On May 6, 2009, for the first time in the post-World War II period, a European country ordered its coast guard and naval vessels to stop and forcibly return migrant boats to international waters without any kind of review to see if the passengers deserved protection or were particularly vulnerable. The country that intercepted the boats was Italy, and the country that received the returned migrants was Libya. The coast guard and security forces withdrew money in the Italian patrol boats, immigrant boats from international waters without even conducting an examination to see if some of the passengers were refugees or if they were sick or injured, or among them were pregnant women or unaccompanied children, or cases of human trafficking or any forms of violence against women. The Italians disembarked the tired passengers in the port of Tripoli, where the Libyan authorities quickly arrested and detained them.
This report examines the treatment of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Libya from the perspective of those who left that country and are now in Italy and Malta. These people, unlike their counterparts who are still in Libya, are free to talk about their experiences without fear of harassment. The report has two purposes. The first is to hold the Libyan authorities responsible for their mistreatment of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. It then seeks to improve the poor detention conditions in Libya, and seeks to encourage Libya to prepare asylum procedures in line with international standards for refugees. Secondly, this report seeks to hold the Italian government, the European Union and the European Union's Frontex, responsible for any harm caused to persons who are returned to Libya without an assessment of their protection needs. Hence it also aims to Persuading the institutions of the European Union and its member states to stop the forced return of migrants to Libya by Italy and Frontex, where they are systematically subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and where those deserving asylum do not find effective protection.
Human Rights Watch was not able to interview or see the individuals returned as a result of the Italian intervention, but this report is based on interviews with 91 migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Italy and Malta, most of the interviews were conducted in May 2009. Human Rights Watch visited Libya in April 2009, but the Libyan authorities did not allow us to interview anyone in public or private places without express permission from the authorities. Coming. Nor did the authorities allow us to visit any of the many immigration detention centers in Libya, despite our repeated requests to do so.
This report also deals with the nascent relationship between Italy and Libya, the main elements of which are now an agreement on cooperation in order to stop the irregular flow of nationals of third countries through Libya to Italy. Signed on August 30, 2008. The friendship agreement calls for “intensifying” cooperation in Fighting terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. The two parties agreed to strengthen the border control system on the Libyan side of the land border (50 percent Italian funding and 50 percent expected to be provided by the European Union), and to use Italian companies in this activity.
The first tangible result of this friendship agreement was the transfer by Italy of three patrol boats to the Libyan side on May 14, 2009, provided that the Libyan and Italian authorities participate in managing them – the boats. He added: “Elements The Libyan Coast Guard will also be stationed in our command center on the island of Lampedusa, and they will participate in patrols on board our boats.
Italy violates the principle of international law on non-refoulement by stopping boats in international waters and towing them back to Libya without checking with the boat passengers. Numerous international agreements prohibit governments from conducting refoulement (the forcible return of individuals to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened or where they would face torture). The principle of non-refoulement is an imperative under international human rights and refugee law, as well as in European and Italian law, and Italy is also prohibited from returning individuals to places where they would face inhuman or degrading treatment.
Libya does not have an asylum law or asylum procedures. For individuals seeking asylum in Libya, there is no formal mechanism to seek protection. The authorities do not differentiate between refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. He added, "There are people who sneak into Libya illegally and cannot be described as refugees. Anyone who enters the country without official documents and a permit will be arrested."
During his first visit to Italy in June 2009, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi said that the plight of the asylum seekers was "a lie spread". He also said that Africans "live in the desert and in the forests and have no identity at all, no political identity. They feel that the North has all the wealth and all the money, so they try to reach it. Millions of people are drawn to Europe, and they try to reach it. Do we really think that millions of people are seeking asylum? It's really funny."
Human Rights Watch does not consider all or most migrants in Libya, or those seeking entry to the European Union via Italy or Malta, to be eligible for refugee status, although the approval rate of Italy and Malta for asylum, respectively, is 49 and 52.5 percent of all asylum applicants of all nationalities in 2008. The Trapani region of Sicily, including Lampedusa, is the entry point for most boats from Libya, in The approval rate for asylum is 78 percent January to August 2008. In fact, many boat migrants come from countries with poor human rights records and in some cases large-scale generalized violence. Some do have credible claims of need for international protection. Italy, Malta, Olivia, or staying in any of these countries.
In fact, few of the migrants Human Rights Watch interviewed—including many who sought asylum in Italy and Malta or were recognized as refugees in those countries—said that they had located or believed they could seek asylum in Libya or that UNHCR was present there.
With the exception of those held in the Misrata detention center to which UNHCR and its partner civil society organizations have access, none of the former detainees interviewed for this report said they had seen or met UNHCR while in any of the prisons or detention centers for migrants in Libya. Given the large number of former detainees, they said they were beaten whenever they spoke to the guards. To ask for anything, it is not surprising that one person told Human Rights Watch that he had asked to see UNHCR while he was in detention. .
Human Rights Watch has learned that since the Italian repatriation policy came into effect in May 2009—and the accompanying intense scrutiny of the treatment of returnees—the ability of UNHCR and its partner civil society organizations to interview returned persons has increased even more than before. The authorities began to increase UNHCR's access to detainees in 2008 after an official relationship was established between UNHCR and a Libyan non-governmental organization. Human Rights Watch welcomes the increased availability of UNHCR interviews in 12 detention centers for migrants, as well as the increase in the Libyan authorities' respect for the charters and forms of UNHCR intervention. However, we note that Libya has not made official guarantees regarding the treatment of returnees or regarding access to UNHCR interviews for them, and that Libya has not yet formalized a memorandum of understanding regarding the presence of the UNHCR in Libya, which is an agreement followed. In almost all places where the High Commissioner is located.
Despite its increased capacity to interview returnees to Libya from Italy, the UNHCR on July 14, 2009 expressed its serious concern that Italian policy, "in the absence of adequate protection guarantees, could prevent individuals from seeking asylum and undermine the principle of non-refoulement." July 1. And many of them claimed that The Italian navy had not offered them food while they were at sea for four days, confiscated and did not return their documents and personal belongings, and used force to transfer them to a Libyan ship, which resulted in the hospitalization of six people on the boat. Their condition required surgical stitches to their heads even before they left the Italian ship.
Although Human Rights Watch was unable to interview people inside Libya who were returned by the Italians in the spring and summer of 2009, we believe that under current conditions of detention in Libya - at least as far as we found under the terms of the Human Rights Watch visit - that interviews conducted outside Libya in conditions of privacy and confidentiality provide a more accurate account of the conditions and treatment of migrants in immigration detention centers in Libya than the estimates we sought inside Libya. In fact, the post When Human Rights Watch visited Libya in 2005, the first migrant our researchers met on the street was arrested an hour later. This report is then based on interviews with migrants conducted in Malta and Italy about their experiences in Libya, including their arrest following failed attempts to escape by boat. Many of the migrants' allegations of mistreatment in this report are credible and recent. matter if Italy and the European Union were seeking to cooperate with Libya in stemming the influx of third-country nationals, including those among them who are potential refugees, by preventing them from leaving Libya or forcing people to return to Libya after they had succeeded in leaving.
The abuses that migrants claim most in this report, and are often the most serious, occur when they enter (or attempt to enter) Libya, when they are returned to Libya after a failed attempt to leave on board a boat, and when they are expelled from Libya. army or the police. In many cases, migrants who travel through Libya do not know if those who abused them are from the police or criminals, but usually express their belief that both sides are the same, as both exploit and abuse vulnerable migrants.
Almost all of the migrants told Human Rights Watch to believe that the smugglers had close links to Libyan officials. According to migrants, the smugglers who organize departures on boats are sometimes connected to the forces responsible for preventing illegal migration at sea. Whether or not they are involved in large-scale smuggling, the police are on the roads, especially the roads leading to them. At the border, and police guards in immigration detention centers, they systematically earn money by demanding and accepting bribes in exchange for the release of migrants. In the case of detained migrants, this includes arranging contact with relatives in their countries of origin and the transfer of money required for bribes, and sometimes police arranging contacts with smugglers for the journey after release.
Migrants who have been detained by the Libyan authorities have all told Human Rights Watch that they lived in fear during their time in detention. They also said that they feared theft, beatings, and extortion, not only at the hands of common criminals, but also at the hands of the police. Many of them told Human Rights Watch that they even fear children on the streets, who often throw stones at them.
Some migrants told Human Rights Watch that they hid as long as they were in Tripoli or Benghazi. In some cases, this was because they were being held by their smugglers. But in other cases, it was because they feared arrest or being attacked on the roads. As it turned out, they were not safe on the streets or in the homes where they hid, since the police or criminals used to enter immigrants' homes to attack and extort them, and in some cases where the police were involved, to arrest them.
Migrant women who make the journey through Libya are at particular risk from smugglers and the police, who exploit the women with impunity. Although Human Rights Watch was unable to document specific incidents of rape and sexual assault, both men and women told Human Rights Watch that they often saw the women separated from the group of migrants and believed that the women were taken to where the abuse took place. them sexually.
There have been no clearly documented cases since 2004 of forcible returns by the Libyan authorities of migrants to their countries of origin, or to places where they might face refoulement. Libya transports migrants by truck from coastal areas to its land borders for deportation. Migrants from the Horn of Africa, from Somalia and Eritrea, are trucked back to Kufra in the southeastern corner of Libyan territory for deportation to Sudan. But in some cases, they are not deported and, according to the testimonies of some migrants, are left in the desert on Libyan soil. In practice, this means that the migrants have no choice but to put their lives back in the hands of the smugglers, the infidels who brought them to Benghazi or Tripoli in the first place, and are often abused along the way.
Kufra is the place migrants mentioned most often as a detention area—in Libya—when they spoke to Human Rights Watch, in Italy, and in Malta. But Kufra is not just one detention centre. Although there is a government-run immigration detention center in Kufra, smugglers also run their own detention centers there. Migrants sometimes don't know if they are in government or smugglers' custody. Some describe the government detention center as "more like a house than a prison," and guards in private detention centers sometimes wear military uniforms. Most migrants believe smugglers cooperate with the police. , according to their understanding The distinction between public and private detention centers is difficult. In either case, the immigrants are held indefinitely, have very little contact with their jailers (most of it nothing more than beatings and slappings) and are not released until they pay bribes. They all fear being thrown into the desert.
Some migrants told Human Rights Watch that they had been detained in Kufra on several occasions. They were detained when they were arrested upon entering Libya, as well as upon deportation from it. In many cases, however, deportations are not carried out. Instead, the migrants told Human Rights Watch, the directors of Kufra prison hand them over to migrants, who "buy" them for a price, hold them in special detention centers, then "sell" them for a higher price by asking their families for money to release them, then transfer them back to coastal towns.
This report also presents the accounts of migrants in poor conditions and those who received harsh treatment in other detention centers for migrants throughout Libya. Despite the change of names and locations, the description of conditions of detention and treatment is very similar, and conforms to the criteria necessary to say that there has been inhuman and degrading treatment.
Libya must end the arbitrary detention of migrants and ensure that conditions of detention comply with minimum international standards. And you should make every effort to protect detained migrants so that they are not subjected to physical abuse, including sexual abuse and violence against women, and hold the authorities accountable to police officers and others responsible for any abuse that occurs, including extortion and cooperation with smugglers. Libya should also sign and ratify the Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and adopt an internal asylum law that includes an absolute prohibition on refoulement. Libya, with UNHCR's help, should establish legal, effective, and fair asylum procedures. Libya should formally acknowledge UNHCR's presence and support its efforts to provide international protection to refugees, asylum-seekers, and other persons of concern on Libyan soil. It should grant UNHCR the right of unimpeded visitation to places where non-nationals are being held.
Italy should immediately stop violating its non-refoulement obligations, and cease its arrests and summary deportations of boat migrants to Libya. It should stop cooperating with the Libyan authorities in stopping and returning third-country nationals trying to leave Libya. Basic Human Rights Standards for the Treatment of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Libya.
The institutions of the European Union and its member states should demand that Italy abide by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not to return migrants to where they receive inhuman or degrading treatment. Frontex should ensure that its plans for refoulement are specifically prohibited.
The European Union - including Frontex and its member states - should not consider Libya a partner in the efforts to control migration, until Libya officially ratifies the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and even after it has adopted them into domestic law and after officially recognizing the UNHCR, and until its treatment of refugees and the conditions of immigrant detention centers are consistent with international standards. The EU should include the human rights clause of the EU-Libya Framework Agreement and any agreements stemming from it, including an explicit reference to the rights of asylum seekers and migrants as a preliminary requirement for any cooperation on plans to control migration flows.
And the member states of the European Union must respond quickly and positively to the requests of the High Commissioner to admit refugees coming to Libya, but neither the member states nor the European Union itself must resort to any schemes that lead to the return of asylum-seekers to Libya while their files are being considered, or to transform Libya in any way into a warehouse for persons seeking asylum in the European Union.
To the Libyan Government
Concerning the writer's violation of the rights of migrants
Concerning improving the conditions of immigrant detention centers
On Protection for Refugees
To the Italian Government
To the Institutions of the European Union and its Member States
To the Council Frontex Management
To the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Human Rights Watch research for this report was conducted in Libya from April 22 to April 30, 2009, in Malta from April 30 to May 5, 2009, and in Sicily from October 24 to October 2009. October 30, 2008, and from May 5 to May 13, 2009, in Lampedusa from May 13 to May 15, and in Rome from May 16 to May 21. We conducted 92 private interviews with migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, including 48 in Malta and 43 in Italy, And one telephone interview with Mualibia. We were not allowed to interview refugees, migrants and asylum seekers in Libya.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 29 Eritreans, 23 Somalis, 13 Nigerians, and 27 of other nationalities, including Ghanaians, Sudanese, Tunisians, Moroccans, Gambians, and other nationalities. Those interviewed were usually young men and men, and most traveled alone rather than in family groups. The largest group of immigrants, 59 people, were in their twenties. There were 13 teenagers, of whom four were unaccompanied children under the age of 18. Thirteen people are in their thirties, six are in their forties, and one is in their fifties.
Only six of those interviewed were women. Among the immigrants and asylum seekers we saw, men were the largest percentage among them, and among those who occupied detention centers, and women were more reluctant to conduct interviews. A Human Rights Watch researcher conducted group interviews with four groups of women. The family has the Hal Var open center in Malta, the third is a Nigerian woman in a safe house in Agrigento, Italy, and the fourth, a group of women in a center for asylum seekers in Caltanista, Italy.
Despite our repeated requests before and during our visit, we were not allowed to visit any of the immigration detention centers in Libya. We were able to visit senior officials in the Ministry of Interior and Justice, and mid-ranking officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also had the opportunity to discuss the situation of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers with the International Organization for Migration, and with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in Libya, as well as in Italy.
In Malta, all immigration detention centers, Tacandia, New and Old, Hal Farr Open Center, Darrell Leiden Shelter for Unaccompanied Minors (it was empty at the time of our visit), Anchorage Open Center, Savvy Center (Blockby, Block C, Warehouse 1 and 2) and Leicester Centre. All interviews in Malta were conducted in complete privacy. And some of them are in detention centers. Human Rights Watch selected topics for discussion in individual interviews during detainees' rest times in detention centers and accommodation centers, by asking the migrants to identify themselves and whether they had been detained in Libya. Some of the 15 migrants and asylum seekers interviewed outside of detention and accommodation centers were reached with the help of local social and legal service providers, but were also interviewed in complete privacy. In Malta, we interviewed staff and guards in detention centres. We also interviewed representatives from the Jesuit Refugee Services and Doctors Without Borders.
In Italy, we visited three detention and reception centers in Caltanista, two detention and reception centers in Trapani, and two detention and reception centers in Lampedusa. Although we were allowed to interview detainees in private, the time allowed for the visit was limited, so we were only able to interview four people, which was not sufficient to reach an adequate understanding of the conditions there. Due to time constraints, we could not conduct interviews individual in Trapani detention center, although we toured the facility and spoke informally to the detainees in the presence of the guards, and spoke to the administration. And in Rome, despite written requests weeks before our visit and repeated requests until the date of the visit, we were not able to meet responsibility from the Ministry of Interior or Foreign Affairs.
The duration of individual interviews ranged around 45 minutes, and some took more than an hour. In some cases, Human Rights Watch selected individuals to interview him individually in detention and in reception centers, from among those who indicated a willingness to interview after we collectively explained the nature of our visit to them. At other times, Human Rights Watch randomly selected detainees for interviews. Outside detention facilities, local service providers helped introduce us to interviewees.
In all cases, Human Rights Watch told all interviewees that they would not benefit from personal favors or benefits in exchange for their testimonies and that the interviews were entirely voluntary and confidential. All the names of migrants and refugees who were interviewed were not disclosed for their protection and the protection of their families. The code used to denote the names in this report is a system of using a letter and then a number for each interview, the letter indicates the person who conducted the interview and the number indicates the person with whom the interview was conducted. All interviews are on record with Human Rights Watch.
The terms chosen in this report to define the people undergoing the migration process and also those they turn to for assistance in the migration process are far from being neutral or uncontroversial. There are some terms, such as refugee, that carry clear meanings in international law, but there are other terms that do not apply - or their definition - with reality, as in most cases the flow of people from one place to another is described as a "mixed" flow.
Migrants
With regard to this report, the term immigrant describes a wide spectrum of people, those who travel within and through Libya and boat passengers who travel illegally in the Mediterranean. This report does not mean to exclude the possibility that they are asylum seekers or refugees. A refugee, as defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, is a person who, because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or unwilling, because of that fear, to remain under the protection of that country, or any person who does not have a nationality and is outside his former country of habitual residence as a result of such events and cannot, or does not want because of that country. That fear, to return to that country. [1] An asylum-seeker is a person seeking protection, and then he is trying to have his refugee status recognized or to apply for protection on any other grounds.
Although international law defines migrant workers, it does not define immigrants as such without other characteristics. [2] In the context of this report, the word immigrant simply means the broadest and most comprehensive meaning that describes third-world nationals who enter, live in, or leave Libya. It includes the sub-group of asylum-seekers seeking protection outside Libya (Libya itself, to date, does not have an asylum law and does not grant asylum) as well as the smaller sub-group of people who are actually refugees, who, it must be remembered, are a group of individuals who meet the definition of a refugee, whether or not they are formally recognized as such.
Smugglers
International law distinguishes between human traffickers on one side and smugglers on the other. The Protocol to Prevent, Stop and Punish Trafficking in Human Beings, Especially Women and Children, defines human trafficking as the recruitment, transfer, transfer, retention or receipt of persons by “threat or use of force or any other form of coercion…or the giving or receiving of money or benefits in order for a person to agree to be controlled by another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”[3]
In contrast, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea or Air defines smuggling of migrants as the possession of “financial or other advantages” in order to assist in illegal entry to a country. [4] However, the distinction between the two is not clear in Libya, as is the distinction between criminals involved in illegal smuggling on the one hand, and law enforcement police on the other.
While it is proven that most - if not all - undocumented migrants are exposed to threats or use of force by those transporting them, it is not clear that they are generally coerced for the purpose of exploitation, as is defined in the Trafficking Protocol, such as exploitation for the purposes of prostitution, or other forms of sexual exploitation or forced labour. Libya meets the definition of traffickers Human Rights Watch will use the term smuggler to refer to this group of people. In quoting immigrants, we will use the terms they or the interpreters used, even though they may not be methodologically correct.
In September 2006, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled "Libya: Stemming the Flow - Abuses Against Migrants, Asylum-Seekers, and Refugees."[6] This report could have been given the same title, but with one addition: the inclusion of Italy's name in Libya.
On May 6, 2009, for its part, Italy began intercepting migrants arriving on boats in the open sea and returning them without legal procedures to Libya.[7] A week later, Libya and Italy announced the start of joint naval patrols in Libyan territorial waters, although it is not clear how these patrols work or how they began. On May 14, 2009, the commander of the forces said Italian Financial Guard, by the way The initiator of these patrols, Cosimo Darego,[8] said that the boats “will be used in joint patrols in Libyan territorial waters and in international waters in cooperation with Italian naval operations.”[9] He added that: “Libyan border guards will also work in our command center on the island of Lampedusa, and they will participate in patrols on board our ships.”[10] The joint Italian-Libyan patrol mission is scheduled to continue. for three years initially [11]
In the first week after the start of the program, about 500 migrants on boats were returned without legal procedures to Libya, which led to a significant decrease in the number of boats trying to make the journey from Libya to Italy. [12] Over the next eight weeks, only 400 migrants were intercepted and returned. [14] The migrant detention centers in Villampadusa, a small Italian island off the northern coast of the African continent, clearly shows this: in January 2009, they were overcrowded, holding 2,000 people, and the migrants were sleeping on the floor. [15] and brieflyin In early June, the immigration detention centers in Vilambadus were completely empty of migrants.[16]
Why the number of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean has decreased to such a large extent that this is a matter that supports many conjectures. The new maritime security cordon is certainly a strong deterrent against those arriving on board boats, as there is no point in embarking on a dangerous journey at sea unless there is a possibility of success.[17] However, the decline in the number of departures is also due to the Libyan authorities intensifying their efforts to prevent departures.
Gaddafi's initiative to stem the flow of migrants is the new partnership with Italy. After nearly a decade of negotiations, Italy and Libya signed the Agreement of Friendship, Partnership, and Cooperation between the Italian Republic and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (the “Friendship Agreement”) on August 30, 2008. [18] The benefit in return for Libyan cooperation in stemming the flow of illegal immigration appears to be Italy’s investment in Libya: the friendship agreement provides for $5 billion in compensation for abuses committed during the war. Italy completed Libya (from 1911 to 1943). The money will be invested by Italy over a period of 25 years at a rate of $200 million annually in the infrastructure of Philipia. [19]
The partnership agreement calls for “intensifying” cooperation in “combating terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration.”[20] The two parties agreed to strengthen the border control system on the part of the Libyan land borders (50 percent Libyan funding and 50 percent from the European Union), and to use Italian companies in this endeavour.[21]
Both Italy and Libya have incentives to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Foreigners make up 10.5 percent of Libya's 5.8 million population. [22] 87 percent of the 536,000 foreigners residing in Libya in 2004 were without official residence papers. [23] Although for years Gaddafi welcomed sub-Saharan Africans to Libya under the name of solidarity. my team, [24 [The Libyan authorities, at present, view the human influx coming from the south as a threat. Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said that "the real problem in Libya with regard to illegal immigration" is the presence of a 4,000-kilometre border in the south that "cannot be controlled."[25]
The number of illegal boat migrants who came to Italy from North Africa increased from 19,900 in 2007 to 36,000 in 2008, an increase of approximately 89.4 percent. [26] Italy also received 31,164 new asylum applications in 2008, an increase of 122 percent over the number 14,053 applied for asylum in 2007. [27] In 2008, Italy ranked as the fourth most refugee-hosting country in the industrialized world, after the United States, Canada, and France. [28]
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi - who derives some of his political support from anti-immigration parties - used the issue of illegal immigrants to achieve political gains and to attack the idea that Italy is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. [29] He said: “The ideas of the left are multi-ethnic Italy. But this is not our vision of Italy.”[30] We are proud of our culture and traditions." [31]
When Prime Minister Berlusconi declared that he did not agree with the idea that Italy was a multi-ethnic country and should not be, with the exception of refugees at risk of persecution. However, he made it clear that he sees this as just a far-fetched theoretical exception. He said, "There is hardly anyone on board these boats who has the right to asylum, as shown by the statistics. There are only exceptional cases."[32]
However, in fact, 75 percent of those who arrived by sea in Italy applied for asylum in 2008, and about 50 percent were granted asylum. [33]
Berlusconi said that exceptional cases of asylum are limited to those who are obligated by Italy under international law not to return them. And the obligation, according to Berlusconi, “is to accept citizens who are able to apply for political asylum and whom we are forced to accept as stipulated in international treaties and covenants only... those who set foot on our soil, or entered our territorial waters.”[34]
Berlusconi's reading of Italy's legal obligations regarding the principle of non-refoulement in that it does not apply to Italian government ships on the open sea is improper. The 1951 Refugee Convention,[35] to which Italy is a party,[36] forbids refoulement, i.e. the return of individuals “in any manner” to a place of their life or where their freedom is threatened because of their ethnic, religious, or national affiliation, membership in a social organization, or their expressed political opinion.[37] The idea that Italy could send its navy and border guards out onto the open seas to return potential refugees by force is absurd. The operative part opposes the Refugee Convention at its core. Its purpose is Protecting Refugees from Return to Persecution, and its narration calls on states not to “return” refugees. The Convention does not distinguish - or even address - where the returned refugees come from. Rather, the important question is: where.
Berlusconi argues that non-refoulement obligations do not apply on the high seas. While the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,[38] its Executive Committee,[39] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,[40] as well as legal commentators and NGOs,[41] have all concluded that non-refoulement obligations are not limited to the territorial borders of the state, and that the agreement Refugees states are prohibited from returning refugees to persecution from outside the territory of the state.] 42]
UNHCR, along with a variety of other legal sources, has made it clear that the principle of non-refoulement applies wherever a state exercises sovereignty or influence, including on the high seas or in the territory of another state. In establishing an international framework for the objection of asylum seekers and refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced that:
For UNHCR, non-refoulement is not an abstract principle. After interviewing 82 people who had been forcibly returned to Libya by the Italian navy on July 1, UNHCR issued a statement expressing its "deep concern" about Italy's policy "in the absence of adequate guarantees, which could prevent the ability of individuals to seek asylum and undermine the principle of non-refoulement."[44]
The UNHCR said that the group consisted of 82 people, including 76 Eritreans, but the Italian navy did not make any effort to identify the nationalities of the individuals or the reasons for their flight from their countries. The UNHCR also said that the group included at least nine women and six children. Italian officials also confiscated the migrants' personal belongings, including money, mobile phones, passports, and asylum certificates.[45] All migrants were detained upon arrival.[46]
The Office of the High Commissioner also stated that it had collected “disturbing testimonies” that the Italians used force to transfer the migrants from the Italian ship to the Libyan one, resulting in the hospitalization of six people. [47] Human Rights Watch learned from another source that the Italian Navy used electric stun batons and sticks to force the migrants to get off the boat, and that some of the passengers had bruises on their heads that had been stitched up with surgical implants. Even before getting off the Italian boat.[48]
The obligation of non-refoulement applies not only under refugee law, but also human rights law, which prohibits the return of individuals to places where they would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (including the risk of being returned to a third country where they would face such risk). and rupees for human rights The principle of non-refoulement must be respected,[50] and Article 7.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [51] In 2004, the Human Rights Committee, the body responsible for monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, issued its General Comment No. 31, clarifying that liability under the Covenant extends to any situation in which a state party exercises effective power:
The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the European Convention on Human Rights applies to the actions of a state party in international waters. [53]
The European Union has long seen Libya as a pariah state with which cooperation is impossible. In fact, between 1992 and October 2004, Europe imposed economic sanctions and an arms embargo on Libya. However, on the day the embargo was lifted, the Council of the European Union agreed to cooperate with Libya on immigration.[54] A technical mission was sent to Libya in November and December 2004 "to examine the arrangement to combat illegal immigration."[55]
In June 2005, the European Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a resolution for the Council on cooperation with Libya on immigration issues, and it includes the application of “systematic, operational cooperation between the concerned national agencies regarding maritime borders” and the preparation of joint operations in the Mediterranean that include the temporary deployment of ships and aircraft of European Union countries.[56] Libya and Tripoli airport for interception purposes. [57] The European Union committed itself to training Libyan officials with regard to immigration control and “best practices” for deporting illegal immigrants.[58]
The council’s conclusion also called for exploratory discussions with Libya to “challeng illegal immigration in areas such as training, strengthening institution building, asylum issues, and public awareness of the dangers of illegal immigration.”[59]
Among the list of proposals for these discussions is how to help return asylum-seekers whose applications were not accepted “after following independent asylum procedures in accordance with international standards,” and intensifying cooperation and capacity-building “in managing migrants and protecting refugees” in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees[60].
In July 2007, Frerero Waldner, the European Commissioner responsible for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy, and Libyan Minister of European Affairs Abdel-Ati al-Obeidi signed a memorandum of understanding focusing on migration as an area of common interest. [61] The following year, the European Commission and Libya began negotiating a comprehensive agreement—the EU-Libya Framework Agreement—that called for political dialogue and cooperation in foreign policy. human rights, security issues and immigration.
In July 2009, the Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of justice, freedoms and security, Jacques Barot, said that the European Union would provide a package of 80 million euros during his scheduled visit to Libya in September 2009, of which 20 million euros were earmarked for the construction of hosting centers for asylum seekers and 60 million euros for migration management projects on the southern front of Libya.[62] Reports, insists on the amount of 300 million euros package from the European Union to combat illegal immigration in Libya. [63] At the time of writing, the European-Libyan framework agreement was still under negotiation.[64]
Assigning others to implement the EU's immigration and asylum policies
On May 27, 2009, after joint Italian-Libyan naval operations began, Parrott sent a letter to the President of the European Council calling for a dual EU approach to asylum and humanitarian protection. On the home front, he suggested, action must be made. “voluntary efforts” by EU member states to “resettle individuals under international protection.”[65] For the external front, he suggested:
While Italy has been criticized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe Thomas Hamburg,[67] and civil society organizations, including Human Rights Watch,[68] for violating international law and European standards, not a single European country has publicly criticized Italy. refer to that “rescue agencies, including Frontex, can rescue but cannot refuse to admit individuals.”[70] However, his political discourse brings to the surface a deeply flawed concept, which is the removal of the process of dealing with refugees to the European Union, instead of the enforcement of legal standards for asylum and procedures to be followed on European soil through a voluntary and automatic scheme. It is undoubtedly the same offer that was circulated in the European Union discussions, then its credibility was stripped from them, and it has been presented and removed for more than twenty years.[71]
At the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair presented the idea of "mobile dealing centers with refugees" in countries outside the European Union, to which European Union countries would return asylum-seekers and then the High Commissioner for Refugees would examine them to see if they were entitled to refugee status.[72] More systemic and easier to administer to regulate the entry of individuals into the European Union, than They need international protection.”[73] A year later, UNHCR refused to prepare EU procedures for regulating the entry of asylum seekers, but promoted the idea of a refugee resettlement program in the EU, in cooperation with UNHCR. In 2008, the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted to reject the idea of “removing” EU responsibilities for asylum-seekers elsewhere. [76] Meanwhile, no North African government has offered the land for the EU reception centers to be established if the decision were to come. By January 2005, the EU's interior ministers at the Luxembourg meeting approved that the idea had been presented.[77]
What is surprising is not the concept itself, but rather the timing of Parrott sending the letter at a historic moment when a European country for the first time directly breached its obligations of non-refoulement, under both the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, among other treaties and covenants. Even Blair's 2003 offer included a demand that asylum-seekers in his scheme not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. A: “Each of the centers dealing with cases and the decisions taken must agree with this requirement as a matter covered by the policies and avoid appeal enforceable in the courts.” Barot’s offer in late May 2009 came in the face of reports of inhuman and degrading treatment of returnees to Libya.[78]
Barot's offer to involve the High Commissioner in a "scheme" to consider accepting asylum applications for "repatriates to Libya" who "may" be offered resettlement, was accepted as a matter of course by the system of objection and return to Italy without legal procedures. His offer would have replaced the current European asylum system which imposes obligations on EU member states, under a voluntary scheme that may not offer refugees recognized by the UNHCR in Libya, resettlement elsewhere in Europe.
The inevitable result of such a scheme is the stockpiling of the Philippine refugees, assuming that Libya will tolerate their presence. The Philippine refugees will be left waiting to be offered resettlement to Europe, and then become a rejected settler population, but still recognized by the EU High Commission.
This problem is embodied in the gap between the number of refugees recognized by UNHCR as in need of resettlement and the number of places offered by resettlement countries. In 2008 only half of the refugees recommended by UNHCR for resettlement were entered into by countries for resettlement. Of the 121,000 refugees offered by the UNHCR for resettlement, only 66,000 were admitted, and the United States admitted 49,000 and the European Union 4,500.[79] The shortage appears clearly in resettlement refugees from Turkey, when the UNHCR referred 7,500 refugees for resettlement in 2008, almost half of them, 3,800 are only from They entered. Only 200 of these refugees have been accepted by EU countries. [80]
DoorFrontex
In October 2004, the European Council adopted a decision to form an agency to coordinate the efforts of its member states in strengthening the external borders of the European Union. The agency, and Frontex, began work in October 2005, and has expanded frequently since that date.[81]
Frontex is actively working to stop the flow of illegal boat migrants from Africa into the European Union, by coordinating joint operations of its member states, and has had greater success in reducing the number of arrivals to Spain than it has in reducing the number of arrivals from the central Mediterranean. 006 to 2008. [82] Meanwhile, in Italy, boat arrivals on beaches increased by 64 percent from 2006 to 2008. [83] It is difficult to measure and evaluate all the variables that led to the change in the patterns of arrivals of illegal immigrant boats, but the rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Council of the European Parliament, commenting on the shift from Spain in 2007, alluded to the “increase in control of the sea, With the help of Frontex... it undoubtedly had an impact, especially during periods of operations.”[84]
On the outskirts of the African coast, to the northwest, Frontex hosted officials from Mauritania and Senegal on board the boats of the member states of the European Union, as part of Operation Hera, which returned 5,969 migrants to the African coast that year. [85] Frontex believes that the deportations were the responsibility of the Mauritanian and Senegalese officials on board the boats.[86]
In the middle of the Mediterranean, until June 2009, Frontex had less success getting European countries to cooperate with each other, let alone North African countries. In 2008, Operation Nautilus focused on the flow of migrants between North Africa, Italy, and Malta, but did not deport anyone to North Africa. Its failure was attributed to “difference of opinion over responsibility for migrants rescued from the sea.”[87] In 2009, the next operation, Nautilus, was delayed because Malta and Italy did not agree on the country responsible for hosting people rescued from the sea.[8] 8]
On June 18, 2009, for the first time in its history, a Frontex operation resulted in the interception and return of migrants from the central Mediterranean to Libya. A German Puma helicopter participated in Operation Nautilus IV, coordinated by the Italian Border Guard, in the interception of a boat carrying 75 migrants at a distance of 29 miles south of Lampedusa. A Libyan, the latter transferred them to Tripoli where, according to reports, they were "handed over to Libyan military unit.”[89]
Vice President of Frontex, Gilaria Sfernandez, commented approvingly what happened in that and related operations: “Based on our statistics, we can say that the agreements [between Libya and Italy] have had a positive impact. On the humanitarian level, fewer lives are at risk, due to fewer exits to the sea. But our agency is not able to make sure that the right to seek asylum and the rights of The other human is Philipia.”[90]
Regarding the previous problem that a return policy has a positive effect without knowing whether it will violate the human rights of the returnees, Arya Svarnandez expresses the flawed proposition that a potential humanitarian advantage (prevention of loss of life at sea) outweighs respect for human rights (the right to leave a country and the right to seek asylum). asylum from persecution in another country.] 91] Individuals have the right to choose to risk their lives in the exercise of their human rights. They often do so, unfortunately, because in some cases they are fleeing from a danger greater than the dangers that await them. This may endanger an individual's life, but his choice must not be spoiled by a government that prevents him from leaving its territory, or by a smuggler who forces him into a boat.
Aside from the rights to leave and the right to seek asylum, governments have an obligation to require all ships flying their flag to rescue individuals in danger at sea...then a basic humanitarian requirement will be fulfilled. [92] States still have the right under international law to control their borders, including their maritime borders, provided they observe their obligations under international law, including refugee law and international human rights law.
Although the first direct interceptions and returns without due process, as a policy and practice of the Italian government, began in May 2009, migrants reported to Human Rights Watch other operations of interception and return without due process, at the hands of the Maltese and Libyan border guards, dating back to before this date in 2009.
Daniel, a 26-year-old Eritrean, told Human Rights Watch how Maltese border guards towed his boat to a Libyan fishing boat that brought him to Libya in July 2005. His account reveals not only how the interceptions were carried out before May 2009, but also the smugglers' ruthlessness, the dangers of the journey, and the mistreatment by the Libyan authorities upon return. The smugglers used force to put them on board:
A Maltese boat also forcibly returned Ezekiel, a 24-year-old Eritrean, to Tunisia in April 2006, and the Tunisian authorities - in turn - transferred him across the border to Libya:
After the Tunisians threw him at the border, the Libyan police arrested Ezekiel, severely beat him, confiscated his money, and kept him at a border police station for two months. [95]
It appears from the evidence and testimonies that the Libyan border guard forces were also involved in intercepting and returning the boats. Video recordings showed the police and the Libyan security forces intercepting illegal boats at sea,[96] as well as stopping boats and arresting migrants trying to flee the Libyan shores.[97] AKMS Kalashnikov assault rifle on immigrants while trying to arrest them.] 98]
As often happens with migrants when they are stopped by the Libyan police and military authorities in the interior of the country and in the border area, migrants arrested at sea are usually unable to inform Human Rights Watch of the identity of the Libyan authorities responsible for their interception. Pastor Paul, a 32-year-old Nigerian, recounted an incident that occurred on October 20, 2008:
The interception procedure in the Mediterranean is often described as a "maritime rescue". In several cases it is indeed a rescue operation, and the navies and border guards of both Italy and Malta have saved thousands of lives, as have private ships. But boats not in danger at sea are also intercepted, and boats in danger are sometimes ignored or pushed away, according to migrants' accounts.
The failure to rescue was confirmed by Italian officials. In April 2009, Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni accused Malta of sending 40,000 migrants to Italy because it had failed to rescue them. [100] Indeed, migrants told Human Rights Watch that Maltese navy boats stopped the drifting boats, gave them food and fuel, then pointed them to the direction of Italy and then disappeared. Abdi Hassan, A 23-year-old Somali speaking In several languages, including English, he described how far the Maltese Navy went to avoid taking him and the other passengers, and how they insisted on refinancing their boat and then drove them away to Italy:
By the second day, we no longer had food or drink. On the third day of the trip, we no longer had fuel, and on the fourth day we floated on the face of the water as agreed. We thought we were going to die. A fishing boat found us and radioed the Maltese Navy to pull us over. On the fifth day, a Maltese sea-ship came, but they told us they would not take us. They took two pregnant women to their ship and me with them to translate. They gave the rest of the people in our boat food and fuel and told them to go to Sicily. Then they told me they couldn't take me, only the women, and put me on a small speedboat and put me on to my boat to join him. Then we made our way to Sicily. [101]
Then their boat had another crisis, and eventually a Maltese navy boat rescued them and brought them back to Malta. Abdi Hassan said he was treated well by the Maltese navy, even though the place of detention they took him to, Camp Hermes in the center of Leicester, was so dirty, old and crowded that he had to sleep on the floor. (It was closed shortly before Human Rights Watch's visit).
Some ships fail to respond quickly, or move at all, to rescue migrants who are stuck in idling boats at sea and whose lives appear to be in danger. Abbasi, a 21-year-old Nigerian, was on board an inflatable Zodiac in August 2008 when he heard a popping sound:
It is clear that ship captains - who are sometimes residents of the European countries concerned - judge for themselves the degree of severity of the distress of the boats that deserve to be rescued, so they intervene less often to prevent loss of life, and at the same time to avoid taking the responsibility of migrants to actually save them. Bahr states specifically: “The captain of the ship at sea who becomes in a position Who qualifies him as a helper, when he receives information from any source that there are people in distress at sea, he is obligated to move as quickly as possible to save these people.”[104]
When boats are rescued, migrants say the rescuers compete to see who puts the blame on the other side first. Jonas, a 39-year-old Eritrean, was on a boat with about 300 passengers and spent four days without food or water, when a boat approached them to rescue them on April 18, 2009:
These testimonies add much to a record of shame, and little is known about it, because the events here take place on the open seas, and because the shipwrecked can no longer speak. Such voices rose from the dead on May 21, 2007, when a boat started sinking halfway between Libya and Malta, carrying 53 Eritreans. The passengers, who had satellite phones, called relatives in Italy, Malta and London, begging for help. A Maltese military helicopter photographed the sinking boat that morning, but it took another nine hours before a seagoing vessel arrived, and when they arrived they were boat and all Those on board drowned in the depths of the sea.[106]
Later in the same month, a boat of unemployed immigrants drifted on the water for six days, and several boats passed it before it sank. A Maltese tuna fishing boat came across the wreckage and shipwrecked belonging to it, but would not accept them on board. Instead 27 African men were left clinging to a tuna boat net for three days and three nights while Libya, Malta and Italy argued among themselves who was responsible for hosting them. Then finally they were accepted by an Italian naval ship.[107]
Disputes about who is responsible for causing the delay in rescue, stress and added dangers appear in disputes at the highest level while Malta and Italy are responsible for the 140 migrants who were on board a Turkish tanker called Pinare, in April 2009. The passengers included at least one pregnant woman and two children and 22 people who were too ill to bring them with the main group of passengers that arrived in Sicily and remained at home. Mabadusa. The migrants were picked up by the captain of the Pinarei ship in response to a rescue signal from them. Italy said that since the migrants were intercepted in a search and rescue operation in a search and rescue area administered by Malta, they should be transferred to Maltese territory, and refused to grant permission for the ship to enter Italian waters. Malta said that international law required the migrants to be disembarked at the nearest safe port, in this case Lampedusa, Italy. After four days of confrontations and objections from the President of the European Council, Italy finally agreed to accept the migrants.
Innusint, the young Shabalen, the 19 -year -old, was rescued to the Ship of Ev. And here is the painting of the nurses of his naughty. It is overwhelmed by the immersion of the migrants on his land. [108]
We only had water, no food, and no life jackets. We got lost at sea and ran out of water and fuel. We called the hermits to save us. We waved our shirts at the passing ships. Some of them passed us without stopping, others gave us food and water, but they did not save us. We had no fuel and the waves carried us as they agreed. People were crying, and we prayed to the Rabbi to save us. We saw a dolphin hit the boat and caused water to leak into the boat. We took the water out of the boat, and no one died, but we were sick and people were losing consciousness. Four days later, a large Turkish ship came and dropped a rope for us. We climbed aboard the big ship. They gave us water to drink, and they gave us food, though it was not enough. We spent three more days on the Turkish boat [it was four days in fact].[109]
While Innocent showed some appreciation for Italy, the Italians, regardless of this, extended his suffering for four days while arguing with Malta in order to avoid his acceptance on Italian soil.
These differences between Malta and Italy highlight a major weakness in the system of international maritime laws. The practical result of the dispute is that merchant ships rescuing migrants in danger in the search and rescue area for which Malta is responsible, near Lampedusa, have given conflicting signals about where to disembark drowning survivors. The state is responsible for the search and rescue area from which the survivors were rescued. [110] The International Maritime Organization also issued a draft resolution On the subject, she explained: If it was not possible to disembark from the ship that carried out the rescue
Innocent painted this painting, which depicts his rescue, on a piece of paper. To the right is Safina Pinar, and in the letter he wrote: “God bless the Turkish people.” (C) 2009 Bill Frelick/Human Rights Watch
Speed to another place, the government responsible for the search area and the rescue on the authority of it by accepting the landing of the saved persons can be safe to control. To fall into the closest port Safe from the rescue site, which in the case of the Maltese search and rescue area, is mostly a port in Italy.Legally, the two countries are in the right place, as Malta does not have to abide by the 2004 amendments to the maritime conventions that bind Italy.More legal amendments are needed to provide a consistent legal platform regarding disembarkation of shipwrecked survivors.
Libya has no law or system for asylum procedures.[113] Although Libya is a state party to the 1969 Organization of African Unity Migrants Convention, which imposes the right to seek asylum,[114] and despite its adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which states that people “when persecuted are free to seek and obtain asylum in other countries,”[115] it has not yet Develop a formal mechanism to protect individuals fleeing persecution.
Colonel Muhammad Bashir al-Shabani, director of the Immigration Office, told Human Rights Watch, "There are no refugees in Libya. They are people who sneak into the country illegally and cannot be described as refugees. Anyone who enters the country without official documents and a permit will be arrested."[116] Or more than these deserve to be refugees, and how can he distinguish between them, he said: "I have never encountered a case like this before."
Their answer is consistent with what the Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi expresses on this issue, and he completely denies the presence of immigrants in Libya, or people passing through Libya to Europe seeking asylum. He called the whole matter "a lie and it's spread." During his first visit to Italy on 11 June 2009, he said: "Do we really think that millions of people are asylum seekers? It's really funny." He called the African immigrants "they live in the desert and in the forests and have no identity at all. Let alone their political identity. They feel that the North has all the wealth and all the money and they are trying to reach it."[117]
Before going to Italy in July 2009, Gaddafi answered a question about whether immigrants were being returned to Libya from Italy and whether it was possible to grant them asylum. He replied: "It is not a matter of asylum at all. Asylum concerns a limited number of people for political reasons, or after a war or a natural disaster. But we are facing successive waves of migrants towards Europe because of the poverty that grips Africa." [118]
In fact, few of the migrants interviewed by Human Rights Watch, many of whom had sought asylum since their interview in Italy or Malta or were re-recognised as refugees in those countries, expressed any belief in any possibility of seeking asylum in Libya. With the exception of people held in the Misrata detention center, which is available for visits by UNHCR and its NGO partners, none of the detainees interviewed for this report They said they saw or met any UNHCR representatives while they were in Ayman Libya's many prisons and detention centers. Given the vast number of former detainees who said they would be beaten if they spoke to the guards for anything, it is not really surprising that one person told Human Rights Watch that he requested to see UNHCR while in detention.
The Libyan Constitutional Declaration of 1969 stated that “It is forbidden to hand over political refugees to their governments.”[119] In addition, Law No. 20 of 1991 “On Improving Freedoms” states that “the Jamahiriya supports the oppressed… and will not abandon the refugees and their protection.”[120]
Justice Minister Mustafa Abd al-Jalil of the General People's Committee for Justice told Human Rights Watch that individuals can apply for asylum by submitting their papers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[121] but we have not found any law that includes asylum procedures. Colonel Al-Shabani told Human Rights Watch that "there is a new asylum law that will be presented to the People's Congress soon."[122] I got part of the Asylum Bill during our visit in 2005, in preparation for the issuance of the report on stopping the flow in 2006, but again, during our visit in April 2009 and the subsequent correspondence with the government in preparation for this report, we have not yet received a copy of the draft law.
Libya is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention[123] nor its 1967 Protocol[124], but both the Torture Convention and the African Refugee Convention[125] prohibit the return of individuals to countries where they would face a risk of persecution or torture. Libya is also a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[126] whose article 13 prohibits forcible expulsion. Granting foreigners the right to issue individual decisions regarding their deportation/ expel them. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted Article 7 of the ICCPR as prohibiting the forcible return of individuals to places where they would be in danger of torture or cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. [127] Under customary international law, Libya is also obligated not to return anyone to places where they would be persecuted or their life or freedom would be in danger.[128]
Justice Minister Abdel Jalil implicitly stated recognition on the ground of the principle of non-refoulement when he told Human Rights Watch that Libya cannot deport Eritreans or Somalis. [129] While we welcome the unofficial freeze on deportations to Somalia and Eritrea, there is no substitute for preparing legal procedures to recognize refugees of any nationality who cannot return to their home countries.
The presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees in Libya dates back to 1991, but the following years witnessed many times in which the Libyan government did not fulfill its obligations under letters from the High Commissioner issued regarding persons it recognized as refugees under its mandate. In which the Commission has offices. Since Libya Officially distinguishing between refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, Libyan officials still do not recognize UNHCR refugee certificates and letters of attestation issued by UNHCR.
In July 2008, UNHCR signed an agreement with a Libyan NGO, Peace, Care and Rescue International, the International Center for Migration Policy Development (a Vienna-based NGO), and the Italian Refugee Council.[131]
Since the publication of our last report on migrants and asylum seekers in Libya, when UNHCR was only able to visit one migrant detention center in Tripoli, the Libyan government has granted UNHCR access to seven migrant detention centers across the country. [132] However, at the time of Human Rights Watch's visit, most UNHCR cases of migrants were from the Misrata detention center. [133] Coming to visit Philip's many detention centers makes it difficult for staff The UNHCR visited them on a regular basis, including the Misrata camp, which is 280 kilometers from the UNHCR office in Tripoli. UNHCR began conducting refugee status determinations for Eritreans detained in Misrata in 2007, when about 400 of them were detained for the first time in that prison. UNHCR interventions, including resettlement to third countries in some cases, helped reduce the Misrata inmate population to about 200 by the end of 2008.[134]
The UNHCR is able to provide assistance from its office in Tripoli to about 3,000 refugees, including financial assistance, vocational training and medical assistance. Despite the lack of an official agreement, the Commission communicates regularly with the government and succeeded in releasing detainees with certificates from the Commission, which prevented their expulsion from the country. In July 2008, UNHCR succeeded in intervening in preventing the return of 230 Eritreans.[135] It says it has not documented a case of forced returns in Libya since 2007.[136]
In 2009, UNHCR's Tripoli office had a staff of 28, of whom 12 were authorized to conduct refugee status determinations. Without adequate legal authorities, their powers are limited. Despite this, UNHCR continues to conduct refugee status determinations for an average of 40 to 50 asylum seekers who went to UNHCR each week in 2009. [137]
Despite the restrictions imposed on its activities, as of July 31, 2009, the UNHCR in Tripoli had registered 8,506 refugees, of whom 3,635 were Palestinian long-term residents from Libya, and 2,653 from Iraq. The rest are 781 Sudanese, 697 Eritreans, 144 Liberians, and 245 other nationalities. UNHCR has seen a steady growth in asylum seekers over the past five years (676 asylum applications were submitted in 2005, 1,058 in 2006, 2,779 in 2007, 4,825 in 2008 and 2,256 in the first six months of 2009). During 2008, UNHCR referred 227 refugees from Libya for resettlement. Of these, 145 - most of them from Eritrea - were transferred to other countries.[138]
Following Italy's return of the migrants to Libya in May 2009, UNHCR asked the Italian and Maltese authorities "to continue to ensure that people rescued at sea and in need of international protection have access to their own territory and asylum-seeking procedures."[139] UNHCR stressed that "there are no guarantees that people in need of international protection will find them in Philippine."
While UNHCR has called on the Italian government to respect the principle of non-refoulement, it has also sought to provide humanitarian aid and a minimum level of protection for returnees and detainees in Libya. In May/July 2009, UNHCR screened 632 people returning from boats and concluded that 97 of them were eligible for international protection. [140] UNHCR asked the Italian government to reintroduce people seeking international protection and to determine the validity of their claims in accordance with Italian law. [141]
In many cases, travelers through Libya do not know if those who abuse them are from the police or criminals, but they often seem to believe that the two groups are closely related to one another, and they agree to exploit and abuse vulnerable migrants. Migrants’ perception of the police and smugglers is tainted by their understanding of the control the regime imposes on the entire Libyan society and of Libyans’ behavior towards foreigners, and sub-Saharan Africans in particular. Habtoum, a 28-year-old Eritrean man who arrived in Libya in June 2008, explained:
Migrants almost all along told Human Rights Watch that they believed the smugglers had close ties to some Libyan officials. According to the testimonies of migrants, the smugglers who organize the exit process in the boats sometimes have links with the authorities responsible for preventing illegal immigration at sea. Thomas, a 24-year-old Eritrean, was among a group of 108 migrants who refused to board a boat that appeared to be unsuitable for sailing, in October 2006. After the migrants began to resist the smugglers, the navy officials intervened, but they directed their efforts Towards the migrants who refuse to board the boat, not towards the Libyan criminals who organize a life-risk sea voyage:
Thomas' group tried to disperse, but most of them, including Thomas, were arrested and detained. Thomas made four attempts to get out of Libya on board. He was arrested and detained several times in several detention centers, and was returned to a border area for the purpose of deportation. [144] His extensive experience with smugglers, security, and police left no doubt about the links between the two parties:
Somali migrants told Human Rights Watch about the Somali embassy's involvement in the smuggling operations. Abdi Hassan, a 23-year-old Somali, said that he went to the Somali embassy to pay the money needed for his boat trip to Europe, and that he was taken directly from the embassy to Grabouli, which is the point where he disembarked on the boat:
The Police and the Smugglers: Bribes, Extortion, and Theft
Whether or not the police on the roads are involved in large-scale smuggling operations—particularly the roads leading to the border—as well as the security guards in immigration detention centers, they all profit systematically by demanding and accepting bribes as the price of their prisoner release.[147] This includes arranging contacts with families of detainees in their countries of origin and carrying out cash transfers, and in many cases it includes arranging for police to contact smugglers for travel after release.
Aron, a 36-year-old Eritrean who was detained at the airport prison in Tripoli in 2007, said the bribe was either $500 in cash or about $800 if it was a transfer from abroad. After he paid the bribe, Aron said the police in Zersame took him from prison in a police car and put him down on a Tripoli street. He later arranged to see a policeman and “gave him money to clear way for his friends.” “It's a revolving process,” Aaron said. “They take people out into town, get money, and then exchange the prisoners for other Africans.”
Smugglers rarely pay their services for the amount agreed upon at the start of the journey. By contrast, their approach is to demand extra money in the middle of the journey, with migrants held against their will for ransom and at the risk of their lives.
Heptun, the Eritrean man mentioned above, traveled across the desert with a group of 95 people, of whom 19 died during the journey. He said the smugglers held him against his will in a locked house in Misrata—not a detention center—and threatened to send him back to an official detention center if he and the other migrants did not pay more money:
The men who guarded the house were carrying sticks and knives. They demanded that our families send us money. The Libyans [smugglers] said if anyone paid money they would send us to prison. They were connected to the police. When they were taking us from one city to another, the police would come across us and let us pass. They knew the smugglers.[149]
Another Eritrean—Egy—paid the smugglers about $700 to transport him from Khartoum to Tripoli. Instead, they took him to Kufra, where they kept him and 78 other people in a closed room measuring 10 by 20 meters with no windows for ten days, and demanded additional money:
Al-Egy said that the police and the smugglers were closely related:
Mahmoud, a 20-year-old Tunisian, spent three months in a smugglers' house in Tripoli, where he was held against his will in squalid conditions. It is believed that the smugglers who were holding him were linked to the police:
Gedi, a 27-year-old Somali, had problems with smugglers as soon as he set foot in Libya in February 2009. He named the head of the smuggling operation and said that police were working with him. They threatened to kill him and held him against his will for ransom:
Not only do smugglers treat migrants harshly in their places of detention against their will, but also the way they transport migrants is usually extremely cruel. A video recording was published on the website of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on June 26, 2009, in which shocking scenes appear to be of a large group of migrants being removed from a completely enclosed cylindrical container on the back of a truck usually used to transport liquids such as fuel.[154]
Migrants living in or traveling through Libya told Human Rights Watch that they live in fear of arrest, theft, beatings, or extortion by police officers and criminals. They also said they fear xenophobic treatment in Libya and discriminatory treatment in the workplace and in other walks of life, including children frequently throwing stones at them. These experiences make immigrants wary of even walking the streets.
Many migrants have told Human Rights Watch that they have been in hiding for almost the entire period of their stay in Tripoli or Benghazi. In some cases this was because they were held as prisoners by the smugglers. But in other cases, it was because they were afraid of being attacked on the side of the road. As it turned out, they were not safe on the roads, nor in the homes where they hid, since policemen and bandits entered immigrant homes to attack and extort them.
Theft is a frequent experience that many immigrants, especially Africans from sub-Saharan Africa, have experienced in Tripoli and other cities, as well as children throwing stones at them. Emma, a 25-year-old Eritrean woman, shared her experiences and feelings shared by other migrants interviewed by Human Rights Watch:
Although all migrants are at risk in Libya, certain groups of migrants are particularly vulnerable.
Abuse of Migrant Women
Migrant women making the journey through Libya are at particular risk from smugglers and the police, who abuse them with impunity. Human Rights Watch was unable to document specific cases of rape or sexual assault, but migrant men and women told Human Rights Watch that they frequently saw smugglers and police separate or attempt to separate women from the migrant group. Appropriate sanitation.
Sexual abuse of migrant women in detention can occur at the hands of the police, and not just at the hands of smugglers. Madiha, a 24-year-old Eritrean woman, who was held in the two immigration detention centers in the villa and in Misrata, told Human Rights Watch that although men and women were separated in the villa, they were not separated in Misrata. In Misrata, she said, "All women face problems from the police. The police come at night and pick women to abuse them."[156] According to UNHCR, men and women have been separated in Misrata since 2007, and there have been no reports of rape since then.[157]
Smugglers held Nadiva, a 19-year-old Somali woman, for ransom for 20 days in Kufra. She described the room she shared with 25 other women as very cramped and dirty in a dilapidated building, with only one toilet shared by all the women. Nadiva told Human Rights Watch how the guards treated her and her fellow detainees:
Amina, another 19-year-old Somali woman and friend of Nadiva, was with her in the same place in Kufra, and the same events took place. She also spoke about physical abuse, not sexual:
Although no woman Human Rights Watch interviewed said she had been raped, some of the men's accounts leave no doubt about what is happening to migrant women in Libya. A 20-year-old Somali man told Human Rights Watch about a “private house” outside Tripoli in which migrants are held and women are raped:
Daniel, a 26-year-old Eritrean, witnessed the fall of a girl as a victim of smugglers in Kufra:
Daniel was later held in a house for smugglers in Tripoli, where women were subjected to similar assaults:
The problems of migrant women are not limited to periods of travel and detention by smugglers. Those who spend time in Libya face problems on the streets and in the workplace, where their lack of legal residency puts them at risk. Iskandar, a 40-year-old Eritrean who is now in Malta, spoke to Human Rights Watch about his wife, who is still in Libya. She was recognized by the High Commissioner as a refugee, according to him, and Iskandar has had refugee status from the UNHCR since his interview with the UNHCR in Libya, but he left the country before obtaining the result of his interview. His interview also indicates the secrecy that surrounds people in their treatment of migrant women in Libya in detention:
Abuse of Unaccompanied Children
It appears that the Libyan detention authorities do not differentiate between adults and unaccompanied children. Unaccompanied children are often held in the same places as adults, putting them at risk of abuse and violence. Unaccompanied children are also at risk of other forms of violence during their journey. Unaccompanied Child, Houyet from Ghana He was 16 years old when he arrived in Libya and spent a year there, in 2007. He spoke of his detention, of being pressured into forced labor in Libya, and of Good to force him to ride a boat and take him to Europe. As always, the line between police powers and smugglers is a blurred line:
Jonathan, an 18-year-old Eritrean, traveled through Libya unaccompanied and spent two months in a regular Libyan prison accompanied by criminals, because Misrata, the migrant detention center holding large numbers of Eritreans, was full:
Misrata was full, and they put me in another prison with criminals and addicts. People used to use drugs, Libyans, Chadians, and Nigerians, and did not distinguish between minors and adults. The prison was terrible and the Libyan police were racist. If they knew I was a Christian they would do bad things to me, like beat me. I didn't tell them... but when they caught us they beat the animals. One of the men tried to run away because the beating was terrible. He ran and was hit by a car. No investigation was conducted, and no one was asked about his violence. [165]
The most frequent abuses, and usually the most serious ones, occur when entering (or attempting to enter) Libya, or upon re-entering Libya after failing to exit by boat, or when expelled from the country. Abuses at land borders occur on all sides, east, west and south. Yen transfers individuals [166] Migrants often say they have no problem crossing into Libya, and that they have seen drivers and smugglers talk to the police. However, if the price paid is not well, problems often occur.
In some cases, problems occur at the borders because the smugglers abandon the migrants, so no one negotiates their passage and pays bribes to the relevant officials. Fethawi, a 30-year-old Eritrean who spent a year and a half as a political prisoner in Eritrea, entered Libya in 2007 as part of a mixed group of 59 people, from Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan. Libyans on one side of the desert, the Libyan smugglers left the group stranded in the desert For about 3 days, and during that period six people died. Then a truck driver drove them to Kufra in his car:
While some people, like Fethawi, reported that police and soldiers beat and robbed them at border areas, others, like Thomas, a 24-year-old Eritrean, said smugglers were the main perpetrators of these types of abuse near the border. His smugglers left them in the desert after entering Libya in July 2006. He had spent the previous 21 days crossing the desert from Khartoum. After he paid extra money, the smugglers held them outside Kufra, where they demanded extra money and threatened to kill them:
Others saw the bodies of the migrants they left behind in the desert. Madeha, a 24-year-old Eritrean woman, who was left behind in the desert by smugglers, saw what happened to others who were abandoned:
Abuse in Libya's western border region
People from West Africa describe similar problems they face when entering Libya from the southwest. The migrants said that the border police shot them. Innocent, a 19-year-old Nigerian, said, "The police stopped us at the Libyan border. We ran away, we ran, but they shot us."[170]
In other cases, the border police robbed the migrants outright, in behavior very similar to the criminals. Abassi, a 19-year-old Nigerian, described his first encounter with the Libyan police after a ten-day trek across the desert to reach Libya from the west:
In fact, there appears to be little difference between police and thieves. Samuel, a 21-year-old Nigerian, told Human Rights Watch that civilians robbed him and so did the police, in Libya in December 2007:
Emmanuel, a 34-year-old Togolese man, faced a series of problems from civilians and officials upon his arrival at the western borders of Libya:
Joe-won, a 21-year-old Nigerian who entered Libya from Niger in 2007. He was arrested and spent three months in a detention center in western Libya. Human Rights Watch interviewed him in Camp C of the Savvy detention center in Malta. “It was a prison like this, but worse,” he said. He added:
The water and food are very bad. Five people have to eat from one plate. They beat us every day. They would come to us and punish us. They would take us out one by one and beat us with sticks and kick our feet.[174]
Kwesi, a 28-year-old Ghanaian, entered Libya in 2007 from the southwest. He was arrested in Subha and stayed in prison for two months:
Sometimes migrants enter Libya unwillingly when they are met by the Tunisian authorities at the border with Libya in the northwest. The Tunisians took Ezekiel, a 24-year-old Eritrean, to the Libyan border in April 2006 and threw him inside Libya, leaving him with a taxi fare so that he could hide in Libya. But he had no luck:
Although the practice of dumping migrants in the border area appears to be a common practice, there have been no clearly documented cases since 2007 of refugees or asylum-seekers being forcibly returned to their countries of origin, or to places where they would be subjected to refoulement. 04. Then they fled Eritrea again, and returned to Libya. This time they succeeded in leaving Libya and reaching Malta, where they now live. Human Rights Watch reported the facts of the forced return in its 2006 report, Stemming the Flow, but of course was unable to interview the returnees at the time, who were imprisoned upon their arrival in Eritrea. Eritreans continue to be subjected to forcible returns from other countries in the region.[178]
The problem of forced returns began on May 21, 2004, when the boat Milio Aaron was on sank off the Libyan coast. Seven of his companions drowned. The rest were captured on the coast near the village of Khums.
Al-Maili told Human Rights Watch what happened when he was returned to the Libyan coast (Aaron separately told the same story). It is a story of continuous beatings from the time they were arrested upon their arrival at the beach until their plane took off for Eritrea two months later, and upon arrival they were imprisoned by their government:
Libya sent another deportation plane with 75 Eritreans on board in August 2004, but the passengers hijacked the plane on its way and disembarked in Khartoum, where the UNHCR recognized 60 of them as refugees. [180] After that incident, we do not know of Libya sending other deportation planes to Eritrea, although an attempt was made to send a plane in July 2008 to return 230 Eritreans.[1] 81] UNHCR was able to Interview the authorities inside Libya and prevent their deportation.[182]
Some Eritreans still believe that Libya is still sending Eritreans back to Eritrea. Gabriel, a 28-year-old Eritrean who spent a month in Libya in 2008, was convinced that if he was caught he would be equivalent to facing persecution in Eritrea:
In the years 2003 to 2006, Libya deported about 200,000 people to their countries of origin. [184] While most of these were economic migrants who entered the country illegally, some of them were asylum-seekers and refugees who faced the risk of persecution or ill-treatment upon return to their country.
The Libyan government says that most of the people it returns return to their country willingly,[185] but in the conditions of detention described in this report, and in the absence of alternatives, and in the absence of transparent deportation procedures, the line between voluntary and forced return is blurred.
Dumping in the desert
Libyan authorities in the coastal region put migrants (especially from the Horn of Africa) in trucks and take them back to Kufra with the pretense of deporting them across the land border with Sudan, but usually the actual deportation does not take place, they are simply left in the Libyan desert. Perhaps this is because the Sudanese border guards are unwilling to accept them (migrants do not come from Not only from Sudan, but also from Somalia, Eritrea, and other places).
The truck trips themselves are extremely dangerous and degrading. The migrants told Human Rights Watch how they were crowded into closed, almost unventilated cars. They were standing there for two days, and they were not allowed to urinate or defecate. Daniel, a 26-year-old Eritrean, told us about his journey on a boat that was intercepted by the Maltese authorities. He spoke about his experiences in Misrata,[186] and what happened to him after he left Misrata. It began with a very painful truck trip to a detention center in Kufra, after which the camp director ordered them to be thrown out into the desert to face death:
"Deportation" to Kufra usually follows failed attempts to get out by boat, arrest, and confinement in northern prisons. Although the authorities transfer migrants to Kufra with the intent of expelling them across the land border into Egypt or Sudan, in reality the authorities in Kufra sometimes do not transfer them across the border, but leave them in the desert on the outskirts of Kufra and strike deals with smugglers who take them to start the process over. Ray is 24 years old, and his statements were mentioned above. He was returned to Kufra after A failed boat attempt, and after two months in the passport prison in Tripoli:
Former detainees from various migrant detention centers in Libya told Human Rights Watch that detention conditions are poor. Detention centers are overcrowded and dirty, food is inadequate and health care is virtually non-existent. There is no contact with the authorities and detention cannot even be challenged in court, so there is no point in it. There is little or no contact with lawyers, and information on the reasons and duration of detention is almost non-existent. Treatment by guards ranges from negligence to cruelty, and corruption is rampant.
There is no limit to how long the authorities can administratively detain illegal immigrants for the purpose of allegedly arranging their deportation, even if there is no possible vision to effectuate their expulsion. A diplomatic source in Libya told Human Rights Watch that migrants can be held for "from a few weeks to twenty years."[189] He said that the decision to release them is based mainly on the degree of overcrowding in prisons and that people release them when detention centers become too full to accommodate more.
Libya is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 of which stipulates that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention or deprived of his liberty except in the case of grounds and in accordance with the procedures regulated by law. Detention is considered arbitrary if it is not authorized by law or in accordance with the law. It also becomes arbitrary if it is random or not accompanied by legal review procedures.[190]
Not only is arbitrary detention defined by law, it also includes elements of injustice and unpredictability. Because of the increasing phenomenon of indefinite detention of migrants and asylum-seekers, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has developed criteria to determine when the deprivation of liberty of migrants and asylum-seekers is arbitrary. Principle number three requires that a migrant or asylum-seeker held in detention “shall be promptly brought before a judge or other authority.” The maximum limit of detention is determined by law, and in no case can guardianship be indefinite or for an excessively prolonged period. [191]
There are many detention centers and prisons that house migrants in Libya. [192] The following are accounts of the most frequently mentioned detention centers by former detainees who are now in Malta and Italy.
Al-Kufra
Al-Kufra, the most southeastern point in Libya, was the place most frequently mentioned by detained migrants in Libya to Human Rights Watch who interviewed them in Malta and Italy. It is a place where people are detained upon entering the country as well as those about to be deported across the land borders with Sudan and Egypt. But Kufra is not a single detention center. Although there is a government-run detention center in Kufra, smugglers also have their own detention centers. Sometimes migrants do not know who is holding them, some describing a government-run center as "more like a house than a prison."[193] They described guards in private detention facilities as sometimes wearing military clothing. Most immigrants see the smugglers and the police as closely related, so as far as they understand there is no distinction between private and public detention centres. In both, migrants are held indefinitely, have very little contact with their captors (most contact takes the form of beatings) and are not released until they pay bribes. Everyone fears throwing them in the desert.
Although this part of the report focuses on Kufra, these accounts should be read as snapshots of a long, agonizing journey. The description of the abuses in Kufra should not be read in isolation from the rest of the journey of hardship and abuse, but rather as part of it. It should also be mentioned that some migrants told Human Rights Watch that they were arrested in Kufra several times, upon entering Libya as well as during deportation, although, at least according to those interviewed by Human Rights Watch, the deportations were not carried out to the end. The migrants are taken out of the Kufra prison – directly into the hands of the smugglers who detain them, demand extra money from their families, and then transport them back to the coastal cities.
Kufra Detention Center
The location of the official detention center in Kufra raises fears among migrants of deportation or abandonment in the desert. The detention center consists of a central courtyard and has large holding cells, each capable of holding 100 or more persons. Depending on the number of people being held, some of the rooms are sometimes empty, even though this may lead to unnecessary overcrowding in the occupied rooms. The place is surrounded by high walls with holes for air at the top, so that the detainees cannot see what is outside. There is no doctor or nurse in the centre. Everyone sleeps on the floor, either on a common mattress or without mattresses at all. Mostly, people are allowed out once a day when the guards are counting the prisoners. Although this is an opportunity to get some fresh air, it is also the time when most of the beatings take place.
Ghedi, a 29-year-old Somali, described his time in Kufra detention center in April 2008:
Abdoul, a 22-year-old Somali who left Somalia in 2006 due to political violence, spent two months in Kufra in March and April 2008, where he lived in a room without windows with 45 other people. Abdul estimates that the Kufra detention center held about 300 people. He said the center was under the authority of the police in Kufra. He said there was never enough food in it and that six people shared a handful of rice. He said he shared a dirty mattress on the floor with others. Abdul also shared the toilet with 45 other people in the same room where they ate and slept. “It was very dirty and the smell of the toilet seeped into where we ate.” He was in a group of the same family, and one of them was a woman:
Abdoul also said that he saw the guards in Kufra put a hot metal stick in the ear of a detainee who grabbed his cup while he was trying to escape. “They heated the metal very much and then melted his ear.”
Iskandar, a 40-year-old Ethiopian, said he was arrested by the Libyan police and sent for a month to Kufra detention center, where he said beatings were common:
Abdi Hassan, a 23-year-old Somali, was arrested on January 22, 2008, as soon as he entered the town of Kufra, and spent the next three months in the Kufra detention centre. He described the “normal” level of beating and abuse:
Special Detention Centers in Kufra
Although some of the buildings where the migrants were held against their will are clearly owned by Libyan civilian smugglers, in many cases the smugglers acted as if they were the police or army, including showing off evidence of affiliation with the authorities or using official-looking equipment, so that the migrants felt that the smugglers were connected to the authorities.
Among immigrants, special detention centers are known by several names: “the project”, “the farm”, “the [name withheld] place”. In some places people are kept in closed rooms, and in other places the spaces are constructions in the desert where detainees sleep in the open.
The fear sown by the Kufra detention centers is not only due to the bad conditions and treatment, but also because the fate of the migrants is completely in the hands of their captors, and everyone is afraid of being thrown into the desert to die. Bereho, a 32-year-old Eritrean, described how after 18 days in which he crossed the desert with a group of 65 people, they locked them in a house in Kufra for two weeks, where the smugglers demanded that the detainees be sent to them their family money:
Migrant Detention Centers in the Tripoli Area
Migrants told Human Rights Watch that they have been detained in detention centers in and around Tripoli, but that they usually do not know the names or locations of the places where they are held, sometimes for months. The immigrants describe the same place in their speech. However, descriptions of conditions of detention and treatment are required to be documented even if it is not possible to verify exact locations.
Zola, a 28-year-old Eritrean interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Rome, spent three months in a prison in Tripoli in 2006. He does not know or remember the name of the place, but he remembered it as follows:
It was very crowded, and there was no space for anyone. We all had skin diseases, and we couldn't wash or clean up. It was very stuffy. Just some small windows near the ceiling of the room, no air coming in, and sometimes they wouldn't let us out. [199]
Army, a 25-year-old Eritrean, similarly described the crowded conditions in a detention center in Tripoli in 2006, but also spoke of the brutality of the guards:
The guards didn't say anything to us. The only contact we had was when we were counted once a day. If you say anything they hit you with the black police baton. I saw them beat a lot of people. The beating was not just to move people, it was to hurt them. They broke arms and injured people, and that was normal. Violence against women was also common. They threatened to take the women to another room to have sex with them. We were all afraid of being taken to Kufra. I fled after the first week. One of my best friends broke his leg climbing the wall. They took many of my friends to Kufra to take them to the border between Sudan and Libya.[200]
Airport
There is a new detention center in al-Tawisha, near Tripoli airport. It now appears to be the largest detention center for migrants in Libya. On any given day, there are about 900 people, some of whom have been there for two years, even though it is supposed to be a detention center for short periods. High ceiling windows, and when they leave the rooms, this is to enter a small courtyard that does not overlook the outside except for its open roof and the sky above it. Surprisingly, the toshiha has a good garden outside its walls, and the detainees can never see it. The toshiha is used mostly for migrants undergoing deportation from Libya, and is the method by which most people are deported.
Human Rights Watch was unable to interview any former detainees from al-Tawisha, perhaps because of their relative novelty or because most people held there are repatriated. We did, however, interview Aaron, a 36-year-old Eritrean, who said he had been in the airport detention center for a month in 2007, although he was not sure if it was a legal detention center:
Passport Detention Center
Aman, a 26-year-old Eritrean, described the Passport Center in Tripoli as a prison:
Thomas, the Eritrean quoted above, was detained at the passport office for two months at the end of 2006:
We were in one room with 160 other people, all in the same room. It was like we were in a parking garage with small holes in the windows at the top of the walls. We urinated in plastic bottles and threw them outside in the evening. We were only allowed to use the toilet once a day. Lots of people had skin problems. There is no soap. They gave us water in a flask to drink. Many of us have suffered from stomach problems. And I begged the guards to take the sick to the toilet.
The guards were tough, and addicted. We watched them smoke weed every day. They were joking: Where are the Christians who do not fast? [As in Ramadan]. You can see how they talk to us about how they don't like Christians.
Once we were singing, the guards came and said: Who is making this noise? Others said: Christians. They took six of us out and beat us. They beat us on the soles of our feet with a wooden stick. They beat our feet for 5 to 10 minutes. Two guards put a wooden crossbar under our feet, and tied our feet to the crossbar. We fall on our backs and they stomp our feet. They did this with the six of us. They beat only on foot, and they know that after beating you can't walk, but they make us run in the yard after beating. And this happens in the middle of the night.
The camp director isn't around when this happens, but all the guards know what's going on.
I'm fine now. No permanent damage, but prison has been really hard on me. It connects to you in who you are and who you are. They see you as less than them and you feel less than them physically and spiritually.[203]
Detention centers on the northwestern coast of Libya (outside Tripoli)
Al-Zawiya
Al-Zawiya is a town located to the southwest of Tripoli, and has one of the largest detention centers for migrants in Libya. Usually to detain boat migrants who have failed in their attempts to be returned to Libya, including most of the women who have been intercepted since the Italian return policy was activated in May 2009. The corner is notoriously dirty and very crowded. The accounts Human Rights Watch received from him viewed the center's cells as 8 x 8 meters, and each room accommodated about 150 men at any given time. The women's rooms are not crowded simply because they are fewer in the same space mentioned.
Abdoul, the 22-year-old Somali whose statement was mentioned in the description of two months in Kufra, was arrested and transferred to Al-Zawiya after his boat was intercepted by the Libyan Navy. "It's not a good prison," he said. "Like Kufra, it's very dirty. It's run by the police, not the army."Abdoul said he bribed a guard to escape from the corner.[204]
Abidan, a 27-year-old Ghanaian, who was held in Zawiya for three months, said that he was beaten every morning with ten lashes while the prisoners were counted. They finally released him after he paid $200 as a bribe.[205]
Innocent, a 19-year-old Nigerian, was detained in Zawiya in 2007. He said it was a deportation center, but for him deportation did not necessarily mean returning to Nigeria, it could mean death in the desert:
Misrata
Misrata is a detention center on the coast, 200 kilometers east of Tripoli. In recent years, it has effectively become a specialized center for refugees, Eritrean asylum seekers, and others of interest to UNHCR. It usually houses 600 to 700 people, some for two to three years.
Because of UNHCR's intervention in Misrata and the presence of its partner NGOs that provide services there, Misrata is considered the best detention center for migrants in Libya, and is relatively open to journalists and NGOs. However, migrants told Human Rights Watch that they are subjected to repeated beatings in Misrata. Sometimes the beatings begin upon arrival. After arrival, tired, thirsty, and frightened, the Libyan guards and police greet them, beating indifferently, sometimes with obvious cruelty. According to UNHCR, such beatings and abuses stopped in 2007 with the presence of UNHCR and partner civil society organizations.[207]
Daniel, the 26-year-old Eritrean quoted above about his interception and return by Maltese border guards in July 2005,[208] was beaten upon his return to Tripoli, got into a closed van with other persons, and was taken to Misrata. He continues his story by saying:
Daniel said that some of the people held in Misrata had been there for nine months. Aman, 26, from Eritrea, spent a month in Misrata after his broken down boat carrying 172 people was returned to Libya on May 21, 2004. He recounted how the beatings were more on Fridays when the Rasmusrata were on drugs:
Others moved to Misrata after being arrested on the road between Kufra and the coast. Jonas, a 39-year-old Eritrean, was arrested shortly after his arrival in Libya, on October 12, 2008:
Some of the former detainees mentioned the presence of the UNHCR in Misrata, but they talked about the abuses that continued in the place despite the broader international supervision in this center than in other centers. Tiam, a 28-year-old Eritrean, spent ten months in Misrata in the summer of 2007. He said that everyone there is Eritrean and that UNHCR comes every two months and takes some refugees out, but that does not make him feel safe around the guards:
Although UNHCR and its partner organizations recently established a health clinic in Misrata with three full-time doctors, former detainees said that health care was not available even for seriously ill detainees, until 2007. Madiha, a 24-year-old Eritrean woman, described the lack of adequate health care:
Although Misrata is more open to the outside world than other migrant detention centers in Libya, visits by civil society organizations and journalists to the place revealed a wave of threats and intimidation. Alone. The prison director, Colonel Ali Abu Oud, was close to them listening to the complaints of the detainees until he could no longer bear it. Delgrande wrote:
Zuwara
From the outside, the Zuwara center looks like a house rather than a detention center, but from the inside the doors are barricaded and locked. The detainees sleep on the floor. Former detainees said they could only get food and water and nothing more. It is one of the places returned boat migrants from Italy have been returning since May 2009.
Abdikrim, a 21-year-old Somali, was on a boat that was intercepted by the Libyan Navy in March 2008. They took him back to Libya and then to the Zuwara center, where he spent the next three months:
Abdikrim said that guards told detainees they could pay to get out. He paid 700 dollars for his freedom.
Zlitan
Some migrants who failed in attempts to leave by boat are taken to a detention center in Zlitan, a port city east of Tripoli. Mohamed Hassan, a 27-year-old Somali with bruises on his chest and legs, spoke to Human Rights Watch about his recent experience at the center. Zlitan detained after his boat failed to arrive:
Many immigrants who were intercepted by the Italians at sea and returned to Libya were also transferred to Grapoli.
Abdi Hassan, a 23-year-old Somali, was on board a boat that sank and was rescued by a private boat that took him to Zlitan. Upon arrival, the soldiers arrested him and put him, along with 25 other people, in a closed car, and transferred them to what he described as the "Coast Guard Prison" in Zlitan. There, he was detained with the 25 passengers in a room 10 by 10 meters in which, according to him, “the Libyan soldiers played with us, beating and ill-treating us.” He was detained in the room for a month.
Abdi Hassan Manzitan was released on July 7, 2008. He described his release by saying:
Sabratha
Another migrant center where migrants reported abuse from guards is the Sabratha migrant center located on the coast, west of Tripoli, in the middle of the road to Zuwara. Thomas, a 24-year-old Eritrean, told Human Rights Watch of his torture by guards there in June 2007 as punishment for attempting to escape:
Ganfouda
Ganfouda is a detention center for migrants on the outskirts of Benghazi that, as of this writing, holds 450 prisoners, most of them Somalis and Eritreans. Some have been held in Ganfouda for five years, according to migrants. Immigrants describe it as looking like a prison. Abdi Hassan, the Somali quoted in the description of the Kufra detention centre, was held in Ganfouda for six’ months. In contrast to most detention centers where contact between guards and detainees is minimal, in Ganfouda, according to Abdel Hassan, each detainee is interrogated (and beaten) separately:
Abukar, a 25-year-old Somali, has been in the Ganfouda detention center for more than a year, at the time of the Human Rights Watch interview. He was in a room with 70 other Somalis. He said, "The guards leave us imprisoned here. They insult and beat us, and if you talk to them they punish you severely. They electrocute us."[220] Abukar told Human Rights Watch what happened in the August 10, 2009 incident:
Voice of America covered this incident, including the Libyan ambassador's denial in Somalia that there had been a prison escape or that anyone had been killed. [222] Somali press sources reported that twenty detainees were shot and killed.[223]
This report was researched and written by Belfrelick, director of the Refugee Policy Program at Human Rights Watch. This report was also researched and reviewed by Hebham Morayef, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa division. Field research assistance was provided by researchers Leslie Lefkow and Ben Rowlance, in the Africa division. Legal research and review was assisted by Helen Butcher. The report was reviewed by Ian Levin, director of the Office of Programs. Clive Baldwin, lead legal advisor, conducted the legal review. Division of Europe and Central Asia, Lislgrenholtz Director of the Department of Women's Rights, and Simon Trolley from the Children's Rights Section, Livko from the Africa Section, as well as representatives from UNHCR and NGOs in Libya, Italy and Malta. Valeric Patrick Patrick in the Refugees division assisted in reviewing. Grace Choi in the Programs Office assisted in producing the report. On-the-ground field review services were provided by Adel Mohamed Ahmed and Mohamed Ismail in Malta, and Manfred Bergman and Michael Gebregierghi in Italy. Middle East and North Africa intern Tinocamarda assisted with additional research and translations. Janariarch assisted with legal research.
Human Rights Watch thanks those who have provided legal and social services in Libya, Italy, and Malta, particularly the staff of the Gaddafi Foundation, Jesuit Refugee Services, Doctors Without Borders, the Italian Refugee Council, Save the Children, the International Organization for Migration, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We are also deeply grateful to the Italian and Maltese governments for giving us access to immigration detention centers in Malta, Sicily, and Lampedusa.