prisión donde permanecieron durante ocho meses, momento en el que fueron puestos en libertad bajo fianza a finales de noviembre de 2019 y a los que se les conoce como los “Los tres de El Hiblu 1″. Las autoridades de Malta acusan a los tres jóvenes de una serie de delitos graves, incluidos supuestos delitos de terrorismo y de secuestro del barco, obligándolo a dirigirse a Malta. Algunos de estos delitos llevan aparejadas condenas de prisión perpetua. La investigación esta llevándose a cabo y llegará al Juzgado una vez el Fiscal General formalice el escrito de acusación contra los tres jóvenes.

 

AED muestra su preocupación puesto que las autoridades de Malta no están teniendo en cuenta, de manera adecuada, la normativa europea e internacional, incluyendo el derecho fundamental de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en situación de peligro en el mar y los derechos humanos de grupos vulnerables como los/as niños/as integrantes de la embarcación.

 

Como letrados y letradas quisiéramos apuntar la distinta normativa que tendrá que tenerse en cuenta puesto que el rescate a un puerto seguro es un derecho fundamental:

 

1.-El Derecho del Mar y la costumbre internacional contiene la obligación de salvamento marítimo y determina en detalle como se debe realizar.

 

2.- Según las Reglas de Hamburgo y demás normativa, un lugar seguro [Place of Safety- POS- en su acepción en inglés][1] es un lugar donde las operaciones de rescate pueden darse por finalizadas puesto que la vida de los supervivientes no corre ya peligro y sus necesidades humanas básicas, tales como la alimentación, cobijo y necesidades sanitarias son garantizadas, es decir un lugar seguro no puede poner en peligro sus derechos fundamentales, puesto que la seguridad (safety en su acepción en inglés) abarca mas allá que la mera protección del peligro físico y tiene en consideración los derechos fundamentales del lugar del desembarco.

 

La necesidad de evitar el desembarco de aquellas personas, que aleguen un motivo fundado de temor a ser perseguidas, en territorios donde sus vidas y libertades puedan suponer una amenaza deber ser tenido en cuenta como principio legal del Derecho europeo y el Derecho internacional.

 

3.- Acuerdo internacional, que incluye a la UE, expone que Libia no es en absoluto un lugar seguro para el desembarco de personas refugiadas y migrantes rescatadas en el mar. Los informes europeos y de NNUU sobre los derechos humanos informan de una sistemática violación de los derechos humanos contra migrantes en Libia, e incluye ejecuciones extrajudiciales, detenciones arbitrarias, torturas y condiciones de detención inhumanas, cifras alarmantes de malnutrido, violencia sexual y por razones de genero que incluyen violaciones en grupo, esclavitud, extorsiones y trabajos forzados.[2]

 

4.-Ademas, los países miembros de la UE deben respetar sus obligaciones bajo el Derecho internacional sobre personas refugiadas-Protección internacional (principio de no devolución de la Convención de Ginebra sobre refugiados de 1951) y el resto de normativa de Derechos Humanos: la protección contra la tortura y todo trato inhumano y degradante es un derecho incondicional así como la protección del derecho a la vida estan recogidos en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH). Según jurisprudencia consolidada del TEDH, la seguridad del “lugar seguro” hace referencia principalmente a la seguridad física de las personas que acceden a ese lugar seguro, pero también a la posibilidad de solicitar y tener acceso a un proceso de protección internacional (derecho de asilo). Estas obligaciones existen en todo lugar donde un estado ejerce su jurisdicción con control efectivo y exclusivo, incluyendo lugares fuera de su territorio como en alta mar[3]. A la luz de esta clara responsabilidad en base al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH), de igual forma el principio de no devolución de la Convención de Ginebra de 1951 debe ser interpretado de forma análoga, dicho principio compele al estado a cada momento del control efectivo y exclusivo.

 

5.- Teniendo en cuenta lo anteriormente expuesto, cualquier orden de un Estado para desembarcar a personas en Libia es un acto ilegal y supone una violación de varias normas de Derecho europeo e internacional. Por un lado, las embarcaciones que no tengan pabellón de ningun estado y los capitanes de los mismos tienen el deber y la obligación de obedecer ordenes legales, y por otro tienen la obligación legal en base a las constituciones nacionales y normas internas de no ser participe de un delito y de no obedecer instrucciones ilegales que violen las normas internacionales y de derechos humanos. Cuando se vean ante estas obligaciones en conflicto, son independientes para no obedecer ordenes ilegales y a aquellos que las dictan. Desde los juicios de Nuremberg tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, es claro que los individuos no deben obedecer a los representantes de sus estados si dichas ordenes violan normativa internacional y de derechos humanos. “La justificación de la obediencia debida no aplicaría si las ordenes ejecutadas fueran de tal naturaleza que una persona con sentido y entendimiento común medio las considerara ilegales[4]

 

6.- Considerando la situación legal anteriormente mencionada, las personas refugiadas a bordo de El Hiblu 1 actuaron para defender su derecho a la vida y su derecho incondicional a no ser sometido a tortura, violación, esclavitud y otros tratos crueles e inhumanos, prohibidos por tratados internacionales y de derechos humanos. En un caso similar, el Tribunal de Trapani reconoció la proporcionalidad de los actos de la parte denunciada, puesto que el derecho a la vida y a no ser sometido a tratos degradantes o inhumanos no puede ser limitado por parte de la tripulación de la embarcación. A ojos del juzgador, si tales acciones defensivas no hubieran sido tomadas, las personas migrantes habrían sido seguramente llevadas a Libia, la necesidad natural de tales acciones debe ser reconocida puesto que la parte denunciada no tenia posibilidad de escapar del buque y del lugar de destino al que les llevaban.[5] Especialmente importante en el caso de El Hiblu 1 es la corta edad de los jóvenes que trataron de salvar su vida y la del resto de sus acompañantes, teniendo en cuenta lo que les iba a ocurrir si volvían al “infierno de Libia”. Hay indicios consistentes de que sus acciones a bordo fueron justificadas bajo la institución de la legitima defensa.

 

AED hace un llamamiento a las autoridades de Malta:

 

  • a cumplir plenamente con sus obligaciones emanadas de la normativa europea, internacional, de derechos humanos y de protección internacional/refugio así como las obligaciones de la Convención sobre los derechos del niño de NNUU.
  • a respetar el derecho a la legitima defensa contra actos ilegales que someten a las personas a tortura, violación, esclavitud y otros tratos crueles e inhumanos prohibidos en la normativa internacional y de derechos humanos.
  • a asegurar que se celebre un juicio con todas las garantías.
  • a asegurar que la parte denunciada tienen un acceso adecuado a todos sus derechos sin ningun tipo de restricción.
  • a reconocer que la parte denunciada son menores vulnerables con unas necesidades especiales que deben ser garantizadas e implementar todas las obligaciones inherentes a la Convención sobre Derechos del niño de NNUU.
  • a parar cualquier cooperación con Libia sobre migración, asegurando el respeto a los derechos de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en su territorio.

 

Por todo lo expuesto recomendamos encarecidamente la creación de un observatorio independiente del proceso judicial de los “Tres de El Hiblu-1″. Hacemos un llamamiento a la sociedad democrática para monitorizar el juicio y el futuro de esos tres jóvenes.

 

 

Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Berlin, Brussels, Athens, marzo de 2020.

 

[1] 1979 La Convención de Hamburgo que estipula que el Estado que lleva a cabo una operación de salvamento marítimo-incluso en la zona de búsqueda y rescate que no sea de su competencia-es responsable de alcanzar tierra y desembarcar a los náufragos en un puerto seguro (el así llamado lugar seguro, POS en su acepción en inglés); dos protocolos suplementarios a la Convención SOLAS (Ris. MSC. 153 (78), 20 May 2004) y la Convención SAR (Ris. MSC. 155 (78), 20 Mayo 2004), que entró en vigor el 1 de julio de 2006 y las Directrices respecto de la actuación ​con las personas rescatadas en el mar, IMO-OMI Resolución MSC.167(78), 10. Mayo 2004, IMO-OMI Doc. MSC 78/26/Add.2, Annex 34; (IMO-OMI, Facilitation Committee, Principios relacionados con los procedimientos administrativos para el desembarco de las personas rescatadas en el mar, IMO-OMI Doc. FAL.3/Circ.194, 22. Enero 2009; Consejo de Europa , Res. 1821(2011) sobre Interceptación y salvamento marítimo de solicitantes de asilo, personas refugiadas y migrantes irregulares, 21 de Junio 2011)

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24569&LangID=E

[3] TEDH (GC), Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy, Ap.No.27765/09, 23.02.2012, para 73, 76 et seqq

[4] United States v. Keenan, Court of Military Appeals, 39 C.M.R. 108, 110 (1969)

[5] Fecha de sentencia: 23-05-2019, Tribunal de Trapani/ Italia,

https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/decision-tribunal-trapani-preliminary-judge-23-may-2019

Empty all prisons now !! Svuotare le carceri, subito!!

What has been happening in the last few days in many Italian prisons (Modena, Reggio Emilia, Bologna, Rome, Naples, Palermo, Padua, Florence, but the list is getting longer by the hour and it seems that there are already 27 prisons involved in the prisoners’ protest, with a number not exactly ascertained – even in its causes – of deaths – at least six – and injured, some of them very serious) was predictable: in a country where there are more than 61.000 prisoners in jail, with a capacity of 50,000 places, where for decades no pardon or amnesty has been seen (a term that has become almost heretical), where the criminalization of deviance and protest has become the norm, where someone talks about “throwing away the key” and someone else abolishes prescription and guarantees, the effect of the health emergency could not have been different.

 

In places where cohabitation is forced and turns into promiscuity, where health is not guaranteed even in ordinary times, where dozens of people live in overcrowded conditions, the terror of contagion multiplies and “security” is transformed into greater isolation. The blocking of parental visits, replaced by telephone conversations for which one has to deal with waiting in promiscuity, combined with the absence of the few services ensured, for the most part by volunteers who are now banned from entering, can only generate despair. Despair that can lead to violence against innocent people.

 

There is only one way out, especially at times like this: to reduce the danger of contagion as much as possible, but also the violence of despair. This imposes important choices, immediately practicable such as emptying prisons (and other places of detention, including migrant centres) of elderly and sick prisoners, with the immediate granting of home detention, probation and/or suspended sentences, as well as emptying prisons of those who have to serve short sentences; ensuring the effective communication with the outside world, guaranteeing information and health care.

It is urgent, indispensable, humane and respectful of individual rights and freedoms!

 

Later we will return to talk about amnesty, pardon and measures that put the unsustainability of this form of “doing justice” and “applying sentences”, dominated by an incapable and arrogant policy, at the centre of the discussion.

9th of March 2020

——————–

 

Svuotare le carceri, subito

Appello congiunto di Giuristi Democratici e Legal Team Italia

Quello che sta accadendo nelle ultime ore in molti istituti di detenzione italiani (Modena, Reggio Emilia, Bologna, Roma, Napoli, Palermo, Padova, Firenze, ma l’elenco si allunga di ora in ora e pare siano ormai già 27 gli istituti di pena coinvolti dalla protesta dei detenuti, con un numero non esattamente accertato —anche nelle cause— di morti — almeno sei— e feriti, di cui alcuni molto gravi) era ampiamente prevedibile: in un paese dove nelle carceri i detenuti sono più di 61.000, con una capienza di 50.000 posti, in cui da decenni non si vede un provvedimento di indulto o amnistia (termine divenuto quasi eretico), in cui la penalizzazione di ogni devianza e di ogni protesta è diventata norma, in cui qualcuno parla di “buttar via la chiave” e qualcun altro abolisce prescrizione e garanzie, l’effetto dell’emergenza sanitaria non poteva essere diverso.

In luoghi dove la convivenza è forzata e diventa promiscuità, in cui la salute non è garantita neppure in via ordinaria, in cui decine di persone coabitano luoghi angusti, il terrore del contagio si moltiplica, e le forme di “sicurezza” si trasformano in ulteriore isolamento. Il blocco delle visite parentali, sostituite con colloqui telefonici per cui bisogna affrontare attese in promiscuità, unite all’assenza di quei pochi servizi (assicurati in buona parte dal volontariato ora estromesso) non possono che generare disperazione. Disperazione che può sfociare in violenza contro soggetti incolpevoli.

C’è una sola via di uscita, tanto più in momenti come questi: ridurre quanto più possibile il pericolo del contagio, ma anche della violenza della disperazione. Ciò impone scelte importanti, praticabili subito, svuotando le carceri (e gli altri luoghi di contenzione, CPR inclusi) delle persone detenute anziane e malate, con l’immediata concessione di detenzione domiciliare, libertà vigilata e/o sospensione pena, oltre che di coloro che hanno pene brevi da scontare; garantire la fruizione effettiva delle possibilità di interlocuzione con l’esterno, garantire informazione e presidi sanitari.

È urgente, indispensabile, umano e rispettoso del diritto e dei diritti individuali. Per poi ricominciare a parlare di amnistia, indulto e misure che rimettano al centro della discussione l’insostenibilità di questo modo di “fare giustizia” e “applicare pene” cavalcato da una politica incapace ed arrogante.

9 marzo 2020

 

 

 

Collective Statement on the situation of refugees in Greece

The signatories acknowledge the recent decision of the Greek Government to increase the level of deterrence at the borders to the maximum, to stop the registration of asylum applications for one month and to turn back to their country of origin or their country of transit anyone trying to enter into Greece illegally, following the Turkish authorities’ declaration to open its borders and to allow refugees to enter Greece.

 

The Greek Prime Minister claims that these measures are adopted in compliance with Article 78.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – however, this provision does not allow any unilateral decision of a Member State nor does it neutralise the obligation for the European Union and the Member States to respect European law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.

 

The statements above take place in the context of significant violations of human rights reported from all sides regarding the treatment of refugees who are held in overcrowded hotspots in the Greek Aegean Islands, whether in relation to their basic needs (including proper housing, hot water, food, heating and sanitation) or to their access to justice (including access to a lawyer, to effective remedies against detention or deportation, and to a fair and transparent procedure for their asylum application) and the general malfunctioning of the Greek asylum system.

 

The treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey has also been condemned by numerous international human rights organizations, despite the efforts of the Turkish authorities to host thousands of refugees since the beginning of the troubles in Syria in 2011 and to implement a new asylum system. These organizations have reported, in particular, a massive deportation of refugees to the north of Syria, an area described as a “humanitarian nightmare”, where civil populations are exposed to a serious and imminent risk of violations of their human rights.

 

The signatories issue a strong reminder that the European Union “is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law” as stated by the Preamble of the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights and Article 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 

The signatories strongly condemn all violation of human rights of those seeking asylum in the European Union. On no account does the protection of the EU’s external borders exempt EU Member States from their obligations under European law, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or the Geneva Convention on Refugees (1951), which all prohibit putting into jeopardy the right to life and which support the right not to receive inhumane or degrading treatment; the principle of non-refoulement of asylum seekers; and the right to asylum and international protection for all displaced persons. None of the current Greek practices of (a) suspending registration of asylum applications (b) pushing back refugees arriving from Turkey (c) deporting refugees back to their countries of origin or countries of transit where they will face continued persecution or (d) containing refugees in overcrowded camps without access to basic needs and access to law, are compatible with international and European laws on human rights.

 

The signatories urge:

 

  • EU institutions and Member States, while applying Article 78.3 of the Treaty, to take all appropriate urgent measures to resettle and relocate refugees – including both the recent arrivals from Turkey as well as those currently living in overcrowded camps on the Greek Aegean Islands – in acknowledgement of the core EU principles of freedom, equality, solidarity and human dignity;

 

  • EU institutions and Member States to guarantee to all persons reaching European territory an immediate access to the right to asylum and to refuse to adopt and to condemn and sanction any law or measure aiming to suspend the application of this right or seeking to return refugees to countries where they risk exposure to human rights violations (infringing European and international law, including within the framework of the application of Article 78.3 of the Treaty);

 

  • EU institutions and Member States to ensure implementation of the 2001/55/CE Directive, specifically adopted to address a large influx of displaced persons in order to grant them a temporary protection;

 

  • Greek and Turkish authorities to immediately cease all measures jeopardizing the life and dignity of refugees or involving use of force against refugees, in violation of European and international law, and for the European institutions and Member States to condemn and sanction these policies instead of supporting them;

 

  • EU institutions and Member States to revise their migration policy aiming to externalize the responsibility of migration management to countries not offering sufficient guarantees to respect human rights, and

 

  • All parties involved to respect human rights and the principle of the Rule of Law, which are guaranteed by the Treaties and the European and international law on human rights and refugees.

 

 

List of signatories

 

IUIA-IROL (Institute for the Rule of Law – International Association of Lawyers), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights (ELDH), European Democratic Lawyers (AED), Hellenic League for Human Rights / /Ελληνική Ένωση για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου και του Πολίτη (ΕλΕΔΑΠ), Human Rights Association (Turkey) / İnsan Hakları Derneği (İHD), Human Right League Belgium (Belgium FR), Association Syndicale des Magistrats (Belgium), Avocats Sans Frontières (Belgium), Bar of Cassation (Belgium), Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone de Belgique (AVOCATS.BE), Bars of Brussel (FR), Brabant Wallon, Charleroi, Eupen, Huy, Liège, Mons, Tournai and Verviers (Belgium), Bar of Luxembourg.

 

WE WILL NOT BE A PART OF THIS CRIME!

Once again, Erdoǧan is using refugees as political pawns. Once again, human rights defenders from different fields and countries are witnessing an illegal and inhuman situation at the border between Greece and Turkey.

Official numbers are not available, however, it is clear that thousands of refugees, including a large number of minors, have been manipulated by Erdoǧan and are now stuck between two borders without the chance not only to access asylum procedures, but even proper food, clean water and a place to stay. There are serious reports about violence against migrants and it is also known that around a hundred people who have crossed the border have already been arrested by Greek authorities. Besides this new situation, the unacceptable situation in the Greek hotspots is still on going and people are dying in the Mediterranean Sea.

Once again it is necessary to remind European Governments of their obligation to adhere to the principles of international laws and human rights.

The current plight of migrants at the border between Turkey and Greece is not just the responsibility of these two countries. The European States are directly responsible for this crisis, in addition to the dire situation in Greek hotspots and/or the Mediterranean Sea. This disaster is a direct outcome of the unlawful and unofficial EU-Turkey Statement. This Statement should be cancelled immediately. There is no doubt that Turkey is not a safe country for migrants and declaring it safe third country is a clear violation of human rights. The “Safe zones” in Syria suggested by the Turkish state are contrary to international law.

A solution can only be found in Europe and without the participation of the Turkish Government. National politicians and EU representatives should immediately set xenophobia, populism and racism aside. These approaches lead to fascist solutions that are incompatible with our European values.

The right to seek protection and the right to live in dignity is the fundamental right of every single person whose life is under threat. European States have to provide access to international protection, not just out of humanistic sensitivity, but because they are legally complied to do so.

Therefore, the EU states and international organisations should not provide any support to the measures adopted by the Greek Government to suspend registrations of applications for international protection and deport without registration all persons entering Greece illegally. These acts violate international refugee and human rights law and find no support in the decision of ECHR in N.D. N.T. v. Spain (Applications nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15). Such manipulation of laws and reading of judgements endangers the rights of every European citizen and democracy and poses a fatal attitude towards persons in need of protection.

Greek courts have announced convictions of those arriving in Evros these days with up to 4 years imprisonment without suspension. These measures violate the Geneva Convention and raise serious questions in relation to due process and fair trial. European governments and international organisations should act.

 

Since the situation is worsening daily:

  • We are calling Greece to open the borders and stop using police violence against the refugees immediately.
  • We are calling for the immediate relocation of refugees from Greece to other states in Europe. The “take charge” system of the Dublin III Regulation could be used immediately, as well as other relocation mechanisms. In this regard EU budget should be used for these ends and not for FRONTEX operations aiming at intercepting and pushing back refugees and asylum seekers from the Greek sea and land borders.
  • We call for the cancellation of all criminal charges brought against refugees whose crime is to cross the border.
  • We ask European states to respect international and European law and human rights charters.
  • We call for the immediate abrogation of the unlawful EU-Turkey Statement.
  • We call upon everybody to take a position in this dramatic situation.

 

Yiota Masouridou, vice-president of AED, Athens states: “Since the adoption of the EU-Turkey Statement in 2016 EU Member States are collectively violating the principle of non refoulement. A human rights solution needs to be implemented now, by accepting refugees and asylum seekers in EU territory. Short term political solutions that disgrace Europe’s legal culture should be abandoned.“

And Turkish lawyer Ceren Uysal adds: “We are witnessing a crime against humanity. We strongly believe that it is necessary to act, protest and fight against the erosion of the rule of law and the violations of human rights”.

 

There is an on-going crime and we will not be a part of this crime!

 

Athens, Istanbul, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, 02nd of March, 2020,

 

 

Contact:

Giota Massouridou, Vice-President of the AED-EDL: massouridoup@yahoo.gr

Download the Statement

 

Signatories:

Avocats Européens Démocrates  Borderline Europe, Iuventa10,  Mission Lifeline , SeaWatch e.V., Alarmphone, Dutch Organization for Asylum Lawyers, Medico international e.V , Borderline Europe, The Dutch League for Human Rights, Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer, Lawyers’ Association for Freedom (ÖHD), Progressive Lawyers’ Association (CHD), Republikanischer Anwaltsverein (RAV), LegalteamItalia, ALA – Madrid, The German Association of Democratic Lawyers (Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen e. V./ VDJ), European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights (ELDH) Europäische Vereinigung von Juristinnen und Juristen für Demokratie und Menschenrechte in der Welt, Kritnet, Swiss Democratic Lawyers