APPENDIX 19
Memorandum by the Medical Foundation for
the Care of Victims of Torture
PHYSICAL CONTROLS AT UK PORTS OF ENTRY
1. The Medical Foundation is an independent
charity that undertakes therapeutic work with survivors of torture
and organised violence and their families. Our clinicians, including
psychiatrists, psychologists, physiotherapists and counsellors
work with clients. Caseworkers also provide practical assistance
and support. The majority of our patients are asylum seekers and
refugees although our current patients include former Far-East
prisoners of war, holocaust survivors and survivors of the bombing
in Omagh. Over 16,000 survivors of torture have been referred
to us since we opened in 1986 and last year we received over 3,000
new referrals. Our studies on country situations, and clinical
examinations and documentation of individual cases, are invoked
in the assessment of asylum applications. We train those involved
in the asylum determination procedure and the care of torture
survivors both in the UK and overseas. Our expertise and experience
are recognised by the Home Office. You will find express reference
to us in the Asylum Directorate Instructions to Caseworkers (Section
17), and we are represented on, inter alia, the Immigration and
Nationality User Panel.
PHYSICAL CONTROLS
2. The Medical Foundation for the Care of
Victims of Torture notes that the UK is signatory to the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, Article 14(l) of which states "Everyone
has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution." The UK is also a State Party to the 1951 Convention
on the Status of Refugees, and was present at the 1999 Tampere
European council, which stated in its conclusion its commitment
to "the full and inclusive application" of that Convention,
Article 31(l) of that Convention protects refugees' flight to
sanctuary.
3. In our report Staying Alive by Accident:
Torture survivors from Turkey in the UK (Medical Foundation,
February 1999) we analysed the journeys of 14 torture survivors
from Turkey. Of these 14, six came by air, four of them flying
direct. The rest came overland. Only one was able to organise
and finance his journey himself. Ten used the services of an agent
to travel. In six cases there are records of substantial sums
having been paid. We have records of the travel documents used
in 12 cases: false documents were used by six (two of these six
returned them to the agent organising the journey), two used their
own passports, and four (all travelling overland) had no documents
at all. Of the 14, six claimed asylum at the port of entry. Note
that in the 10 cases where the refugee passed through intermediate
countries, it was nonetheless held to be appropriate that their
case be considered in the UK. All 14 studies were recognised as
refugees by the government of the United Kingdom. It is thus unsurprising
that we concur with the words of Lord Justice Simon Brown, in
the landmark judgement in R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court ex
parte Adimi and others (29 July 1999, CO/2533/98, CO/3007/98,
CO/2472/98 and CO/ll67/99): "The need for Article 31 has
not diminished. Quite the contrary."
4. Physical barriers at ports of entry do
not per se place a torture survivor seeking asylum from persecution
at risk. The interests of the State in knowing exactly who is
in the country, and what is their immigration status, and those
of the survivor of torture in being recognised as a refugee and
knowing as soon as possible that s/he has found sanctuary as soon
as possible are not necessarily incompatible.
5. However, as is clear from the debates
on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, both these entirely legitimate
interests are subordinated to the illegitimate goal of preventing
those seeking asylum from reaching our shores. Part II of the
Immigration and Asylum Act and in particular the definition of
a clandestine entrant in Section 32(1) is significant in this
regard. It makes no distinction between the person who is visible
and claims asylum on entry and the person who is hidden suggesting
that the detection and identification of those entering the country
is not a high priority for government. Section 32(l) provides
a perverse disincentive for the carrier. To yield up the person
carried at the port will render them liable for a £2,000
fine which they might evade if the person is not detected.
6. Thus it appears that physical controls
at ports of entry are being used not for their own sake, but in
order to shore up carriers' liability. Carriers' liability is
one method, along with visa controls, and an increase in the number
of what Britain calls Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs), ie, officials
stationed abroad to train airline staff to prevent those with
"inadequate documentation" from boarding, of preventing
asylum seekers from reaching our shores. The use of physical controls
at ports of departure is a recent addition to this panoply of
methods.
7. The Medical Foundation is concerned at
how these measures affect those fleeing persecution and torture
in their own countries. On-going research into cases of Sri Lankan
torture survivors at the Medical Foundation reveals that the presence
of scarring places them at risk if picked up by the authorities
in their country. Scarring, regardless of cause, is treated as
evidence of involvement with the Tamil Tigers. In such circumstances,
to station Airline Liaison Officers in Sri Lanka appears not only
to create a risk that survivors of torture will be unable to flee
further persecution, but that they will be brought to the attention
of their persecutors.
8. Making it more difficult for people to
travel and gain admission to places of safety will not of itself
reduce the number of those needing to flee torture and persecution.
Preventing someone from fleeing a country where they are at risk
of torture violates our international obligations and runs contrary
to Ministerial statements that the UK will protect those seeking
asylum from persecution. Preventing someone from fleeing an intermediate
country may violate that right if the intermediate country will
refoule them to a place where they face torture. It may
also violate their other rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention
if the level of protection in that country does not satisfy the
standards laid down in that Convention.
9. Meanwhile while steps are increasingly
taken that trap people in countries where their rights will be
violated, there is no indication that the movement of persons
is decreasing. All the methods of making flight more difficult
play into the hands of those who develop, for profit, a monopoly
on sophisticated operations to evade such controls (eg false documentation,
circuitous routes, networks of carriers, means of exploiting the
person once they reach their destination) which are then used
not only by those fleeing torture and persecution and seeking
asylum, but by other migrants including persons who do not come
to the attention of the authorities once they arrive whether by
claiming asylum or otherwise.
A NOTE ON
THE USE
OF X-RAY
SCANNERS
10. The Medical Foundation is concerned
that the health implications of the use of X-ray scanners should
be subject to careful investigation. Those operating the equipment
should be questioned as to the intensity of the rays used to do
this. The Committee should take independent expert evidence on
the effects of the stated doses of X-rays on anyone in the vehicle,
drivers and operators of the equipment.
11 April 2000
|
