|
||
our concerns In accordance with our stance on the rights of asylum seekers and refugees within Australia, we are also concerned about what happens to those who have their protection claim rejected. In particular, the evidence of deaths, persecution, and disappearences of people who have been removed from Australia after their protection claim was rejected is raising questions about the effectiveness of Australia's system of processing and review of protection claims onshore. Reports of persecution (including torture, disappearance and death), following the return of asylum seekers rejected by Australia is evidence that those denied protection were truly refugees or that they invoked our protection obligations under other international human rights treaties. On 20 November 2002, a group of religious leaders released a declaration calling on the government to cease the removal of asylum seekers to countries where the government has not demonstrated their willingness and ability to offer effective protection. Case Studies on the Outcomes and Processes of Involuntary Removal from the Coalition for the Protection of Asylum Seekers against Deportation download [word.doc] TOP country information Following are country reports outlining some of the conditions, known human rights abuses, and evidence of persecution in relation to four countries that Australia has returned rejected protection claimants to and / or currently has rejected protection claimants held in detention pending removal. Country Report on Afghanistan download [word.doc] Country Report on Sri Lanka download [word.doc] Country Report on Iran download [word.doc] Country Report on Iraq download [word.doc] TOP what is? What is Removal? Removal of non-citizens, who applied for protection and have had their claim rejected, is legislated under the Migration Act. Removal can only occur after the application process is finished, including any appeals or requests for Ministerial Intervention, and after the set time-frame in which people can appeal has lapsed. Removal is commonly referred to as deportation. What is Repatriation? Repatriation occurs when a refugee returns home because the circumstances in the country have changed and they are no longer in need of protection. UNHCR assists refugees to repatriate and resettle once they have returned. Repatriation should be assisted by the government hosting the refugee, but the decision to return should be the refugee's - there should be no coercion, including pressure that is disguised as an 'incentive'. The concept of repatriation is being undermined in Australia due to the re-assessment of protection claims for those granted Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs). TPV holders, as recognised refugees, should be protected from refoulement and should only return voluntarily. The reassessment of their claim means that the Australian government has given itself the option of deciding whether or not they are still in need of protection as refugees. This means that, if their protection 'renewal' is rejected, the government may act as though our laws in relation to the removal of those whose protection claims are rejected apply without consideration of their rights as (former?) refugees. Article 1C(5) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees governs the cessation of protection in relation to changed circumstances and therefore provides guidance regarding the cessation of temporary protection under our legislation. We believe that any refugee who has been granted a TPV is protected from refoulement under the Refugee Convention and should therefore only ever repatriate or return to their country of origin voluntarily and without coercion. Under Article 1C of the Refugee Convention there is a list of scenarios where the Convention ceases to apply to those who met the definition of a refugee. This includes a refugee who can no longer refuse to avail to the protection of their country of nationality or habitual residence because the circumstances in connection with which they were recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist. This does not apply if they can "invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution". Many people assume that a change in government or other evidence of social or political change will automatically mean that refugees can return to their country of origin. This is only true where it can be proven that the changes in the country of origin are fundamental, stable, and durable. We think that the refugee's assessment of whether the changes meet this criteria should guide the government's decision. What is Refoulement? Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, under the heading of Prohibition of Expulsion or Return ("Refoulement") says that no state shall return a refugee to frontiers or territories where the refugee's life or freedom would be threatened. We believe that the government's side-step around the commitment to genuine repatriation of refugees, via the re-assessment of the protection needs of TPV holders, contravenes this. We also believe that, without immediate changes to the system of application processing and review for those who seek protection onshore, the Government's removal of rejected protection claimants can not be assured to not constitute refoulement. |
||
|
||
|
