|
Plight of a Refugee
We reproduce a protest statement relating to an Asian refugee,
issued by the AHRC. For reasons of security, we have replaced the
name of the concerned refugee as "Mr. X" and his
country of origin.
Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
5 November, 1996
TO ALL PERSONS WHO TOOK AN INTEREST
Re: The Case Of Mr. X
When Mr. Bruce Van Voorhis of Documentation for Action Groups in
Asia (DAGA), Hong Kong, made inquiries from Mr. Dennis McNamara,
Director, Division of International Protection of the UNHCR,
Geneva, over the telephone yesterday (4th November, 1996), he
learned that there would be no further review of this case and
that Mr. X was no longer a refugee as far as UNHCR was concerned.
When asked related to the controversy about the interpretation
given to criminal charges, Mr. Voorhis was told it does not
matter whichever way that might be decided. This is strange as
Mr. X was interviewed for two days, last month, on this same
issue by the Hong Kong UNHCR. Mr. X was told by the Legal Officer
at UNHCR Hong Kong, through his interpreter, that UNHCR in Geneva
was conducting an inquiry to revoke Mr. X’s refugee status
on the basis of these criminal charges as they raised doubts
about his credibility. At the end of two days of interviews Mr. X
was told that as far as Hong Kong UNHCR Office was concerned,
that they would make a recommendation for non-revocation of
refugee status. Thereafter, many persons who intervened with the
UNHCR in Geneva on Mr. X’s behalf were told of the same
issue, i. e. criminal charges. It was due to this constant
accusation that it was suggested on Mr. X’s behalf, to refer
the matter to Attorney General of the country X comes from for
clarification. At first UNHCR in Geneva stated that this was not
necessary for, as far as the UNHCR was concerned they were
satisfied that Mr. X was a common criminal (We received this
information through the memos of those who spoke to UNHCR on Mr.
X’s behalf). Then an application was sent by the lawyers of
X’s country to the Attorney General of the country X comes
from and copies of application were sent to UNHCR Geneva. Now,
faced with the prospect of being proved wrong, UNHCR says
criminal charges were not a matter in issue at all.
| Throughout these so called ‘inquiries’
by UNHCR, Mr. X was kept in a perplexed situation, as it
was not possible to ascertain what the UNHCR in Geneva
was inquiring into. It was one thing now and another
thing later. It was a Kafkaesque situation, or like
‘just a little trial’ in Alice inWonderland.
UNHCR Geneva ‘inquiries’ are discussions
between the staff officers themselves, which are
basically speculative in nature. They are closed door
discussions (“Inquiries”). Though the ‘inquiries’
give an impression of a semi-judicial character, they are
in fact just talks between colleagues who have known each
other for years. In such circumstances, to disagree is to
be disloyal. And if one approach fails, another could
easily be found to achieve the preconceived conclusion.
In this closed system the appeals too are conducted by
the same persons who made the decision. If such inquiries
were to be conducted by any state agency they could be
easily challenged in a court as sheer nonsense. |
This is not a special situation faced by Mr. X. It has been
faced by many thousands who have no choice but to submit to such
“inquiries.” Throughout Asia those who have had direct
dealings with UNHCR have all expressed deep frustration and
disappointment. The joint statement — titled STATEMENT OF
WORKSHOP ON ASIA-PACIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION: THE RIGHT TO
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION — issued on 25 August, 1996, at a
consultation held at the University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia, organized by the Australian Human Rights Information
Centre, Diplomacy Training Program, includes the following
resolution proposed by Ravi Nair of the South Asian Human Rights
Documentation Centre. This was adopted unanimously. The
resolution reflects the loss of faith in the UNHCR:
39.UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The Workshop exhorts the UN
High Commissioner for Refuges to initiate a global education
effort to reinstate its mandate of the protection of refugees and
the internally displaced, as a matter of urgent human rights
priority. The Workshop urges the High Commissioner to initiate
human rights education outreach programs, as well as
sensitisation of UNHCR personnel.
Tomorrow Mr. X leaves even without informing his family about his
arrival to live in hiding as long as he can. He has no other
choice. He will be like many others who are forced to live in
such conditions in many countries in the world. This is the
“new era of refugee protection.”
Under these conditions he would be unable to engage in any
employment or move about freely. UNHCR has decided these are no
matters for their concern. However they are a concern to us, as
persons in Mr. X’s position deserves what ever assistance
they could get. The UNHCR cannot escape the responsibility in
event of any danger to Mr. X’s life or liberty. However even
such responsibility is only an empty thing as there is no way to
hold it responsible. It is only moral condemnation that is
possible. Such condemnation is happening all the time. Even that
does not seem to matter.
Mr. X was offered an air-ticket by the UNHCR Hong Kong, on the
condition that he would sign documents stating that he is
returning voluntarily. He refused to sign the documents.
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
c.c. Mr. Dennis McNamara, Director, Division of International
Protection, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
Geneva, Switzerland.
c.c. Heikki Keto, Asia Desk, United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, Geneva, Switzerland.
c.c. Lam Nai Jit, Associate Legal Officer, United National High
Commissioner for Refugees, Hong Kong.
Posted on 2001-08-13
|
