/latest

Migranti, accordo Italia-Albania. Meloni: “Centri italiani nel loro Paese”. Il Pd: “Un pericoloso pasticcio”. Ue: “L’Italia rispetti il diritto comunitario”

Il premier Edi Rama ricevuto a Palazzo Chigi dove è stato siglato un protocollo d’intesa in materia di gestione dei flussi. Accoglieranno fino a 3mila persone, solo coloro che saranno salvati in mare. Protestano + Europa e Avs

La presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni ha ricevuto a Palazzo Chigi il primo ministro dell’Albania Edi Rama. «Sono contenta di annunciare con lui un protocollo d’intesa tra Italia e Albania in materia di gestione dei flussi migranti. L’Italia è il primo partner commerciale dell’Albania. C’è una strettissima collaborazione che già esiste nella lotta all’illegalità – dice Meloni durante le dichiarazioni congiunte con il collega albanese – L’accordo prevede di allestire due centri migranti in Albania che possano contenere fino 3mila persone. E arricchisce di un ulteriore tassello la collaborazione» tra i due Paesi e «quando ne abbiamo iniziato a discutere siamo partiti dall’idea che l’immigrazione illegale di massa è un fenomeno che nessuno Stato Ue può affrontare da solo e la collaborazione tra stati Ue e stati - per ora - è fondamentale».

Un accordo contro cui si scagliano le opposizioni e che il Pd definisce “un pericoloso pasticcio”. Mentre da Bruxelles un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos dice: «Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve ancora essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale».

L’incontro tra i due primi ministri è stata anche l’occasione per ribadire il sostegno dell’Italia all’ingresso di Tirana in Ue. "L’Albania si conferma una nazione amica e nonostante non sia ancora parte dell’Unione si comporta come se fosse un paese membro e questa è una delle ragioni per cui sono fiera che l’Italia sia da sempre uno dei paesi sostenitori dell’allargamento ai Balcani occidentali”. E ancora. «L’Ue non è un club. Quindi, io non parlo di ingressi ma di riunificazione dei Balcani occidentali che sono Paesi Ue a tutti gli effetti», osserva Meloni. Che ricorda anche come l’Italia sia «il primo partner commerciale dell’Albania. Il nostro interscambio vale circa il 20% del Pil albanese. Ci sono intensi rapporti culturali e sociali. È una strettissima collaborazione che già esiste nella lotta all’illegalità. L’accordo di oggi arricchisce questa collaborazione con un ulteriore tassello», conclude la premier.
Le reazioni

Se la destra plaude all’intesa tra l’Italia e l’Albania, le opposizioni insorgono. «L’accordo che il governo Meloni ha raggiunto con il governo albanese sembra configurarsi come un pericoloso pasticcio, parecchio ambiguo. Se infatti si è, come sembra, di fronte a richiedenti asilo, appare assolutamente inimmaginabile compiere con personale italiano e senza esborso di risorse, come annunciato, le procedure di verifica delle domande d’asilo», attacca Pierfrancesco Majorino, responsabile Politiche migratorie della segreteria nazionale del Pd. “Praticamente si crea una sorta di Guantanamo italiana, al di fuori di ogni standard internazionale, al di fuori dell’Ue senza che possa esserci la possibilita’ di controllare lo stato di detenzione delle persone rinchiuse in questi centri"., protesta Riccardo Magi, segretario di Più Europa. E Angelo Bonelli di Alleanza Verdi e Sinisra aggiunge: Quello che il governo ha definito come un ’importantissimo protocollo di intesa’ non è altro che una politica di respingimento mascherata da cooperazione internazionale. Il governo italiano –prosegue - sta delegando la gestione dei migranti irregolari, di fatto esternalizzando le proprie responsabilità, con il rischio di creare campi di permanenza che potrebbero non assicurare standard adeguati di accoglienza e rispetto per la dignità umana".

Ma il ministro degli Esteri Antonio Tajani replica: «L’accordo rafforza il nostro ruolo da protagonista in Europa ed apre nuove strade di collaborazione nell’Adriatico. Contrasto all’immigrazione irregolare e bloccare la tratta di esseri umani. Queste le priorita’ della nostra politica estera».
Il protocollo d’intesa

Il protocollo d’intesa tra Italia e Albania in materia di gestione dei flussi migratori siglato oggi, secondo quanto si apprende da fonti di palazzo Chigi, non si applica agli immigrati che giungono sulle coste e sul territorio italiani ma a quelli salvati in mare, fatta eccezione per minori, donne in gravidanza e soggetti vulnerabili. Le strutture realizzate, viene spiegato, potranno accogliere complessivamente fino a 3mila immigrati, per una previsione di 39mila persone accolte in un anno. L’accordo si pone un obiettivo di dissuasione rispetto alle partenze e di deterrenza rispetto al traffico di esseri umani.

La giurisdizione dei due centri per migranti in Albania sarà italiana, spiega ancora Palazzo Chigi. I migranti, viene precisato, sbarcheranno a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un centro di prima accoglienza e screening; a Gjader realizzerà una struttura modello Cpr per le successive procedure. L’Albania collaborerà con le sue forze di polizia per la sicurezza e sorveglianza. L’Albania, sottolinea ancora Palazzo Chigi, già vede un’importante presenza di forze dell’Ordine e magistrati italiani.
Rama: “Se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è”

“Se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è – risponde Rama – Non sta a noi giudicare il merito politico di decisioni prese in questo luogo e altre istituzioni, a noi sta rispondere ’Presente’ quando si tratta di dare una mano. Questa volta significa aiutare a gestire con un pizzico di respiro in più una situazione e difficile per l’Italia". «La geografia è diventata una maledizione per l’Italia, quando si entra in Italia si entra in Ue – spiega il premier Albanese – Noi non abbiamo la forza e la capacità di essere la soluzione ma abbiamo un dovere verso l’Italia e la capacità di dare una mano. L’Albania non fa parte dell’Unione ma è uno Stato europeo, ci manca la U davanti ma ciò non ci impedisce di essere e vedere il mondo come europei».

▻https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2023/11/06/news/migranti_meloni_accordo_albania_edi_rama-419723671

#Gjader #Shengjin #débarquement #identification #screening #premier_accueil #CPR

Migrants, accord Italie-Albanie. Meloni : « Des centres italiens dans leur pays ». Adhésion de Tirana à l’UE : « Nous l’avons toujours soutenue »

Le Premier ministre Giorgia Meloni a reçu le Premier ministre de l’Albanie au Palazzo Chigi Edi Rama. “Je suis heureux d’annoncer avec lui un mémorandum d’accord entre l’Italie et l’Albanie sur la gestion des flux migratoires. L’Italie est le premier partenaire commercial de l’Albanie. Il existe déjà une collaboration très étroite dans la lutte contre l’illégalité – a déclaré Meloni lors de la réunion conjointe déclarations avec son collègue albanais – L’accord prévoit la création de centres de migrants en Albanie pouvant accueillir jusqu’à 3 mille personnes. Et il enrichit la collaboration « entre les deux pays avec une étape supplémentaire » et « lorsque nous avons commencé à en discuter, nous sommes partis du l’idée que l’immigration clandestine de masse est un phénomène auquel aucun État de l’UE ne peut lutter seul et que la collaboration entre les États de l’UE est – pour l’instant – fondamentale”.

La rencontre entre les deux premiers ministres a également été l’occasion de réitérer le soutien de l’Italie à l’entrée de Tirana dans l’UE. “L’Albanie se confirme comme une nation amie et même si elle ne fait pas encore partie de l’Union, elle se comporte comme si elle en était un pays membre et c’est une des raisons pour laquelle je suis fier que l’Italie ait toujours été l’un des pays qui soutiennent l’élargissement. aux Balkans occidentaux”. Et encore. “L’UE n’est pas un club. Je ne parle donc pas d’entrées, mais de la réunification des Balkans occidentaux, qui sont à tous égards des pays de l’UE”, observe encore Meloni. Il rappelle également que l’Italie est “le premier partenaire commercial de l’Albanie. Nos échanges commerciaux représentent environ 20 % du PIB albanais. Il existe des relations culturelles et sociales intenses. C’est une collaboration très étroite qui existe déjà dans la lutte contre l’illégalité. L’accord d’aujourd’hui enrichit cette collaboration d’une étape supplémentaire”, conclut le Premier ministre.

Le protocole d’accord entre l’Italie et l’Albanie sur la gestion des flux migratoires signé aujourd’hui, selon ce que l’on apprend de sources au Palazzo Chigi, ne s’applique pas aux immigrants arrivant sur les côtes et le territoire italiens mais à ceux secourus en mer, à l’exception de les mineurs, les femmes enceintes et les sujets vulnérables. Les structures créées, explique-t-on, pourront accueillir au total jusqu’à 3 mille immigrants, pour une prévision de 39 mille personnes accueillies par an. L’accord vise à dissuader les départs et à décourager la traite des êtres humains.

« Si l’Italie appelle l’Albanie, elle est là – répond Rama – Ce n’est pas à nous de juger du mérite politique des décisions prises dans ce lieu et dans d’autres institutions, c’est à nous de répondre ‘Présent’ lorsqu’il s’agit de prêter un main. Cette fois, il s’agit d’aider à gérer une situation difficile pour l’Italie avec un peu plus de répit.” “La géographie est devenue une malédiction pour l’Italie, quand vous entrez en Italie, vous entrez dans l’UE – explique le Premier ministre Albanese – Nous n’avons pas la force et Nous avons la capacité d’être la solution, mais nous avons un devoir envers l’Italie et la capacité de lui donner un coup de main. L’Albanie ne fait pas partie de l’Union mais c’est un Etat européen, il nous manque le U devant mais cela ne nous empêche pas d’être et de voir le monde en Européens”.

▻https://fr.italy24.press/local/1061085.html

Migrants: two structures to manage illegal flows, this is what the Italy-Albania #memorandum_of_understanding provides

Two structures in Albanian territory under Italian jurisdiction which will serve to manage illegal migratory flows. This is the fulcrum of the memorandum of understanding signed today by Italy and Albania and announced by the Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the counterpart Edi Rama. Rama’s “surprise” visit was not officially announced until this morning when a brief note from Palazzo Chigi announced that the two heads of government would meet in the afternoon and that they would subsequently make statements to the press. The discretion of the two governments prevailed and, consequently, also the surprise effect at the time of the announcement. “It is an agreement that enriches the friendship between the two nations,” said Meloni at the time of the announcement, subsequently explaining the details of the agreement which focuses on three primary objectives: combating human trafficking, preventing it and welcoming who has the right to protection. “Albania will grant some areas of the territory”, where Italy will be able to create “two structures” for the management of illegal migrants: “they will initially be able to accommodate up to three thousand people who will remain here for the time necessary to process asylum applications and , possibly, for the purposes of repatriation", said Meloni, specifying that the agreement does not concern minors, pregnant women and vulnerable subjects.

The prime minister also provided details on the areas which will host the two structures which, hopefully, will be ready by spring 2024. “In the port of Shengjin (the seaport located north of Albania) disembarkation and identification procedures will be taken care of, while in another more internal area another structure based on the Repatriation Retention Centers model will be created (Cpr)”, explained Meloni, adding that the Albanian police forces will cooperate to guarantee “the security and external surveillance of the structures”. According to Meloni, the agreement signed today is a further step in the close bilateral cooperation. “Mass illegal immigration is a phenomenon that EU member states cannot face alone and cooperation between EU states and, for now, non-EU states can be decisive,” said the Prime Minister, according to whom Albania confirms itself as a friend not only of Italy but also of the European Union. “Despite not yet being formally part of the EU, Albania is a candidate country but behaves as if it were already a de facto member country of the Union and this is one of the reasons why I am proud of the fact that Italy is has always been one of the greatest supporters of the entry of Albania and the Western Balkans into the Union", added Meloni, who defined the memorandum of understanding “an innovative solution” in the hope that “it can become the model for other agreements of this type”.

Speaking at the end of Meloni’s statements, Prime Minister Rama – underlining that the idea for the agreement was born during the Prime Minister’s summer holiday in Vlore – he immediately wanted to point out that “when Italy calls, Albania is there”. “Albania is not an EU state, but it is in Europe. It is a European state, and this does not prevent us from seeing the world as Europeans,” said Rama. “We would not have made this agreement with any other EU state. There is an important relationship of a historical, cultural, but also emotional nature, which links Albania with Italy", continued the prime minister. “We can lend a hand and help manage a situation which, as everyone sees, is difficult for Italy. When you enter Italy, you enter Europe, the EU, but when it comes to managing this entry as an EU we know well how things go,” said Rama. “We don’t have the strength to be a solution, but I believe we have a duty towards Italy and a certain ability to lend a hand”, added Rama who then recalled how his country can boast a tradition of hospitality, which began by the thousands of Italians protected after the Second World War. “We have a history of hospitality”, Rama underlined, recalling that Albania welcomed more than half a million war refugees and those fleeing to survive the ethnic cleansing from Kosovo. “We also gave refuge to thousands of Afghan women when NATO abandoned Afghanistan, and to a few thousand Iranians,” added the Albanian prime minister.

▻https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/migrants-two-structures-to-manage-illegal-flows%2C-this-is-what-the-Ita
#MoU

Migranti: Un #Protocollo_d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali

Con l’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del govern si apprende che Giorgia Meloni avrebbe concluso con il premier albanese Edi Rama un Memorandum d’intesa , che prevede – la realizzazione in Albania di due centri per il rimpatrio, che dovrebbero ospitare ogni mese fino a 3000 persone definite “irregolari”, ma solo se soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza. Più precisamente, “l’Albania darà possibilità all’Italia di utilizzare alcune aree del territorio albanese dove l’Italia potrà realizzare, a proprie spese, due strutture dove allestire centri per la gestione di migranti illegali. Inizialmente potrà accogliere fino a 3mila persone che rimarranno il tempo necessario per espletare le procedure delle domande di asilo ed eventualmente rimpatrio”. I naufraghi saranno sbarcati a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un “centro di prima accoglienza e screening” a Gjader, che di fatto sarà una “struttura modello Cpr” per le successive procedure. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare in 28-30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per detenere coloro che si vedranno respinta la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “Dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.

Secondo quanto annunciato dalle stesse fonti governative in un anno si penserebbe addirittura di fare transitare in queste nuove strutture detentive, che dovrebbero essere sotto giurisdizione italiana, ma con “sorveglianza esterna” affidata alle autorità albanesi, circa 36.000 persone. Nulla è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, nè su quali autorità efettueranno i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?

La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi, al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che si asserisce sarebbero “sotto giurisdizione italiana” potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegno alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi socorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici). In quell’occasione la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “Chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama.

Un progetto impraticabile e privo di basi legali, quanto previsto dal Memorandum sottoscritto dalla Meloni con il premier albanese, alla luce dei tempi previsti per le procedure nei centri di detenzione, e soprattutto a causa delle difficoltà di esecuzione delle misure di allontanamento forzato da tutti i paesi europei, anche per la mancanza di accordi di riammissione tra l’Albania e molti paesi di origine dei naufraghi che, dopo essere soccorsi in mare, dovranno affrontare in stato di detenzione procedure”accelerate” per il riconoscimento di uno status di protezione, ed una possibile deportazione. Senza potere fare valere i diritti di difesa e le garanzie della libertà personale previsti dalla Costituzione italiana (a partire dal’art.13 che impone la tempestiva convalida da parte di un giudice di ogni misura di trattenimento amministrativo attuata sotto la giurisdizione italiana) e dalle norme sovranazionali dettate dalle Nazioni Unite a protezione dei richiedenti asilo, e dall’Unione Europea in materia di rimpatri e procedure per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale. E poi, se pensiamo ai migranti soccorsi intercettati nel mare Ionio, ma anche a quelli provenienti dalla Libia o dalla Tunisia, quanti di loro provengono da paesi terzi veramente “sicuri” ? Il governo italiano non può creare una evidente disparità di trattamento tra persone soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi civili e altre soccorse da navi militari, che per questa sola ragione verrebbero esposte a procedure accelerate in territorio extra-UE, a differenza di quelle sbarcate in Italia,soprattutto se si tratta di persone che non provengono da paesi terzi sicuri, per cui in Italia si prevedono procedure ordinarie e sistemi di prima e seconda accoglienza.

Non si comprende neppure quali saranno i criteri per “selezionare” i naufraghi soccorsi nel Mediterraneo dalle navi militari italiane, e se queste attività di “trasporto” verso l’Albania riguarderanno anche le navi italiane impegnate nell’operazione europea Eunavfor Med- IRINI, ammesso che svolgano qualche volta attività di salvatagio. Soprattutto non si comprende come le navi militari italiane possano fare fronte, dopo soccorsi di massa in axque internazionali, al trasporto di centinaia di persone verso l’Albania, che rimane alquanto decentrata rispetto alle rotte migratorie che attraversano il Mediterraneo centrale dal nord-africa. Forse si vorranno imporre giorni e giorni di navigazione su imbarcazioni poco adatte al trasporto di naufraghi, o si risoverà tutto nel’ennesimo effetto annuncio ?

Come è avvenuto anche in passato, il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi. Ma colpisce immediatamente la portata disumanizzante dell’accordo, se solo si mette in evidenza l’uso pregiudiziale del termine “irregolari”, quando non addirittura “illegali”, per indicare tutte le persone soccorse in mare da navi militari italiane e condotte in Albania, ad eccezione di donne in gravidanza, persone vulnerabili e minori. In palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio, e comunque riconoscono a tutte le persone, senza differenze a seconda della natura e della nazionalità della nave soccorriitrice, il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo, Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera. Ma per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, e la caduta di qualsiasi ipotesi di collaborazione con i paesi africani, il Piano Mattei per l’Africa, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee.

Per il ministro per gli affari europei Raffaele Fitto, il Memorandum sarebbe “in linea con la priorità accordata alla dimensione esterna della migrazione e con i dieci punti del piano della presidente della Commissione von der Leyen”. Da Bruxelles, un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos ha invece affermato: “Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale“. Non si vede come la Commissione europea possa dare sostegno a questo Memorandum d’intesa, anche se l’approssimarsi della scadenza delle elezioni europee potrebbe fare schierare opportunisticamente alcuni leader nazionali(sti) o pezzi della Commisione UE a fianco di Giorgia Meloni. Il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali del’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione dela libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. In ogni caso le attività degli assetti militari in mare, con riferimento al soccorso dei naufraghi ed al contrasto dell’immigrazione irregolare, non possono prescindere dagli obblighi imposti dal Regolamento europeo n.656 del 2014. O, forse, le operazioni di ricerca e soccorso si trasformeranno in attività di intercettazione ed “manovre cinematiche di interposizione”, come quelle condotte poste in essere nel 1997 dal comandante di Nave Sibilla, dopo gli accordi di Prodi con il governo albanese di allora, quando la nave militare italiana, nel tentativo di attuare un maldestro blocco navale, speronava un barcone carico di migranti provenienti dall’Albania, mandandolo a fondo? Ci saranno altri casi simili sotto esame da parte dei Tribunali penali italiani?

La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respjgimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana” ?

Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea.

▻https://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/migranti-un-protocollo-dintesa-lalbania-opaco-disumano-pri

Naufraghi e richiedenti protezione. In collisione con i diritti

È sbagliato evocare Guantanamo e la detenzione extraterritoriale dei sospetti terroristi negli Usa, ma di certo l’accordo a sorpresa tra Italia e Albania per l’accoglienza di una parte delle persone tratte in salvo dal mare è destinato a far discutere. Il governo Meloni aveva bisogno di riprendere l’iniziativa su un dossier identitario come quello della politica dell’asilo, i cui risultati sono finora rimasti lontani dalle promesse elettorali, e ha servito all’opinione pubblica una soluzione che può presentare come “innovativa”. Ma l’innovazione può entrare in collisione con i diritti sanciti dalla Costituzione italiana e dai trattati europei e internazionali.

Anzitutto, il patto Meloni-Rama ha un sottofondo post-coloniale, come l’accordo britannico con il Ruanda a cui sembra ispirarsi: un Paese del “Primo mondo”, forte delle sue risorse politiche ed economiche, dirotta su un Paese meno fortunato e più bisognoso di appoggi l’onere di accogliere sul suo territorio i migranti sgraditi. Si immagina paradossalmente che Paesi con meno risorse e istituzioni più fragili possano ricevere degnamente i profughi che da noi sono visti come un problema. Infatti, quasi tradendo il sottotesto punitivo dell’accordo, si prevede che vengano esentati dal trasferimento in Albania donne in gravidanza, minori, soggetti vulnerabili. E il governo non ha esitato a parlare di una misura finalizzata alla deterrenza nei confronti di quelli che si ostina a definire come immigrati illegali, al pari del modello britannico.

In realtà nel 2022 il 48% dei richiedenti l’asilo ha ottenuto uno status legale in prima istanza, e ad essi si aggiunge il 72% di coloro che hanno presentato un ricorso giurisdizionale. Dunque, rischiamo di mandare in Albania delle persone che hanno diritto all’asilo. Proprio l’esempio britannico mostra che le corti di giustizia, nazionali ed europee, l’hanno finora bloccato, e la capacità di reggere al vaglio della magistratura sarà un arduo banco di prova dell’accordo.

Qualcosa non quadra poi riguardo ai numeri: si prevede di realizzare due strutture sul territorio albanese, una per l’identificazione allo sbarco, l’altra per l’accoglienza temporanea, con una capacità di 3.000 posti complessivi, e si prevede di trattare complessivamente 36-39.000 profughi all’anno. Si lascia intendere che basteranno quattro settimane per decidere della loro domanda di asilo, mentre oggi il tempo medio è di circa 18 mesi, senza contare la possibilità di ricorso. È probabile che i profughi languiranno a lungo in Albania e che i numeri dei casi trattati rimarranno assai più bassi di quelli annunciati.

Ma i problemi più spinosi riguardano l’integrazione dei “deportati”. Se otterranno la protezione internazionale, averli lasciati in un Paese terzo non avrà di certo preparato la strada per la loro futura integrazione in Italia, sotto il profilo della possibilità di apprendere e praticare la lingua italiana, di conoscere la società in cui dovranno inserirsi, di orientarsi nel mercato del lavoro e nel sistema dei servizi. Se invece riceveranno un diniego, occorre chiedersi che ne sarà di loro. La bassissima capacità di rimpatrio forzato da parte delle nostre istituzioni (4.304 persone nel 2022), peraltro simili in questo agli altri Paesi europei, è un dato ormai noto. Se ne occuperanno le autorità albanesi? Con quale protezione dei loro diritti umani inalienabili, per esempio il diritto alle cure mediche necessarie e urgenti, o a non morire di fame?

La politica dell’immigrazione ci ha abituato da tempo a dichiarazioni enfatiche – basti ricordare i più volte annunciati accordi con la Tunisia – e presunte soluzioni che si rivelano inattuabili. Anche l’accordo Italia-Albania rischia ora di entrare nella serie. O meglio: se non sarà attuato, sarà l’ennesima pseudo-ricetta venduta all’opinione pubblica; se dovesse essere attuato, anche solo parzialmente, tratterà soltanto una minoranza dei casi e sferrerà comunque una picconata alla già traballante architettura giuridica dei diritti umani fondamentali.

▻https://www.avvenire.it/opinioni/pagine/in-collisione-con-i-diritti

Accord migratoire Italie-Albanie : l’#ONU appelle au respect du #droit_international

L’agence de l’ONU pour les réfugiés (HCR) a appelé mardi au « respect du droit international relatif aux réfugiés » après l’accord signé lundi entre l’Italie et l’Albanie visant à délocaliser dans ce pays l’accueil de migrants sauvés en mer et l’examen de leur demande d’asile.

« Les modalités de transfert des demandeurs d’asile et des réfugiés doivent respecter le droit international relatif aux réfugiés », a exhorté le HCR dans un communiqué publié à Genève.

L’accord signé lundi à Rome par la cheffe du gouvernement italien Giorgia Meloni et son homologue albanais Edi Rama prévoit que l’Italie va ouvrir dans ce pays, candidat à l’adhésion à l’UE, deux centres pour accueillir des migrants sauvés en mer afin de « mener rapidement les procédures de traitement des demandes d’asile ou les éventuels rapatriements ».

Ces deux centres gérés par l’Italie, opérationnels au printemps 2024, pourront accueillir jusqu’à 3.000 migrants, soit environ 39.000 par an selon les prévisions. Les mineurs, les femmes enceintes et les personnes vulnérables ne seraient pas concernés.

Le HCR, qui dit n’avoir « pas été informé ni consulté sur le contenu de l’accord », estime que « les retours ou les transferts vers des pays tiers sûrs ne peuvent être considérés comme appropriés que si certaines normes sont respectées - en particulier, que ces pays respectent pleinement les droits découlant de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés et les obligations en matière de droits de l’Homme, et si l’accord contribue à répartir équitablement la responsabilité des réfugiés entre les nations, plutôt que de la déplacer ».

Un membre du gouvernement italien a précisé mardi que les migrants seraient emmenés directement vers ces centres, sans passer par l’Italie, et que ces structures seraient placées sous l’autorité de Rome en vertu d’« un statut d’extraterritorialité ». Mais de nombreuses questions sur le fonctionnement d’un tel projet restent en suspens.

L’Italie est confrontée à un afflux de migrants depuis janvier (145.000 contre 88.000 en 2022 sur la même période). Les règles européennes prévoient que d’une manière générale, le premier pays d’entrée d’un migrant dans l’UE est responsable du traitement de sa demande d’asile, et les pays méditerranéens se plaignent de devoir assumer une charge disproportionnée.

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/071123/accord-migratoire-italie-albanie-l-onu-appelle-au-respect-du-droit-interna

Accordo Italia-Albania: un altro patto illegale, un altro tassello della propaganda del governo

#Fulvio_Vassallo_Paleologo: «Un protocollo opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali»

“Un’intesa storica”, “È un accordo che arricchisce un’amicizia storica”, “I nostri immigrati in Albania”, “Svolta sugli sbarchi”. E’ un tripudio di frasi altisonanti e di affermazioni risolutive quelle che hanno accompagnato in questi giorni la diffusione del protocollo d’intesa firmato da Meloni e dal primo ministro albanese, Edi Rama, per l’apertura in Albania di due centri italiani per la gestione dei richiedenti asilo. Strutture in cui dovranno essere trattenute persone migranti, ad esclusione di donne e minori, soccorse nel Mediterraneo centrale da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza.

Alcuni dettagli dell’operazione sono emersi da un testo (scarica qui) di nove pagine scarse e 14 articoli che indicano come funzioneranno e verranno gestiti i centri. L’accordo ha una durata di cinque anni e sarà rinnovato automaticamente a meno che una delle due parti non comunichi il proprio dissenso entro sei mesi dalla scadenza. In un anno dovrebbero essere accolte-trattenute circa 36.000 persone. I costi, dalle spese di detenzione alla sicurezza interna, saranno tutti in capo all’Italia, mentre l’Albania fornirà gratuitamente gli spazi in cui verranno costruiti i centri: uno al porto di Shengjin, circa 70 chilometri a nord di Tirana, e un altro a Gjader, nell’entroterra. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare entro 30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per trattenere coloro a cui verrà negata la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine oppure del probabile invio in Italia. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.
L’Italia dovrà farsi carico anche di tutte le spese legate alla costruzione dei centri che dovranno essere aperti per la primavera del 2024. Il Post riporta che il sito albanese Gogo.al ha indicato sommariamente dei costi iniziali (vedi il documento diffuso): “l’Italia verserà all’Albania entro 3 mesi un primo fondo pari a 16,5 milioni. Si prevede che oltre 100 milioni di euro saranno congelati in un conto bancario di secondo livello come garanzia”.

La presidente del Consiglio doveva battere un colpo, dare un messaggio al suo elettorato e alla maggioranza: il “problema immigrazione”, con gli sbarchi che non accennano a diminuire 1 e il flop dell’accordo con la Tunisia, è sempre una priorità della sua agenda politica, a tal punto che è lei stessa, senza coinvolgere nessun altro ministro, a intestarsi l’operazione e dichiarare il nuovo “punto di svolta”. E’ perciò evidente che questo protocollo si inserisce dentro il solco della narrazione mediatica e normativa, dal decreto Piantedosi sulle Ong, al cosiddetto decreto Cutro, fino alla proclamazione dello stato di emergenza dell’11 aprile e alle altre modifiche ai danni di minori e richiedenti asilo, dove vale tutto per raggiungere l’obiettivo dichiarato di ostacolare gli arrivi delle persone migranti.

Tuttavia, tutti questi tentativi, dall’esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure di asilo fino a portare fisicamente le persone in Paesi extra Ue, non sono una prerogativa solo del governo Meloni, ma hanno avuto in questi anni diversi promotori e, pur con delle differenze tra loro, una stessa matrice ideologica anti-migranti: per esempio, i respingimenti a catena dall’Italia alla Bosnia-Erzegovina, non hanno poi uno scopo così diverso dagli accordi tra Inghilterra e Ruanda.

Secondo l’avvocato Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo si tratta dell’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del governo in quanto il protocollo d’intesa è «opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali».

«Nulla infatti – fa notare l’esperto di diritto di asilo e immigrazione – è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, né su quali autorità effettuano i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?», si domanda.

Nel protocollo – si legge nel testo – le autorità italiane avranno piena responsabilità all’interno dei centri, mentre le autorità albanesi dovranno garantire la sicurezza all’esterno dei centri e durante il trasferimento dei migranti: potranno entrare nei centri solo «in caso di incendio o di altro grave e imminente pericolo che richiede un immediato intervento».

«La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi – spiega l’esperto – al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegnò alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici)».

«In quell’occasione – prosegue Paleologo – la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama».

Anche rispetto la procedura di cosiddetto “sbarco selettivo” tra donne, minori e uomini ci sono diversi problemi di legittimità giuridica in quanto si tratta di una palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. Anche su questo punto Paleologo è chiaro: «Il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale è regolato secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo. Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure se sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporrebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera».

Da Bruxelles, la Commissione UE non esclude del tutto la validità dell’accordo, affermando che il caso è diverso dall’accordo Regno Unito-Ruanda, in quanto si applicherebbe alle persone che non hanno ancora raggiunto le coste italiane. Sempre secondo l’avvocato Paleologo «il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione della libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio».

«La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respingimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana”? Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati.
Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea», conclude Paleologo.

►https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/accordo-italia-albania-un-altro-patto-illegale-un-altro-tassello-della-p

L’accordo Italia-Albania sui migranti? Solo propaganda!

Il nuovo memorandum d’intesa tra Italia e Albania sulla gestione dei migranti? Probabilmente solo un « ennesimo annuncio propagandistico » secondo Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo che firma su ADIF [1] un dettagliato articolo che analizza l’annuncio di Giogia Meloni ( non il provvedimento perché questo non esiste ).

In altre parole, « per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, il “Piano Mattei per l’Africa”, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee ».

Possibile che il giurista abbia ragione, ma è anche possibile che il fine sia creare terrore in chi in Italia è già; I CPR, ancor di più se in Albani, sono strumentali a schiavizzare i migranti.

L’avvocato e attivista pro migranti Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, nell’articolo solleva pure una serie di perplessità giuridiche del progetto della presidente del consiglio italiano di realizzare un CPR in Albania.

Una tra queste: « qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo [e quindi l’Italia, NdR] deve avere una espressa previsione di legge, e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa » [1].

Come possa assicurarsi, in Albania, la difesa legale del migrante e un procedimento di convalida firmato da un magistrato italiano rappresenta un grande punto interrogativo. « Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese? », scrive infatti il giurista nell’articolo.

Precisa poi Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo come « il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi ».

Il giudizio finale dell’autore rispetto all’annuncio della Meloni non può, quindi, che essere negativo e drastico: « appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio ».

Tagliente anche il giudizio rispetto alla firma del leader albanese, Edi Rama: « il Memorandum d’intesa rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità ».

La differenza tra la verità di Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo e la propaganda della Meloni, tuttavia, la fanno le “visualizzazioni” del sito ADIF rispetto a quelli di Repubblica, La Stampa, Libero, Il Giornale, La Verità, Il Gazzettino, etc dove l’effetto “annuncio” è passato senza commenti critici.
–
Fonti e Note:

[1] ADIF, 7 novembre 2023, Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, “Un Protocollo d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali”.

▻https://www.pressenza.com/it/2023/11/laccordo-italia-albania-sui-migranti-solo-propaganda

Un Protocollo d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali

Con l’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del govern si apprende che Giorgia Meloni avrebbe concluso con il premier albanese Edi Rama un Memorandum d’intesa , che prevede – la realizzazione in Albania di due centri per il rimpatrio, che dovrebbero ospitare ogni mese fino a 3000 persone definite “irregolari”, ma solo se soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza. Più precisamente, “l’Albania darà possibilità all’Italia di utilizzare alcune aree del territorio albanese dove l’Italia potrà realizzare, a proprie spese, due strutture dove allestire centri per la gestione di migranti illegali. Inizialmente potrà accogliere fino a 3mila persone che rimarranno il tempo necessario per espletare le procedure delle domande di asilo ed eventualmente rimpatrio”. I naufraghi saranno sbarcati a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un “centro di prima accoglienza e screening” a Gjader, che di fatto sarà una “struttura modello Cpr” per le successive procedure. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare in 28-30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per detenere coloro che si vedranno respinta la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “Dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.

Secondo quanto annunciato dalle stesse fonti governative in un anno si penserebbe addirittura di fare transitare in queste nuove strutture detentive, che dovrebbero essere sotto giurisdizione italiana, ma con “sorveglianza esterna” affidata alle autorità albanesi, circa 36.000 persone. Nulla è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, nè su quali autorità efettueranno i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?

La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi, al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che si asserisce sarebbero “sotto giurisdizione italiana” potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegno alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi socorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici). In quell’occasione la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “Chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama.

Un progetto impraticabile e privo di basi legali, quanto previsto dal Memorandum sottoscritto dalla Meloni con il premier albanese, alla luce dei tempi previsti per le procedure nei centri di detenzione, e soprattutto a causa delle difficoltà di esecuzione delle misure di allontanamento forzato da tutti i paesi europei, anche per la mancanza di accordi di riammissione tra l’Albania e molti paesi di origine dei naufraghi che, dopo essere soccorsi in mare, dovranno affrontare in stato di detenzione procedure”accelerate” per il riconoscimento di uno status di protezione, ed una possibile deportazione. Senza potere fare valere i diritti di difesa e le garanzie della libertà personale previsti dalla Costituzione italiana (a partire dal’art.13 che impone la tempestiva convalida da parte di un giudice di ogni misura di trattenimento amministrativo attuata sotto la giurisdizione italiana) e dalle norme sovranazionali dettate dalle Nazioni Unite a protezione dei richiedenti asilo, e dall’Unione Europea in materia di rimpatri e procedure per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale. E poi, se pensiamo ai migranti soccorsi intercettati nel mare Ionio, ma anche a quelli provenienti dalla Libia o dalla Tunisia, quanti di loro provengono da paesi terzi veramente “sicuri” ? Il governo italiano non può creare una evidente disparità di trattamento tra persone soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi civili e altre soccorse da navi militari, che per questa sola ragione verrebbero esposte a procedure accelerate in territorio extra-UE, a differenza di quelle sbarcate in Italia,soprattutto se si tratta di persone che non provengono da paesi terzi sicuri, per cui in Italia si prevedono procedure ordinarie e sistemi di prima e seconda accoglienza.

Non si comprende neppure quali saranno i criteri per “selezionare” i naufraghi soccorsi nel Mediterraneo dalle navi militari italiane, e se queste attività di “trasporto” verso l’Albania riguarderanno anche le navi italiane impegnate nell’operazione europea Eunavfor Med- IRINI, ammesso che svolgano qualche volta attività di salvatagio. Soprattutto non si comprende come le navi militari italiane possano fare fronte, dopo soccorsi di massa in axque internazionali, al trasporto di centinaia di persone verso l’Albania, che rimane alquanto decentrata rispetto alle rotte migratorie che attraversano il Mediterraneo centrale dal nord-africa. Forse si vorranno imporre giorni e giorni di navigazione su imbarcazioni poco adatte al trasporto di naufraghi, o si risoverà tutto nel’ennesimo effetto annuncio ?

Come è avvenuto anche in passato, il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi. Ma colpisce immediatamente la portata disumanizzante dell’accordo, se solo si mette in evidenza l’uso pregiudiziale del termine “irregolari”, quando non addirittura “illegali”, per indicare tutte le persone soccorse in mare da navi militari italiane e condotte in Albania, ad eccezione di donne in gravidanza, persone vulnerabili e minori. In palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio, e comunque riconoscono a tutte le persone, senza differenze a seconda della natura e della nazionalità della nave soccorriitrice, il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo, Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera. Ma per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, e la caduta di qualsiasi ipotesi di collaborazione con i paesi africani, il Piano Mattei per l’Africa, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee.

Per il ministro per gli affari europei Raffaele Fitto, il Memorandum sarebbe “in linea con la priorità accordata alla dimensione esterna della migrazione e con i dieci punti del piano della presidente della Commissione von der Leyen”. Da Bruxelles, un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos ha invece affermato: “Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale“. Non si vede come la Commissione europea possa dare sostegno a questo Memorandum d’intesa, anche se l’approssimarsi della scadenza delle elezioni europee potrebbe fare schierare opportunisticamente alcuni leader nazionali(sti) o pezzi della Commisione UE a fianco di Giorgia Meloni. Il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali del’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione dela libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. In ogni caso le attività degli assetti militari in mare, con riferimento al soccorso dei naufraghi ed al contrasto dell’immigrazione irregolare, non possono prescindere dagli obblighi imposti dal Regolamento europeo n.656 del 2014. O, forse, le operazioni di ricerca e soccorso si trasformeranno in attività di intercettazione ed “manovre cinematiche di interposizione”, come quelle condotte poste in essere nel 1997 dal comandante di Nave Sibilla, dopo gli accordi di Prodi con il governo albanese di allora, quando la nave militare italiana, nel tentativo di attuare un maldestro blocco navale, speronava un barcone carico di migranti provenienti dall’Albania, mandandolo a fondo? Ci saranno altri casi simili sotto esame da parte dei Tribunali penali italiani?

La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respjgimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana” ?

Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea.

▻https://www.a-dif.org/2023/11/07/un-protocollo-dintesa-con-lalbania-opaco-disumano-e-privo-di-basi-legali

Accordo Italia-Albania sui migranti, la UE chiede i dettagli

L’Italia realizzerà in Albania due centri per la gestione dei migranti che potranno gestire un flusso annuale di 36mila persone. Lo ha dichiarato oggi la premier Giorgia Meloni in conferenza stampa con il primo ministro albanese Edi Rama. Ne parliamo con Genthiola Madhi, ricercatrice di Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, e con Andrea Spagnolo, professore di Diritto internazionale e umanitario all’Università di Torino.

▻https://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/programmi/luogo-lontano/puntata/trasmissione-7-novembre-2023-160500-2404283315532563

Ecco perché l’accordo tra Italia e Albania è illegale: tutte le procedure che violano il diritto europeo

Rappresenta il punto più estremo dell’esternalizzazione delle frontiere e del diritto di asilo. Le tutele per le persone bisognose di protezione, invece che garantite, vengono ridotte al minimo.

Il Protocollo stipulato tra Italia ed Albania “per il rafforzamento della cooperazione in materia migratoria” è il punto finora più estremo (ma, come si vedrà, anche incoerente) a cui l’Italia è giunta nel processo di esternalizzazione delle frontiere e del diritto di asilo.

Trattandosi di un’intesa avente una chiara natura politica, che richiede oneri finanziari, e che altresì riguarda la condizione giuridica degli stranieri, quindi una materia coperta dalla riserva di legge di cui all’art. 10 co.2 della Costituzione, il Protocollo e i suoi atti attuativi devono essere ratificati dal Parlamento ai sensi dell’art. 80 della Costituzione. Prive di alcun pregio mi sembrano le argomentazioni di chi ritiene che non occorre alcuna ratifica trattandosi di una sorta rinforzo ad accordi pre-esistenti.

Scopo del Protocollo è quello di trasportare coattivamente in Albania cittadini di paesi terzi per “i quali deve essere accertata la sussistenza o è stata accertata l’insussistenza dei requisiti per l’ingresso, il soggiorno o la residenza” (art.1) in Italia. In Albania, in “aree di proprietà demaniale” (art.1) albanesi, quindi in territorio albanese a tutti gli effetti, nel quale i migranti rimarrebbero confinati “al solo fine di effettuare le procedure di frontiera o di rimpatrio previste dalla normativa italiana ed europea e per il tempo strettamente necessario alle stesse” (art.4.3).

Il testo non esclude che l’ingresso in Albania avvenga anche in via diversa da quella marittima, quindi riguardi anche persone straniere bloccate sulle vie terrestri, magari nei Balcani, purché tale trasporto avvenga “esclusivamente con i mezzi delle competenti autorità italiane” (art. 4.4). Le autorità italiane assicurano “la permanenza dei migranti all’interno delle aree impedendo la loro uscita non autorizzata” (art. 6.5) e il periodo di permanenza in Albania “non può essere superiore al periodo massimo di trattenimento consentito dalla normativa italiana” (art. 9.1).

Al termine delle procedure le autorità italiane “provvedono all’allontanamento dei migranti dal territorio albanese” (art. 9) ovvero al rientro in Italia. Molta enfasi è stata posta sul fatto che l’accordo sia finalizzato al trasferimento forzato in Albania dei soccorsi in mare al fine di esaminare le domande di asilo dei naufraghi; tuttavia nel protocollo non c’è alcun riferimento alla procedura di asilo né alla protezione internazionale e le uniche parole che richiamano l’asilo riguardano il rinvio a non meglio definite procedure di frontiera.

Obiettivo non secondario del protocollo, risulterebbe dunque essere l’utilizzo del territorio albanese per farvi dei centri di detenzione amministrativa per stranieri espulsi dall’Italia, ma che verrebbero trattenuti in Albania al fine di eseguire coattivamente il rimpatrio nel paese di origine. Nonostante il ministro Piantedosi si affanni a dichiarare che non si tratterà di CPR (Centri per il Rimpatrio) il testo del Protocollo dice diversamente.

Emerge dunque evidente il rischio che l’operazione intenda nascondere una strategia per realizzare CPR inaccessibili, lontani da sguardi indiscreti e da inchieste giornalistiche, liberandosi dell’incubo di dover trovare un luogo dove aprirli in Italia, dove nessun amministratore, di qualsiasi colore politico li vuole. Esaminiamo ora l’ipotesi che il Protocollo venga applicato principalmente a persone soccorse in mare che verrebbero portate in Albania al solo scopo di detenerle e di esaminare le loro domande di asilo.

Nel testo del protocollo si fa riferimento esplicito all’espletamento delle procedure di frontiera previste dal diritto italiano ed europeo. Prima ancora di verificare se gli standard e le garanzie previste dal diritto dell’Unione possano essere rispettate, ciò che bisogna chiedersi è se sia possibile esaminare le domande di asilo presentate da coloro che vengono deportati dal territorio italiano in cui si trovano (le navi ed altri mezzi delle autorità italiane) nel territorio albanese.

La risposta non può che essere negativa, dal momento che il diritto dell’Unione sull’asilo (o protezione internazionale) si applica nel territorio degli Stati membri, alle frontiere, nelle zone di transito e nelle acque territoriali. Non si applica al di fuori dell’Unione. Un’applicazione extra-territoriale del diritto dell’UE non pare possibile, come del tutto correttamente messo in luce anche dal documento “Preliminary Comments on the Italy-Albania Deal” pubblicato il 9.11.23 dall’autorevole E.C.R.E. (European Council on Refugees and Exiles).

Analogo ragionamento vale anche per ciò che attiene l’ipotesi di usare i centri per l’esecuzione del trattenimento degli stranieri espulsi regolato dal diritto dell’Unione con la Direttiva 115/2008/CE. Anche in tal caso non ne risulta possibile alcuna applicazione extra territoriale al di fuori del territorio degli stati membri dell’Unione.

Va sempre considerato che non ci troviamo di fronte alla questione di come consentire l’accesso alla procedura di asilo da parte di uno straniero che si trova all’estero, e di come si possa esaminare, almeno in fase preliminare, la sua domanda di asilo al fine di consentire un suo successivo ingresso nel territorio di uno stato membro: in altri termini, di come creare delle procedure di ingresso protette a persone con un chiaro bisogno di protezione.

All’esatto opposto, il protocollo tra Italia e Albania configura una situazione nella quale persone che sono già sotto la giurisdizione italiana, per essere stati soccorsi e trasportati da navi dello Stato, vengono subito dopo tradotte in un paese terzo al solo scopo di impedirne l’ingresso nel territorio nazionale e predeterminare delle condizioni di esame delle domande di asilo con garanzie procedurali ridotte al minimo.

Ammettiamo ora, come mero esercizio, che si possa sostenere che il diritto dell’Unione sia applicabile all’esame delle domande di asilo in Albania ed esaminiamo le principali questioni che si aprono: la consegna dei migranti dalle mani delle autorità italiane a quelle albanesi, allo sbarco e fino all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che, nonostante l’asserita giurisdizione italiana, si trovano in territorio albanese, potrebbe configurare un respingimento collettivo vietato dal diritto dell’Unione Europea. Per i respingimenti collettivi attuati con la Libia nel 2009 l’Italia è stata condannata dalla Corte Europea dei diritti umani il 23.02.2013 nella causa Hirsi Jamaa.

Nessuna valutazione sulla condizione delle persone salvate in mare può essere condotta a bordo delle navi italiane, e dunque ogni procedura giuridica dovrebbe iniziare in territorio albanese all’interno di centri sotto la giurisdizione italiana (ma anche albanese). La restrizione della libertà personale di coloro che vi verrebbero rinchiusi, per essere conforme all’art. 13 Costituzione, va convalidato dall’autorità giudiziaria con un esame caso per caso a seguito del quale il provvedimento di trattenimento viene convalidato o meno.

Come garantire dentro il microcosmo del campo a gestione italiana il corretto funzionamento della procedura, tra cui ovviamente il diritto del richiedente che si intende trattenere di essere assistito da un legale italiano di fiducia? In ogni caso deve essere esclusa la possibilità di un trattenimento generalizzato di tutti i richiedenti asilo perché tassativamente vietato dal diritto dell’Unione che vieta agli Stati di applicare misure di limitazione della libertà personale nei confronti dei richiedenti asilo “per il solo fatto di essere un richiedente” (Direttiva 2013/33/UE articolo 7 paragrafo 1).

Come noto, il diritto dell’Unione prevede che il trattenimento venga disposto solo in casi molto limitati e “salvo se non siano applicabili efficacemente misure alternative meno coercitive” (articolo 8, paragrafo 2), misure che comunque in Albania non sarebbero mai praticabili.

La larga maggioranza dei richiedenti asilo, sicuramente tutte le situazioni vulnerabili e i minori, ma anche tutti coloro cui non sarebbe applicabile la procedura accelerata di frontiera, non potrebbero dunque in nessun caso essere trattenuti, ma poiché non possono neppure rimanere in Albania al di fuori dal centro, dovrebbero essere trasportati in Italia immediatamente per continuare l’accoglienza e l’esame ordinario della loro domanda di asilo sul territorio nazionale.

Nei confronti di coloro che rimarrebbero rinchiusi nei centri in Albania va garantito senza eccezioni l’esercizio dei diritti fondamentali, tra cui il diritto di ricevere “le informazioni sulla procedura con riguardo alla situazione particolare del richiedente” nonché di comunicare con “organizzazioni che prestino assistenza legale o altra consulenza ai richiedenti” (Direttiva 2013/32/UE art. 19).

In caso di diniego il richiedente deve poter pienamente esercitare il suo diritto alla difesa, costituzionalmente garantito (Cost. articolo 24) e ha diritto ad un “ricorso effettivo” (Direttiva 2013/32/UE art. 46 par.1) che per essere tale deve garantire alla persona la libertà di consultare un legale e di sceglierlo.

Nell’ambito delle procedure accelerate di frontiera il giudice mantiene la possibilità di concedere la sospensiva nelle more della decisione di merito ovvero “autorizzare o meno la permanenza del richiedente nel territorio dello Stato membro” (art.46 par.6 lettera d). Ma, in caso di autorizzazione il richiedente non si trova affatto sul territorio dello Stato membro (!) bensì in Albania, il che comporta l’immediato trasferimento in Italia del richiedente da parte delle autorità italiane e la prosecuzione dell’iter della domanda in Italia.

Il Protocollo appare dunque un incredibile coacervo di procedure radicalmente illegittime rispetto al diritto dell’Unione vigente e che comunque non potrebbero essere applicate in modo razionale e rispettoso di garanzie procedurali e di tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli stranieri coinvolti, sia che si tratti di naufraghi prima e richiedenti asilo poi, che di stranieri espulsi e poi trattenuti in Albania.

▻https://www.unita.it/2023/11/10/ecco-perche-laccordo-tra-italia-e-albania-e-illegale-tutte-le-procedure-che-vi

Ancora lui, ancora Edi

Periodicamente il primo ministro albanese si occupa dei flussi migratori italiani. Ripassare quali siano le sue motivazioni è utile, anche perché questa volta, forse, ha esagerato. Un commento

Edi Rama governa l’Albania da più di dieci anni. Le prime elezioni le vinse nel 2013, pochi mesi dopo il “siamo arrivati primi ma non abbiamo vinto” di Pierluigi Bersani. Da noi la sinistra pareggiava con un Berlusconi terminale; sull’altra sponda dell’Adriatico, invece, Edi l’artista, Edi il socialista, l’ex sindaco di Tirana che aveva colorato i palazzi, archiviava per sempre la stagione di Sali Berisha. Voltava pagina. “Come sono avanti questi albanesi”, è il qualunquismo mezzo di sinistra e mezzo di disprezzo che da allora dedichiamo ai nostri vicini. E su questa carenza di conoscenza, da più di un decennio, periodicamente, Edi Rama lucra politica. Non lo vediamo perché per vederlo bisogna considerare l’Albania uno stato. E invece per noi l’Albania è un luogo dell’immaginario, e i sogni non sono portatori di interessi. Non lo vediamo, perché la fiction italo-albanese è utile a mascherare la povertà della nostra politica estera.

L’ultimo gioco di prestigio Rama lo ha regalato lunedì scorso a Palazzo Chigi, questa volta il complice non è stato l’«amico Renzi» (2014), né l’«amico Di Maio» (2021), siccome siamo nel 2023 è stata «l’amica Giorgia Meloni». Non sono certo che commentare il memorandum (▻https://www.ilpost.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/08/1699429572-Protocollo-Italia-Albania-.pdf?x19465) firmato dai due governi sia utile, non solo perché è evidentemente poco praticabile sul piano pratico e giuridico, ma perché seguo da diversi anni le relazioni tra Italia e Albania e non credo più alle parole che si dicono le due diplomazie. A chi non avesse seguito, basti sapere che nel corso della conferenza stampa (▻https://www.governo.it/it/articolo/il-presidente-meloni-incontra-il-primo-ministro-della-repubblica-d-albania/24178), la Presidente del Consiglio ha dichiarato che l’Albania “concederà all’Italia alcune zone del suo territorio” (sic!), sulle quali l’Italia potrà realizzare “a proprie spese e sotto la propria giurisdizione” due strutture “per la gestione dei migranti illegali”. Per l’esattezza il governo ipotizza di portare in Albania tremila persone al mese, che dovrebbero rimanere in questi centri durante la domanda di asilo, negata la quale il richiedente verrebbe allontanato dal territorio albanese (non si capisce per andare dove, se si rimpatria dall’Italia o dall’Albania). Flusso complessivo annuale stimato: 36.000 persone. Come alla fine delle pubblicità dei farmaci, Meloni in chiusura ha messo le avvertenze – “Il protocollo disegna la cornice politica, all’accordo dovranno seguire i provvedimenti normativi conseguenti” – e ha fornito una vaga data di inizio progetto: primavera 2024. Tradotto: questo accordo non esiste, è pura propaganda.

Nulla di nuovo sotto il sole italo-albanese. Qualcosa di simile era già avvenuto nel 2018, quando la crisi della nave Diciotti bloccata da Salvini nel porto di Catania venne “risolta” dai media manager del governo albanese, che promise su twitter l’accoglienza di 20 migranti, venendo immediatamente ripreso dall’account della Farnesina, e quindi da tutte le agenzie stampa. Anche allora i ministri Salvini e Di Maio (il governo era gialloverde) enfatizzarono la condotta del piccolo paese balcanico “più europeo e più solidale degli stati membri”: a sinistra ci si cullò nel sogno di un paese povero ma ospitale, a destra ci si vantò dei frutti dell’intransigenza del ministro degli Interni, che con il suo “no” aveva imposto una redistribuzione, peraltro a un paese che con il suo gesto ripagava finalmente l’accoglienza degli italiani (come se la Lega Nord degli anni Novanta fosse stata accogliente verso gli albanesi). Giorni di dichiarazioni allucinanti e vuote, perché nessun asilante della Diciotti arrivò mai in Albania (▻https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Nessun-asilante-della-Diciotti-e-mai-arrivato-in-Albania-192453), né alcuna autorità si pose mai il problema che ciò accadesse, essendo illegale il trasferimento di un migrante giunto in Ue in uno stato terzo, fuori dal sistema di asilo europeo.

Ed è proprio qui che la sparata di Meloni supera quella di Salvini: perché per evitare l’obiezione dell’illegalità di un trasferimento forzato fuori dall’Ue, a questo giro si dice che il porto di Shëngjin e le sue strutture saranno “territorio italiano”, e che da quel territorio i migranti dislocati in Albania potranno chiedere asilo all’Italia. Ammesso e non concesso che sia possibile trasportare i migranti intercettati, poniamo, al largo della Sicilia in un porto a 700 km di mare delle rotte del Mediterraneo centrale (non certo l’approdo più vicino imposto dalle Convenzioni internazionali sul soccorso in mare), davvero non si capisce come sia possibile realizzare una Italia extraterritoriale, capace di organizzare un’accoglienza rispettosa del diritto internazionale fuori dai propri confini. Ma sto contravvenendo al buon proposito di non commentare un memorandum che non diventerà mai operativo. Torniamo alla politica, e in particolare alla politica albanese. Perché, ciclicamente, Edi Rama si occupa delle nostre questioni migratorie?

Per lo stesso motivo per cui nel 2020 sceneggiò di inviare una squadra di infermieri in Lombardia per aiutare le nostre terapie intensive intasate dal Covid-19 (▻https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Dare-un-senso-alla-solidarieta-del-governo-albanese-200768): il video sulla pista dell’aeroporto di Tirana (▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYtgeZjtIko

), con i poveri medici già inscafandrati è degno della Corea del Nord (per la cronaca, si trattava di ragazzi inesperti, come emerse negli ospedali del bresciano dove vennero dislocati, sostanzialmente per apprendere le tecniche di contrasto al virus, nel momento in cui la pandemia divampava anche in Albania). Nel 2018, come nel 2020 come nel 2023, per Edi Rama l’obiettivo è sempre uno solo: entrare nel flusso narrativo delle vicende europee, accreditarsi tra i partner come leader d’area e dipingere presso le opinioni pubbliche l’Albania come membro di fatto dell’Unione europea. Cose che aiutano a far dimenticare che su ogni singolo dossier dei negoziati di adesione il suo paese arranca.

La conferenza stampa di Rama e Meloni non ha raccontato l’avvenimento di un fatto diplomatico. È essa stessa il fatto diplomatico. Dinanzi agli italiani, Rama ha offerto a Meloni la possibilità di fingere che l’Italia abbia una politica estera assertiva (una funzione che lo stato albanese ha svolto altre volte nella storia d’Italia), dinanzi agli europei, Meloni ha offerto a Rama ciò che tutti i governi italiani garantiscono a prescindere dal colore politico: il certificato di europeità. “Non solo l’Albania si conferma una nazione amica dell’Italia – ha dichiarato la Presidente – ma anche una nazione amica dell’Unione europea. Nonostante sia solo un paese candidato si comporta già come un paese membro dell’Unione”. Insomma, da dieci anni il copione è lo stesso, ma i nostri governi cambiano ed ereditano il discorso dal precedente, mentre Rama resta e continua ad affinare la sua interpretazione: “Preferisco far riposare il traduttore”, dice prima di sfoderare il suo italiano, con lo sguardo umile di chi vorrebbe fare di più. E poi va dritto al cuore, dritto sul senso di colpa della sinistra, dritto sul complesso di superiorità della destra: “Non avremmo fatto questo accordo con nessuno stato Ue. Il debito che abbiamo con l’Italia non si paga, ma se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è. Se ci sono domande bene, se non ci sono firmiamo e andiamo in vita dopo aver fatto il nostro dovere”.

Da dieci anni, Edi Rama governa il suo paese con i media stranieri e il consenso che miete all’estero, da Bruxelles ad Ankara (perché esiste anche un copione “orientalista” consolidato, ma questa è un’altra storia: ▻https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Albania-candidata-all-Europa-o-provincia-ottomana-195112). Oggi in Albania manca una opposizione credibile, sia a livello nazionale che municipale, principalmente perché opporsi non conviene. La criminalità organizzata è scesa a patti con questo nuovo, singolo, potere. La corruzione non dilaga, è endemica, l’unico metodo possibile. Le riforme richieste dall’Ue arrancano, gli albanesi emigrano in massa: senza barconi, ma chiedendo asilo in nord Europa, come gli eritrei della Diciotti.

Per tutti questi motivi Edi (che è cresciuto a Rai e Mediaset e conosce il potere ipnotico che l’estero esercita sulla periferia albanese e che il ricordo della migrazione albanese esercita su di noi) ogni tanto un giretto in Italia se lo fa. E proprio per questi motivi, proprio perché l’Albania reale, nonostante la nostra cooperazione e le nostre politiche, oggi è un paese così, noi abbiamo bisogno di un’Albania che ci racconti quanto siamo stati bravi. Che ci confermi che stiamo raccogliendo i frutti dell’accoglienza seminata trenta anni fa. Che ci rassicuri sul fatto che sappiamo stare nel Mediterraneo, e che sul Mare Nostrum disponiamo di tavoli e relazioni che ci consentono di farci ascoltare in Europa. Questa volta, forse, l’hanno sparata troppo grossa. La ricorrente bugia italo-albanese è un’impostura morale che interessa a poche persone, ma sta oltrepassando le soglie della sostenibilità. Il risveglio rischia di essere molto brusco.

►https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Ancora-lui-ancora-Edi-228139

Our Odysseus Network team proceeded to translate the full text of the protocol in English, to make it accessible to everyone.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/bf4779419-8cf74f/eO6ZWSE7RYHG/9pOG0ehpXvSWTaJjz8KJ6jxGTifU1lGzLvCM9flF.png

Albania Agrees to Host Centres Processing Migrants to Italy

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has signed an agreement in Rome pledging to host centers that will process the claims of thousands of migrants rescued by Italy at sea.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, on Monday in Rome signed an important memorandum of understanding under which Albania has agreed to host centres managing thousands of would-be migrants to Italy rescued at sea.

“Mass illegal immigration is a phenomenon that no EU state can deal with alone, and collaboration between EU states and non-EU states, for now, is fundamental,” Meloni said.

“The memorandum has three main goals”, she explained; to combat people smuggling and illegal migration, and to welcome only those that have rights to international protection.

Under the deal, Italy will set up two centres in Albania, which Meloni said in the end might handle “a total annual flow of 36,000 people”.

Jurisdiction over the centres will be Italian.

“Albania will grant some areas of territory”, where Italy will create “two structures” for the management of illegal migrants: “they will initially be able to accommodate up to 3,000 people who will remain there for the time needed to process asylum applications and, possibly, for the purposes of repatriation,” said Meloni, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported.

One centre will be at the northwestern Albanian port of Shëngjin, which will handle disembarkation and identification procedures and where Italy will set up a first reception and screening centre.

In Gjader, also in north-western Albania, it will set up a second, pre-removal centre, CPR, structure for subsequent procedures, ANSA added.

The deal does not apply to immigrants arriving on Italian territory but to those rescued in the Mediterranean by Italian official ships – not those rescued by NGOs. It does not apply to minors, pregnant women and vulnerable persons.

Albania will collaborate on the external surveillance of the centres. A series of protocols will follow that outline the framework. The plan is to make the centres operational in the spring of 2024, Meloni said.

Since Meloni’s far-right government came into power, one of its priorities has been to reduce the number of people arriving illegally in Italy through the Central Mediterranean or Western Balkan migration routes.

This goal explains Italy’s renewed political interest in the Balkans. Several top Italian political figures, including Meloni herself and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, have been regularly meeting counterparts in Slovenia, Croatia and Albania in the last months. A central point of these meetings has been migration.

Data published by the Italian Department of Public Safety show that the number of irregular arrivals in Italy in 2023 until November 1, 2023, was 145,314, a 165-per-cent increase compared to 2021, and 64 per cent higher than 2022.

Albania’s Rama said Albania could not reach a similar agreement with any other country in the EU, citing the unique connections between Albania and Italy and Italians and Albanians.

Sa far, Albania has had limited capacities to host migrants, most of whom use it as transit country to reach EU countries.

Rama added that Albania owes the Italian people a debt for “what they did to us from the first day that we arrived on the shores of [Italy] to find support and to imagine and have a better life”.

After the fall of communism of Albania in 1991, many Albanians fled to Italy’s southern coasts by boat. According to data published in 2021 by the Italian National Institute of Statistic, 230,000 Albanian citizens have acquired Italian citizenship since 1991.

▻https://balkaninsight.com/2023/11/06/albania-agrees-to-host-centres-processing-migrants-to-italy

Italy-Albania agreement adds to worrying European trend towards externalising asylum procedures

“The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Italy and Albania on disembarkation and the processing of asylum applications, concluded last week, raises several human rights concerns and adds to a worrying European trend towards the externalisation of asylum responsibilities,” said today the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović.

“The MoU raises a range of important questions on the impact that its implementation would have for the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. These relate, among others, to timely disembarkation, impact on search and rescue operations, fairness of asylum procedures, identification of vulnerable persons, the possibility of automatic detention without an adequate judicial review, detention conditions, access to legal aid, and effective remedies. The MoU creates an ad hoc extra-territorial asylum regime characterised by many legal ambiguities. In practice, the lack of legal certainty will likely undermine crucial human rights safeguards and accountability for violations, resulting in differential treatment between those whose asylum applications will be examined in Albania and those for whom this will happen in Italy.

The MoU is indicative of a wider drive by Council of Europe member states to pursue various models of externalising asylum as a potential ‘quick fix’ to the complex challenges posed by the arrival of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. However, externalisation measures significantly increase the risk of exposing refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to human rights violations. The shifting of responsibility across borders by some states also incentivises others to do the same, which risks creating a domino effect that could undermine the European and global system of international protection.

Ensuring that asylum can be claimed and assessed on member states’ own territories remains a cornerstone of a well-functioning, human rights compliant system that provides protection to those who need it. It is therefore important that member states continue to focus their energy on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their domestic asylum and reception systems, and that they do not allow the ongoing discussion about externalisation to divert much-needed resources and attention away from this. Similarly, it is crucial that member states ensure that international co-operation efforts prioritise the creation of safe and legal pathways that allow individuals to seek protection in Europe without resorting to dangerous and irregular migration routes.”

▻https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/view/-/asset_publisher/ugj3i6qSEkhZ/content/id/261934338

German Chancellor Scholz to examine Italy-Albania asylum deal

The German leader has signalled an openness to study Italy’s recent agreement to hold asylum seekers in centers in Albania. The deal has raised human rights concerns, including from the Council of Europe.

German Chancellor Scholz has said he will look “closely” at Italy’s plans to establish centers in Albania to hold migrants. Speaking on the sidelines of the congress of European Socialists in the Spanish city of Malaga, he noted that Albania is a candidate for EU membership and that challenges like migration needed to be addressed on a European level, reported Reuters.

“Bear in mind that Albania will quite soon, in our view, be a member of the EU, implying that we are talking about the question of how can we jointly solve challenges and problems within the European family,” Scholz told reporters on Saturday (November 11).

The Memorandum of Understanding between the Italian and Albanian governments, announced last week, will see tens of thousands of migrants who were rescued in the Mediterranean housed in closed centers in Albania while authorities assess their asylum requests.

“Such deals, that have been eyed there, are possible, and we will all look at that very closely,” Scholz stated during the briefing, according to Reuters.

He emphasized that a clear European course in migration policy was needed “to correct things that have not been right in the past (and) to establish a solidarity mechanism so that not each country on its own has to try and master the challenges alone.”
’It becomes less attractive for them to pay big money to smugglers’

If the Italy-Albania deal is implemented, it would be the first time that such an idea would actually be put in place, Ruud Koopmans, a professor for migration studies and advisor to the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, BAMF, told DW in an interview. He referred to unsuccessful attempts by Denmark and the UK to try something similar in Rwanda.

From a legal perspective, the Italy-Albania deal could become problematic if people who are rescued on Italian territory instead of in international waters are sent to Albania, Koopmans noted. “When people from the Sahara come to Italy and are then sent to Albania, there is no prior connection to Albania. This could be legally problematic.”

Koopmans said that it could also become difficult to send people back who are rejected. “…(T)his is not easy in practice, as home countries often do not cooperate and documents are missing. This is a problem that Albania will also face. But if people know that they will have to wait in Albania if they are rejected, it becomes less attractive for them to pay big money to smugglers,” he said.

Discussions on finding solutions to increasing asylum numbers are gaining momentum, Koopmans said. “More and more countries are looking for solutions. Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany are having discussions along these lines.” Deals like the Italy-Albania agreement could present an opportunity for countries neighboring the EU, in that they could help their efforts to join the bloc, he added.

Deal could undermine human rights safeguards, Mijatović

Italy’s deal has raised concerns among Italy’s opposition as well as rights groups who see it as an attack on the right to asylum. The NGO Emergency said that the deal is “in reality, ...a way to block migrants from arriving on Italian soil – and therefore European soil – to ask for asylum, as required by European and international law. (This is) yet another attack on asylum rights and the provisions of Article 10 of our Constitution.”

Concerns were also expressed by Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović. She warned that the deal’s legal ambiguities could undermine human rights safeguards and accountability. “The MoU is indicative of a wider drive by Council of Europe member states to pursue various models of externalizing asylum as a potential ’quick fix’ to the complex challenges posed by the arrival of refugees,” she said in a press release on November 13.

Mijatović urged member states to focus on improving domestic asylum and reception systems and to prioritize safe and legal pathways for protection in Europe.

Germany announces streamlined asylum process

The chancellor’s remarks in Malaga came on the heels of an agreement with Germany’s 16 states on a tougher migration policy and increased funding for refugee hosting capacities.

Faced with an increase in the number of asylum cases filed in Germany, estimated to reach 300,000 this year, the government has announced it will accelerate procedures.

At all BAMF offices, the procedure for registering asylum seekers now includes photographing and fingerprinting, allowing for immediate data checks to rule out potential multiple identities. The system allows other agencies involved in the asylum process to access biometric data as well, according to BAMF. Arabic names will be transferred into the Latin alphabet to prevent differences in spelling and other mix-ups.

Furthermore, mobile phone searches will only be conducted on a case-by-case basis, BAMF said, and queries to the Schengen Information System (SIS) will be reduced: if the last SIS search was within 14 days, an additional inquiry is waived.

A spokesperson from BAMF said that these specific measures would make procedures more efficient, while maintaining high-security standards. The asylum procedure is meant to last 6.7 months on average. However, when considering negative decisions, administrative court proceedings take on average 21.8 months in the first instance, the spokesperson noted.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/53194/german-chancellor-scholz-to-examine-italyalbania-asylum-deal

Accordo Italia-Albania, ASGI: è incostituzionale non sottoporlo al Parlamento

La Costituzione italiana prevede che la ratifica di trattati internazionali spetti al Presidente della Repubblica, previa, quando occorra, l’autorizzazione con legge del Parlamento (art. 87, Cost.).

Tutti i tipi di trattati internazionali costituiscono una delle fonti del diritto internazionale, la cui efficacia nell’ambito nazionale deriva da un ordine di esecuzione dato per effetto della loro ratifica che fa sorgere l’obbligo internazionale della loro attuazione interna.

Come ha ricordato il Ministero degli affari esteri nella sua circolare n. 2/2021 del 30 luglio 2021 “quale che sia la loro denominazione formale (trattati, accordi, convenzioni, memorandum, etc.), i trattati internazionali possono essere conclusi tramite documenti a firma congiunta, scambi di note, scambi di lettere o altre modalità, essendo riconosciuto dal diritto internazionale il principio della libertà delle forme.”

Gli atti per i quali l’art. 80 Cost. prescrive la preventiva legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica sono i «trattati che sono di natura politica, o prevedono arbitrati o regolamenti giudiziari, o importano variazioni del territorio od oneri alle finanze o modificazioni di leggi».

La dottrina giuridica afferma che si tratti di una forma di controllo democratico della politica estera e di compartecipazione delle Camere al potere estero del Governo. Anche per tale rilevanza politica complessiva l’art. 72, comma 4 Cost. prescrive che i disegni di legge per la ratifica siano esaminati sempre con procedura legislativa ordinaria.

Inoltre, è bene ricordare che, in generale, qualsiasi norma non costituzionale deve essere interpretata sempre in modo conforme alla Costituzione, sicché anche questo Protocollo deve essere interpretato in modo conforme all’art. 80 Cost.

Secondo il Governo, tuttavia, il Protocollo italo-albanese in materia di gestione delle migrazioni non deve essere sottoposto a legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, perché sarebbe l’attuazione del Trattato di amicizia e collaborazione tra la Repubblica italiana e la Repubblica di Albania, con scambio di lettere esplicativo dell’articolo 19, fatto a Roma il 13 ottobre 1995, ratificato e reso esecutivo sulla base della legge 21 maggio 1998, n. 170.

Tesi giuridicamente infondata, perché l’art. 19 del Trattato del 1995 prevede soltanto che Italia ed Albania “concordano nell’attribuire una importanza, prioritaria ad una stretta ed incisiva collaborazione tra i due Paesi per regolare, nel rispetto della legislazione vigente, i flussi migratori” e che “riconoscono la necessità di controllare i flussi migratori anche attraverso lo sviluppo della cooperazione fra i competenti organi della Repubblica Italiana e della Repubblica di Albania e di concludere a tal fine un accordo organico che regoli anche l’accesso dei cittadini dei due Paesi al mercato del lavoro stagionale, conformemente alla legislazione vigente”.

Dunque, nel Trattato del 1995 Italia e Albania si sono accordate per concludere successivi protocolli in materia migratoria soltanto per l’ipotesi prevista nell’art. 19 comma 2 e cioè per regolare l’immigrazione albanese in Italia (che infatti è stata poi regolata con due successivi accordi firmati in forma semplificata nel 1997 e nel 2008), mentre le norme che si riferiscono genericamente alla regolazione e al controllo dei flussi migratori alludono a materie del tutto vaghe e suscettibili delle più diverse applicazioni, future e incerte.

Pertanto, la mera indicazione che si tratti di un Protocollo sulla “cooperazione in materia migratoria” e il richiamo a due precedenti trattati e accordi non possono certo essere lo strumento per eludere l’obbligo derivante dall’art. 80 Cost. per il Governo di presentare alle Camere un apposito disegno di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica del Protocollo e della futura intesa di attuazione.

Il Protocollo appena firmato prevede disposizioni molto dettagliate che riguardano proprio i casi in cui l’art. 80 Cost. esige la preventiva legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, perché:

– comportano oneri alle finanze, sia perché il Protocollo pone espressamente a carico dell’Italia specifici oneri finanziari, per l’allestimento delle strutture (art. 4, comma 5), per l’erogazione di servizi sanitari (art. 4, comma 9), per la realizzazione delle strutture necessarie al personale albanese addetto alla sicurezza esterna dei centri (art. 5., comma 2), per la riconduzione nei centri da parte delle autorità albanesi di eventuali migranti usciti illegalmente dai centri (art. 6, comma 6) e per l’impiego dei mezzi e delle unità albanesi (art. 8, comma 3) e per eventuali risarcimenti del danno (art. 12, comma 2), cioè per la realizzazione e gestione dei centri, per il relativo personale, per il trasporto da e per l’Albania degli stranieri trattenuti e per la loro assistenza anche sanitaria (a cui dovrà aggiungersi anche la copertura degli oneri connessi al gratuito patrocinio per le spese di difesa degli stranieri, per quelle di interpretariato e per quelle sullo svolgimento dell’attività delle commissioni per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale e dei giudici che convalideranno il trattenimento e che giudicheranno sugli eventuali ricorsi), sia perché il Protocollo prevede specifici contributi, iniziali (16,5 milioni di euro) e una successiva garanzia di 100 milioni di euro, che devono essere erogati dall’Italia all’Albania i cui importi e scadenze sono specificati in un apposito allegato al Protocollo stesso;

- comportano modificazioni di leggi, perché il Protocolloper essere effettivamente attuato non soltanto prevede espressamente un’intesa successiva (che, dunque, dovrà essere sottoposta alle Camere congiuntamente al Protocollo), ma prevede norme che comportano operazioni amministrative e giudiziarie concernenti stranieri giunti in Italia e che saranno svolte in Albania, cioè norme non previste dalle attuali leggi italiane. Questo significa che il protocollo, per essere attuato, esige implicitamente la modificazione di tante norme legislative vigenti in Italia, che regolano la condizione giuridica degli stranieri che giungono in Italia e che presentano in Italia una domanda per fruire del diritto di asilo nel territorio della Repubblica italiana (e la condizione giuridica dello straniero e le condizioni per il diritto di asilo sono materie coperte da riserva di legge ai sensi dell’art. 10, commi 2 e 3 Cost.). Infatti, in base alle disposizioni del protocollo costoro potranno essere soccorsi da navi italiane, e dunque in territorio italiano, e da qui trasportati poi in Albania per essere sottoposti in territorio albanese a misure restrittive alla libertà personale (e i casi e i modi dei provvedimenti restrittivi della libertà personale sono materie coperte da riserva assoluta di legge e da riserva di giurisdizione previste dall’art. 13 Cost. e dall’art. 5 CEDU); tali restrizioni avverranno mediante provvedimenti disposti e attuati in Albania da autorità italiane in modi che saranno, in tutto o in parte, diversi da quelli già previsti dalle vigenti norme legislative italiane (p. es. occorrerà indicare quale sarà l’autorità di pubblica sicurezza competente dal punto di vista geografico ad adottare i provvedimenti amministrativi di espulsione e i provvedimenti di trattenimento, occorrerà individuare la commissione territoriale competente ad esaminare eventuali domande di protezione internazionale, occorrerà dare una nuova applicazione al concetto di “accompagnamento immediato alla frontiera” di persone che in realtà sono già fuori del territorio italiano, occorrerà stabilire modi e garanzie per interpreti, difensori e stranieri durante lo svolgimento in Albania dei colloqui con le autorità di pubblica sicurezza e con i giudici, occorrerà disciplinare i procedimenti di trasporto degli stranieri da e per i centri albanesi);

– comportano regolamenti giudiziari che riguardano la giurisdizione italiana, sia relativamente alla sua estensione territoriale e personale (inclusa la regolamentazione di eventuali contenziosi sulla responsabilità civile di ciò che accadrà in Albania che saranno espressamente di competenza dei giudici italiani), sia con riguardo alla effettuazione da parte dei giudici italiani nei centri albanesi dei giudizi di convalida dei trattenimenti e degli eventuali giudizi sui ricorsi contro le eventuali decisioni di diniego e di inammissibilità delle domande di protezione internazionale (occorrerà disciplinare la competenza territoriale del giudice che dovrà giudicare in Albania e le modalità delle notificazioni e dello svolgimento dei giudizi);

- hanno natura politica, poiché le disposizioni del Protocollo impegnano durevolmente la politica estera italiana, avendo una durata di cinque anni ed essendo state negoziate e stipulate personalmente e pubblicamente dai capi dei Governi dei due Stati e non già da Ministri o da meri funzionari ministeriali, e poiché le premesse del Protocollo espressamente lo motivano con la “comunanza di interessi e di aspirazioni” tra i due Stati e dei due Stati alla prevenzione dei flussi migratori illeciti e della tratta degli esseri umani, e a promuovere la crescente collaborazione bilaterale tra Italia ed Albania “anche nella prospettiva dell’adesione della Repubblica di Albania all’UE”, che è l’evidente interesse principale di tutte le azioni di politica estera del governo albanese. La grande ed evidente politicità dell’accordo è confermata dalle dichiarazioni pubbliche fatte dalla Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri al momento della firma del protocollo davanti al Primo ministro albanese: il Protocollo è stato definito «importantissimo […] che arricchisce un’amicizia storica [e] una cooperazione profonda» tra i due Stati, la «cornice politica e giuridica» della collaborazione tra Italia e Albania e «un accordo di respiro europeo».

Inoltre, il Protocollo ha per oggetto misure che attengono alle materie della sicurezza e della difesa nazionale. L’attuazione delle disposizioni previste dal Protocollo comporta il trasporto verso l’Albania di stranieri mediante mezzi delle competenti autorità italiane, il che avverrà in modi sostanzialmente forzati, mediante aerei o navi delle Forze armate italiane, le quali hanno già basi in Albania e alle quali il Governo con l’art. 21 del decreto-legge 19 settembre 2023, n. 124 ha affidato la realizzazione dei centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio, dei punti di crisi e dei centri governativi di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo, trattandosi di materie che lo stesso articolo del citato decreto-legge attribuisce espressamente alla materia della difesa e della sicurezza la realizzazione.

Proprio su queste materie la legge n. 25/1997 (e oggi l’art. 10, comma 1, lett. a) del codice dell’ordinamento militare, emanato con d. lgs. n. 66/2010) ha previsto che tutte le deliberazioni del Governo in materia di sicurezza e di difesa debbano essere sempre approvate dal Parlamento. Ciò comporta che dal 1997 sono sottoposti all’esame delle Camere mediante leggi di autorizzazione alla ratifica anche tutti i tipi di accordi internazionali in materia di sicurezza e di difesa.

*

È dunque indispensabile l’esame parlamentare del disegno di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica di questo protocollo e della sua futura intesa di attuazione e delle norme nazionali che daranno esecuzione nell’ordinamento italiano a questi accordi.

Va ricordato, infine che:

– la proposta di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica non necessariamente deve essere di iniziativa del Governo (la Costituzione non lo prescrive), sicché, come è già accaduto in alcune altre occasioni, in mancanza di una presentazione di un disegno di legge del Governo essa può essere presentata nelle Camere anche da singoli parlamentari;

– L’Assemblea di ogni Camera ha il potere di presentare alla Corte costituzionale ricorso per conflitto di attribuzioni tra i poteri dello Stato.

In ogni caso qualora questo Protocollo non sia sottoposto a legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica in conformità con l’art. 80 Cost. non potrà mai essere eseguito, né potrà essere considerato vincolante per l’ordinamento italiano, quale obbligo internazionale ai sensi dell’art. 117, comma 1 Cost.

►https://www.asgi.it/notizie/accordo-italia-albania-asgi-illegittimo-parlamento

Nell’intesa Italia-Albania, la continuità deve preoccuparci quanto la novità

L’accordo spinge la pratica di esternalizzare le frontiere verso direzioni preoccupanti. Dubbi sulla sua effettiva applicabilità

A più di una settimana dall’annuncio dell’accordo tra Italia e Albania in materia di “gestione dei flussi migratori”, la mossa del governo italiano ha attirato diverse critiche in ambienti giuridici e militanti per le sue implicazioni in termini di diritti umani e di rispetto della legislazione italiana ed europea in materia di asilo.

Nella consueta propaganda del governo, l’accordo (reso noto soltanto a operazione conclusa) è stato presentato come un successo diplomatico, un accordo “storico” e “innovativo”. Di fronte alle preoccupazioni sollevate da varie voci, la Presidente del Consiglio non è entrata nel merito, limitandosi a dichiararsi “fiera” di questa azione pionieristica, che “può diventare un modello per altre nazioni di collaborazione tra Paesi Ue e extra Ue” 1.

Il protocollo prevede l’istituzione di due centri (paradossalmente definiti da alcuni media “di accoglienza”) in territorio albanese, ma sottoposti alla giurisdizione italiana: uno per le procedure di identificazione e gestione delle domande di asilo, l’altro per i rimpatri, sul “modello” dei CPR. È previsto un termine di 28 giorni per valutare le domande di ogni richiedente: una velocizzazione dei tempi che sicuramente andrebbe a discapito dell’accuratezza delle raccolte delle prove e delle valutazioni. Per quanto riguarda il “modello” del centro per i rimpatri, è ormai noto quanto gli abusi fisici e psicologici verso i detenuti siano frequenti, e quante morti evitabili sono state causate da questo sistema.

I dubbi sulla legittimità e le possibili conseguenze dell’accordo sono tanti e fondati. E nonostante alcune affermazioni di approvazione da parte di politici europei per l’esperimento “interessante”, diversi giuristi esperti di migrazioni e diritto d’asilo hanno espresso le loro riserve sull’intesa. Una dichiarazione di ASGI sottolinea le ragioni per cui la mancata approvazione parlamentare di un accordo come questo non può ritenersi legittima. L’intesa prevede infatti disposizioni su alcune materie (finanziarie, scelte di politica estera, modifiche all’ordinamento giuridico) di cui dovrebbe necessariamente rispondere la rappresentanza democratica 2. Nel merito dei contenuti si è ampiamente espresso Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, avvocato e attivista, descrivendo l’accordo come “privo di basi legali”.

Un primo elemento di illegittimità è il trasferimento delle persone soccorse dalle navi italiane in territorio extra-europeo. Non si conoscono poi le attribuzioni delle competenze sulle procedure, le modalità dei rimpatri, i criteri per l’attribuzione delle caratteristiche di “vulnerabilità” che impedirebbero il trasferimento di alcune persone tratte in salvo da navi italiane verso l’Albania.

Critiche sono arrivate anche da alcune organizzazioni non governative. Emergency ha descritto l’accordo come l’ennesimo attacco al diritto di asilo 3. La non appartenenza dell’Albania all’UE significa l’impossibilità di applicare la legge europea all’azione delle autorità albanesi. Inoltre, per i tempi sbrigativi con cui le persone richiedenti asilo sarebbero valutate, potrebbe non esserci spazio per il diritto al ricorso contro la decisione di rifiuto della domanda. In modo analogo, Amnesty International ha condannato l’accordo come “illegale e impraticabile” 4.

Sia nelle presentazioni istituzionali sia nelle critiche, si è parlato di questo accordo soprattutto in termini di novità, di rottura con il quadro giuridico esistente. Ma è bene anche enfatizzare anche gli aspetti di continuità di questa scelta politica con il passato. Un’opinione autorevole arriva dal Consiglio d’Europa, che nelle parole della Commissaria per i diritti umani Dunja Mijatović esprime la sua preoccupazione per la tendenza crescente in Europa ad esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure di asilo.

La dichiarazione mette a punto una serie di fattori ambigui e problematici dell’accordo: “le tempistiche degli sbarchi, l’impatto sulle operazioni di ricerca e salvataggio, l’equità delle procedure di asilo, l’identificazione delle persone vulnerabili, la possibilità automatica di detenzione senza un adeguato controllo giudiziario, le condizioni di detenzione, l’accesso all’assistenza legale e a rimedi effettivi […]. In pratica, la mancanza di certezza giuridica probabilmente comprometterà le garanzie fondamentali per i diritti umani e la responsabilità per le violazioni, determinando un trattamento differenziato tra coloro le cui domande di asilo saranno esaminate in Albania e coloro per i quali ciò avverrà in Italia” 5.

E sebbene tutte le ambiguità e anomalie implicite nel trattato potrebbero comportarne il fallimento o addirittura l’inapplicabilità, il protocollo d’intesa non fa che aggravare la preoccupante tendenza a esternalizzare le frontiere, ormai consolidata.

E non è chiaramente una prerogativa esclusiva del governo attuale e delle forze politiche che lo sostengono. Infatti, il memorandum si inserisce perfettamente nel solco di altri accordi, più o meno opachi, che i nostri governi – ma anche altri governi europei e la stessa Unione – sottoscrivono da anni con paesi extra UE. Allora, forse, vale la pena di riflettere su quanto siamo disposti ad accettare, di volta in volta, di sacrificare un pezzo in più dei diritti delle persone in movimento, in una posta al ribasso che ha normalizzato sistemi che producono morte, sfruttamento e torture come inevitabili conseguenze della sacralità dei confini.

Questa tendenza a esternalizzare tramite accordi con paesi terzi è indice di scarsa democraticità.

Innanzitutto perché uno strumento come un protocollo d’intesa, o Memorandum of Understanding, è per sua natura “flessibile”. La preferenza sempre più marcata per questo tipo di accordo da parte del governo italiano – si pensi al memorandum con la Libia nel 2017 e con la Tunisia nel 2020 – risponde alle logiche emergenziali con cui sono ormai quasi esclusivamente trattate le questioni legate alle migrazioni.

Se questo è un vantaggio dal punto di vista del governo, è evidente che la mancanza di controllo sui suoi contenuti e sulla sua eventuale applicazione rappresenta un problema: un memorandum non è legalmente vincolante per le due parti, non è necessariamente sottoposto a ratifiche parlamentare e può essere mantenuto riservato.

Se si vuole parlare la lingua degli “interessi strategici”, troppo spesso l’unica con cui le istituzioni governative si approcciano alle politiche migratorie, è però una mossa rischiosa e in alcuni casi poco lungimirante. Un paese terzo a cui vengono attribuite determinate prerogative nel controllo dei confini non è un semplice ricettore passivo di politiche neocoloniali. Benché sia evidente che i rapporti di potere sono sbilanciati in favore della controparte europea, è vero anche che accordi di questo tipo hanno dato la possibilità ad alcuni governi di esercitare forme di pressione e influenza. Pressioni che, ovviamente, sono sempre andate a scapito dei diritti delle persone in movimento, usate come merce di scambio per ottenere dei vantaggi. Controlli più serrati si alternano a periodi di “rilascio controllato” dei/delle migranti, a seconda di ciò che il governo appaltante ritiene in quel momento più funzionale ai propri bisogni. È quello che accade ad esempio con Libia, Turchia, Marocco, Tunisia.

È in questi termini che emerge ancora la continuità con le politiche migratorie degli ultimi decenni. Esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure permette di sorvolare più di quanto non sia possibile in Italia sulle incombenze giuridiche e burocratiche del sistema di asilo. Ma soprattutto, rende meno visibili le immancabili violazioni associate al sistema di controllo delle migrazioni. Con la creazione di spazi sotto la giurisdizione italiana in un territorio di uno stato terzo, resta da chiarire come sarebbero valutate le responsabilità in caso di carenze gravi nelle strutture, che sono già state riscontrate in moltissime altre strutture europee, e non: sovraffollamento, mancanza di servizi adeguati per i richiedenti, incuria, abusi fisici, somministrazione di psicofarmaci contro la volontà dei soggetti interessati. A chi sarebbe affidata poi la repressione di eventuali rivolte o fughe da parte delle persone detenute?

Esternalizzare le frontiere ha quindi uno scopo pratico molto preciso: allontanare dal territorio europeo la conoscenza delle sofferenze e degli atti di ribellione delle persone sottoposte al regime delle frontiere, prevenire azioni di monitoraggio e pressioni sul rispetto dei loro diritti da parte della società civile, far svolgere ad altri il lavoro sporco che per cui le istituzioni governative e le forze di polizia europee potrebbero dover essere chiamate a rispondere.

Sottolineare gli elementi che renderebbero questo accordo illegale e inapplicabile è necessario per prevenire situazioni difficilmente riparabili con gli strumenti a disposizione della legge. Ma potrebbe non bastare: l’esperienza ci ha mostrato come accordi e decreti contrari ad alcuni principi costituzionali e del diritto di asilo abbiano comunque trovato applicazione, soprattutto quando questa è affidata in parte ad autorità di paesi terzi. È fondamentale quindi contestare alle sue radici una gestione emergenziale delle migrazioni, che passa per il solo sistema di asilo senza prevedere canali di ingresso regolari, e che mira a prevenire l’arrivo nel territorio europeo del maggior numero di persone possibile.

Tweet di Giorgia Meloni: ▻https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1723027124246708620
►https://www.asgi.it/notizie/accordo-italia-albania-asgi-illegittimo-parlamento
▻https://www.emergency.it/comunicati-stampa/laccordo-italia-albania-e-lennesimo-attacco-al-diritto-di-asilo-e-sottende
▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/italy-plan-to-offshore-refugees-and-migrants-in-albania-illegal-and-unworka
▻https://www.coe.int/hr/web/commissioner/-/italy-albania-agreement-adds-to-worrying-european-trend-towards-externalising-a

▻https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/nellintesa-italia-albania-la-continuita-deve-preoccuparci-quanto-la-novi

Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione: appello al Parlamento perché non ratifichi il Protocollo Italia-Albania

L’accordo getta le basi per la violazione del principio di non respingimento e per l’attuazione di pratiche di detenzione illegittima: alle persone condotte nei centri sarebbe impedito di uscire, senza una chiara base legale e nessuna garanzia del diritto di difesa e a un ricorso effettivo

Il Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione chiede che il Protocollo Italia-Albania venga revocato dal Governo e fa fin da ora un appello al Parlamento perché voti contro il disegno di legge di ratifica preannunciato dal Ministro degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale durante le odierne comunicazioni alla Camera sull’intesa.

L’accordo firmato con il governo albanese, violando gli obblighi costituzionali e internazionali del nostro Paese, si pone, come quello con la Tunisia, l’obiettivo di esternalizzare le frontiere e il diritto d’asilo.

L’accordo Italia-Albania, così come delineato, comporta infatti il rischio di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. Il testo dell’intesa non chiarisce se i centri da realizzarsi in Albania saranno destinati alle procedure di esame delle domande di protezione internazionale e in particolare alle procedure di frontiera o al rimpatrio, ma alle persone condotte nei centri sarebbe impedito di uscire, subendo di fatto un regime di detenzione automatica e prolungata, senza una chiara base legale. Anche la possibilità di controllo giurisdizionale sembra compromessa, così come il diritto di difesa e a un ricorso effettivo. L’Accordo non chiarisce infatti la competenza a convalidare il trattenimento delle persone, né che cosa accadrà alle persone che hanno chiesto protezione internazionale che non ottengano risposta entro i 28 giorni previsti dalla procedura accelerata.

Infine, desta preoccupazione la mancanza nel Protocollo di qualsiasi riferimento alle persone maggiormente vulnerabili, minori, donne, famiglie, vittime di tortura, e di come queste sarebbero salvaguardate dall’applicazione dell’accordo, così come era stato invece annunciato nei giorni scorsi.

Per questi motivi le Organizzazioni del Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione ne hanno chiesto oggi la revoca da parte del Governo durante una conferenza stampa alla quale hanno partecipato anche la Segretaria del Partito Democratico Elly Schlein e il Segretario di +Europa Riccardo Magi, il senatore Graziano Delrio, Presidente del Comitato Parlamentare di controllo sull’attuazione dell’Accordo di Schengen, di vigilanza sull’attività di Europol, di controllo e vigilanza in materia di immigrazione, oltre ai deputati Matteo Mauri, Giuseppe Provenzano e Alfonso Colucci.

Le associazioni hanno inoltre lanciato un appello al Parlamento perché voti contro il disegno di legge di ratifica preannunciato dal Ministro degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale durante le odierne comunicazioni alla Camera.

Per il Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione

A Buon Diritto, ACAT, ACLI, ActionAid, Amnesty International Italia, ARCI, ASGI, Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Centro Astalli, CGIL, CIES, CNCA, Commissione Migranti e GPIC Missionari Comboniani Italia, DRC Italia, Emergency, Europasilo, Fondazione Migrantes, Forum per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose, Intersos, Medici del Mondo, Medici per i Diritti Umani, Medici Senza Frontiere, Movimento Italiani Senza Cittadinanza, Oxfam Italia, Refugees Welcome Italia, Save the Children Italia, Senza Confine, Società Italiana Medicina delle Migrazioni, UIL, UNIRE

Aderiscono inoltre

AOI, Mediterranea Saving Humans, Open Arms, Rivolti ai Balcani, Sea Watch e Sos Mediterranée Italia

▻https://www.asgi.it/primo-piano/tavolo-asilo-e-immigrazione-appello-al-parlamento-perche-non-ratifichi-il-proto

Italy: Parliament to ratify Albania deal to process asylum seekers

Both of Italy’s houses of parliament will be given the chance to ratify the country’s new deal to process asylum seekers in Albania. The motion was approved after a debate in the lower house on Tuesday.

Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani spoke to Italy’s lower house on Tuesday (November 21), explaining the Italy-Albania deal to process asylum seekers in more detail, and promising that the deal would be presented as a DDL (proposal of a law) and that both houses would have the chance to ratify it before it proceeds.

In his long speech to the lower house, Tajani reminded parliamentarians that other similar deals with countries like Libya had not been subject to the same ratification process. Originally the Italian government said that the Italy-Albania deal didn’t need to be either, since it was not a treaty and only treaties needed to be ratified by parliament.

However, in what the opposition has dubbed a “complete U-turn,” two weeks after the Italy-Albania deal was signed, Tajani has announced that it would be presented as a subject for debate by parliamentarians. The government hopes that the debates and ratification process will be “as quick as possible,” since the deal is meant to begin in just a few months, by spring 2024.
Deal ’is just one additional instrument’ to manage migration

Fighting the traffickers is “an absolute priority” for the Italian government, said Tajani during his speech to parliament. Referring to the death of a two-year-old girl during a rescue operation on Monday (November 20), Tajani said “we won’t and shouldn’t get used to these kinds of tragedies that are unfolding along our coasts.”

He proposes that the Italy-Albania deal is just “one additional instrument” to help Italy manage migration. Tajani said that Italy has worked hard to make migration a central tenet of EU debate, and says that Italy and other members of the bloc are all working hard to “stop irregular migration, fight traffickers and strengthen the external borders of the EU.”

Although Tajani admitted that the deal was “no panacea”, he said that Italy had “deep and historic ties with Albania” and already had joint teams to stop the trade in drugs and migrants. For the benefit of the parliament, Tajani outlined once again that the deal would be entirely paid for by Italy and was expected to cost €16.5 million initially. This would cover the two centers, one at the port and one about 30 kilometers away.

The initial center at the port will be where people are registered and fingerprinted. They will then be moved to the reception center, where they will have their asylum requests examined. Anyone whose request is refused would be repatriated from there.
Not comparable to UK-Rwanda deal, says Tajani

This is no offshoring deal, said Tajani, disputing the accusations that it was “Italy’s Guantanamo” or anything like the UK-Rwanda deal. The centers will be entirely staffed by Italian personnel, be managed under Italian law, and they will come under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, said Tajani.

Italy’s foreign minister underlined that “no vulnerable people, women or children” would be sent to these centers. It will be exclusively to process the asylum requests of non-vulnerable migrants from safe countries, explained Tajani, or those who have already had one claim refused, or people waiting for repatriation.

There will never be more than 3,000 people in the centers at any one time, promised Tajani. Italy will pay Albania for police patrols outside the centers and for any hospital visits that are required. Tajani also assured parliamentarians that all rights to healthcare and safety would be respected and that the only asylum seekers brought to Albania would be by Italian official boats. NGO rescue ships would not be disembarking people in Albania.
Keeping it within the ’European family’

Tajani said that the European Commission had already confirmed that the agreement did not violate EU law, since, as Tajani explained quoting EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson, the processing will follow Italian law which is fully in line with European law.

Several MPs in the debate, including Minister Tajani referenced the fact that the German chancellor had said they would be following the agreement closely and thinking about similar models for their country. According to Tajani, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that since Albania will soon be part of the European family, referring to Albania’s European accession process, processing asylum seekers in Albania was about “solving challenges within Europe” and not offshoring.

Scholz, speaking in Malaga recently, said that the whole bloc was looking to “reduce irregular migration” and said he thought there should be more deals struck like the EU-Turkey 2016 deal, to help Europe manage migration.

Increasing the legal pathways to Italy

Nearing the conclusion of his speech, Tajani underlined that any exceptions to adhering to the rule of international law would be straight out “impossible”. Using the Albania agreement as a model, Tajani said the Italian government was seeking to conclude or extend similar deals with other friendly countries, transit countries and countries of origin.

Tajani promised that the Italian government would also increase the number of legal pathways into Italy. He said in parliament that the new work permits for migrant workers had already been increased to about 150,000 per year from this year to 2025, compared to 82,000 in 2022.

At the end of the debate in parliament, a majority of 189 to 126 voted to allow the proposal to continue its passage and be put forward as an official proposal of law (DDL), to be examined and ratified by both houses.
Critics call deal ’illegitimate’ and ask for it to be revoked

However, the law was not without its critics. During the debate, Riccardo Magi from the Più Europa (More Europe) party said that the deal “did nothing but increase uncertainty and would take away the fundamental right to personal liberty” of people who may be detained under the deal. He added that he didn’t believe that even the ministers proposing the deal believed it would really be doable.”

On November 20, Amnesty International and 35 other NGOs, which together form the TAI (Tavalo Asilo e Immigrazione – a forum for the discussion of asylum and immigration) have also criticized the deal, calling it “illegitimate” and saying it should be “revoked.”

The TAI held a press conference on Tuesday (November 21) where they reiterated that in their opinions, the deal violated international obligations and laws. They said that just like the deal with Tunisia, it was an attempt to “externalize the borders and the right to asylum.”

According to a press release from the TAI, the Italian migration system is “in chaos and continuously violates the law and the rights of welcome and asylum” that under international law they are forced to offer. TAI accuses the Italian government of “making sure it implements practices in the field which just produce emergencies and discomfort.”

The TAI says that the Italy-Albania deal “risks seriously violating human rights.” They say that once those people are on an Italian boat, they come under Italian jurisdiction, so they can’t then be transferred to another state to have their asylum requests examined.

The deal, says TAI, goes against the principle of non-refoulement, whereby a person cannot be sent back to a land where they could knowingly be put in danger. The deal also allows for people to be detained illegitimately, claims TAI.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/53392/italy-parliament-to-ratify-albania-deal-to-process-asylum-seekers

In Pictures: Sites Where Refugees Will be Hosted In Albania

BIRN has taken a look at the sites in Albania where a reception centre and a refugee camp will be built in accordance with the controversial agreement reached between the Albanian and Italian governments.

The agreement was opposed both in Italy and Albania and one of the biggest critics that it received is related to Albania’s capacities to receive 3000 migrants in a month.

According to the protocol that has been published, a reception centre for migrants will be built inside the Port of Shengjin, in the Lezha area of northern Albania, which will process and register migrants rescued at sea by Italy.

A second site, which will serve as a refugee camp, will be built in Gjader, a village where a former military air base was built in the 1970s during the communist era.

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/shengjin-2.jpg

Italy’s plan to build migrant centres in Albania has been criticised in both countries, where activists and human rights lawyers have questioned Albania’s capacities to handle the arrangements.

While the deal has been criticised by human rights experts, lawyers and civil society groups in Italy, in Albania many see it as Prime Minister Edi Rama’s personal initiative, since it was not discussed previously in public.

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GJADER.jpg

The deal allows Italy to set up facilities on Albanian territory for migrants it has rescued at sea, which will accommodate up to 3,000 people at any one time.

The agreement, which BIRN has seen, although without its annexes, states: “In the event that, for any reason, the [migrant’s] right to stay in the facilities cease to exist”, Italy must immediately transfer these persons out of Albanian territory.

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/shengjin-3.jpg

“Italy will use the port of Shengjin and the Gjader area to establish, at its own expense, two entry and temporary reception facilities for immigrants rescued at sea, capable of accommodating up to 3,000 people, or 39,000 a year, to expedite the processing of asylum applications or potential repatriation”, the text of the protocol notes, adding that jurisdiction over the centres will be Italian.

“In Shengjin, Italy will handle disembarkation and identification procedures and establish a first reception and screening centre; in Gjader, it will create a model Cpr facility for subsequent procedures. Albania will collaborate with its police forces, for security and surveillance,” it adds.

▻https://balkaninsight.com/2023/11/22/in-pictures-sites-where-refugees-will-be-hosted-in-albania
#photographie #localisation

L’intesa con Tirana costerà oltre mezzo miliardo. 142 milioni di euro solo nel 2024

«Oltre 142 milioni di euro nel 2024, quasi 645 nei cinque anni di validità (prorogabili). È quanto costerà ai contribuenti italiani l’intesa tra la presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni e l’omologo Edi Rama per rinchiudere nei centri di trattenimento in Albania i migranti soccorsi in alto mare dalle navi italiane. Soldi che l’esecutivo è andato a cercare raschiando il fondo del barile degli accantonamenti di quattordici ministeri.»

▻https://ilmanifesto.it/tagli-a-universita-e-agricoltura-per-fare-i-centri-in-albania
#coût

The 2023 Italy-Albania protocol on extraterritorial migration management

In November 2023, the Italian government concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or Protocol, with the Albanian authorities envisaging extraterritorial migration and asylum management, including detention and asylum processing, in Albania. This Report examines the Protocol in light of EU, regional and international legal standards, and the main responses that it has attracted so far. It concludes that the MoU can be understood as a nationalistic and unilateral arrangement that, while not involving the EU, covers policy areas falling within the scope of European law. The MoU runs contrary to EU constitutive principles enshrined in the Treaties, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as international law. It should be regarded as a non-model in migration and asylum policies as it is affected by far-reaching illegality and unfeasibility grounds undermining both its rationale and implementation.

▻https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/the-2023-italy-albania-protocol-on-extraterritorial-migration-management
#extra-territorialité #droit_international #droits_fondamentaux

Nouvel avatar de l’externalisation : l’accord Italie-Albanie

Il y a 20 ans, Plein Droit s’inquiétait des projets européens d’installation, dans des pays non membres de l’Union européenne (UE), de « centres de transit » où seraient enfermées, le temps d’instruire leur demande d’asile, les personnes étrangères ayant franchi illégalement les frontières de l’Union. Évoquant un « cauchemar », l’édito dénonçait l’intention des États membres « de se dégager des responsabilités que la Convention de Genève sur les réfugiés fait peser sur eux », ajoutant : « On devine au prix de quelles pressions, économiques ou non, ces pays accepteront ou se feront imposer ces camps de transit, […] on imagine sans mal l’insécurité à laquelle les demandeurs d’asile seront confrontés, les chantages auxquels ils pourront être soumis de la part des pays condamnés par l’Europe à les accueillir à sa place [1] ».

Si, depuis, l’externalisation de l’asile a été déclinée de multiples façons [2], le projet de #camps_de_détention situés hors de l’UE, mais juridiquement contrôlés par un État membre, ne s’est jamais concrétisé. Sans doute à cause des #obstacles_juridiques que poserait un tel montage, notamment au regard du respect des droits fondamentaux. Mais aussi parce qu’il suppose de trouver où les implanter : jusqu’ici, les tentatives pour convaincre des pays voisins de se prêter au jeu ont échoué. Lorsqu’en 2018 le Conseil européen a exploré la possibilité de créer, hors du territoire européen, des « #centres_régionaux_de_débarquement » pour y placer des boat people interceptés en Méditerranée, il s’est heurté au refus catégorique des États nord-africains et de l’Union africaine [3].

Aujourd’hui, le #cauchemar est à nos portes. À la veille de l’adoption du Pacte européen qui entend accélérer la procédure frontalière d’examen des demandes d’asile et renforcer la « dimension externe » de la politique migratoire de l’UE, l’Italie a conclu le 6 novembre, avec l’Albanie, un accord visant à y délocaliser l’accueil de migrants secourus en mer et l’examen des demandes d’asile. Il paraît que c’est au cours de ses vacances en Albanie, l’été dernier, que la cheffe du gouvernement italien Giorgia Meloni a posé les bases de cette « pièce importante » de sa stratégie de lutte contre les flux migratoires. Elle y a trouvé l’oreille attentive de son homologue albanais, Edi Rama, prêt à mettre « gratuitement » à la disposition de l’Italie deux zones au nord du pays pour qu’elle y construise les centres sous administration italienne où seront détenus des migrants interceptés en mer par des navires italiens. Le premier, dans une ville côtière, pour y procéder aux premiers soins, aux opérations d’identification, et instruire les demandes d’asile ; le second, sur une base militaire, pour organiser le #rapatriement des personnes qui ne demandent pas l’asile ou ne seront pas reconnues éligibles à une protection. Aux demandeurs d’asile placés dans ces centres qualifiés d’« extraterritoriaux » serait appliquée la procédure accélérée que la loi italienne prévoit pour les requêtes formées à la frontière. Seuls ceux qui obtiendraient une protection seraient admis au séjour en Italie, les autres devant être expulsés.

L’accord ne pourra cependant entrer en vigueur avant que la Haute Cour albanaise ne se soit prononcée sur sa #constitutionnalité : les membres de l’opposition qui l’ont saisie contestent cette forme de « vente d’un morceau du territoire albanais » qui conduirait, selon un député du parti Più Europa, à la création d’« une sorte de #Guantanamo italien, en dehors de toute norme internationale, en dehors de l’UE [4] ».

Là n’est pas le seul problème que soulève l’accord, même si Georgia Meloni aimerait que celui-ci devienne « un modèle à suivre ». Un « modèle » qui suscite les réserves du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR), à aucun moment « informé ni consulté », et que dénonce la Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe. Relevant ses « #ambiguïtés_juridiques », celle-ci liste les multiples questions que l’accord soulève en matière d’équité des procédures d’asile, d’identification des personnes vulnérables et des mineurs, de risque de détention automatique sans contrôle juridictionnel, de conditions de détention, d’accès à l’assistance juridique et de recours effectif... Et met en garde contre le recours croissant à l’externalisation, qui pourrait « créer un effet domino susceptible de saper le système européen et mondial de protection internationale [5] ». De leur côté, plusieurs ONG ont déjà mis en évidence l’incompatibilité de l’accord avec la législation européenne – à laquelle l’Italie est tenue de se conformer – en matière d’asile et d’éloignement [6].

Les institutions de l’UE semblent moins inquiètes. Pas de réaction du côté des gouvernements, sans doute soulagés de voir l’Italie traiter seule le problème des arrivées d’exilé·es sur ses côtes plutôt que d’être rappelés à une « solidarité européenne » à laquelle ils préfèrent se dérober. Quant à la Commission européenne, elle s’est empressée de préciser que « le droit européen n’est pas applicable en dehors du territoire de l’UE » mais que, « étant donné l’appartenance de l’Italie à l’Union et l’adoption obligatoire d’une législation commune, les règles qui s’appliqueront dans les centres albanais seront effectivement de nature européenne et imiteront le cadre qui s’applique sur le sol italien [7] ». Nous voilà rassurés.

▻https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article7170

Protocole d’accord Italie/Albanie sur les migrations : une coopération transfrontière contraire au droit international

La chambre des députés italienne et la Cour suprême albanaise ont approuvé le protocole d’accord sur les migrations conclu en novembre 2023, respectivement les 24 et 29 janvier 2024. Le réseau Migreurop dénonce des manœuvres qui s’inscrivent dans la continuité des politiques de l’Union européenne (UE) et de ses États membres pour externaliser le traitement de la demande de protection internationale.

Le 6 novembre 2023, l’Italie a conclu un « accord » avec l’Albanie en vue de délocaliser le traitement de la demande d’asile de certain·e·s ressortissant·e·s étranger·ère·s de l’autre côté de ses frontières [1]. Ce protocole, rendu public le 7 novembre, s’appliquerait aux personnes interceptées ou secourues en mer par les autorités italiennes, qui pourraient être débarquées dans les villes côtières albanaises de Shëngjin et de Gjader. Les personnes reconnues « vulnérables » ne seraient pas concernées par cet accord.

Celui-ci prévoit, d’ici le printemps 2024, la construction de deux camps [2] financés par l’Italie : l’un destiné à l’évaluation de la demande d’asile, l’autre aux « éventuels rapatriements » [3] (autrement dit, aux expulsions). Alors que le Parlement italien n’a pas été sollicité au moment de la conclusion de l’accord [4], ces structures relèveraient pourtant exclusivement de la juridiction italienne. Contre une compensation financière et une avancée dans le processus d’adhésion à l’UE, l’Albanie aurait donné son accord pour « accueillir » 3 000 personnes par mois sur son territoire et assurer une part active dans les activités de sécurité et de surveillance via ses forces de police [5]. Fortement inspiré par le concept australien de « Pacific solution » [6], ce mécanisme placerait les deux camps sous autorité italienne, avec du personnel italien, en vertu d’un statut d’extraterritorialité.

Certaines institutions européennes se sont dans un premier temps contentées d’appeler au respect du droit national et international. La Commissaire européenne en charge des affaires intérieures a déclaré, une semaine après que l’accord a été rendu public : « L’évaluation préliminaire de notre service juridique est qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une violation de la législation de l’UE, mais que cela est hors de la législation de l’UE » [7]. Une formulation particulièrement ambiguë, qui n’a pas été éclaircie quand elle a ajouté : « l’Italie se conforme à la législation européenne, ce qui signifie que les règles sont les mêmes. Mais d’un point de vue juridique, il ne s’agit pas de la législation européenne, mais de la législation italienne (qui) suit la législation européenne ».

La Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe, a quant à elle rappelé que « la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile et de la faire examiner sur le territoire des États membres reste une composante indispensable d’un système fiable et respectueux des droits humains », ajoutant que « Le protocole d’accord crée un régime d’asile extraterritorial ad hoc, caractérisé par de nombreuses ambiguïtés juridiques » [8].

S’il a l’allure d’un accord bilatéral, cet accord s’inscrit dans la continuité de l’externalisation des politiques d’asile menée par les États européens depuis le début des années 2000, se projetant plus ou moins loin des frontières européennes (du Maroc au Rwanda en passant par la Turquie, notamment). De nombreux pays sont en effet tenus de coopérer avec l’UE et ses États membres dans le domaine de l’immigration et de l’asile en échange d’avantages en matière commerciale, de politique étrangère ou d’aide au développement.

Dans le cas présent, l’Italie, au nom d’un prétendu « partage des responsabilités », pioche dans la mallette à outils à disposition des États pour externaliser le traitement de la demande d’asile. L’Albanie ayant obtenu en 2014 le statut de pays candidat à l’adhésion à l’Union européenne, cette coopération transfrontière représenterait un gage de sa bonne volonté, se donnant ainsi l’image d’être le partenaire-clé des pays européens dans la mise en œuvre de leurs politiques de sélection et de filtrage des personnes étrangères aux frontières extérieures [9]. Cette stratégie utilitariste, mobilisant les personnes en migration comme levier de négociation politique, a déjà été mise en œuvre par le passé à de maintes reprises, et le réseau Migreurop a solidement étayé les effets délétères de tels accords sur les droits des personnes migrantes [10].

Au-delà de l’opacité et du secret qui a entouré sa conclusion, ce protocole d’accord pose de nombreuses questions :

Alors même que l’accord ne s’appliquerait pas aux personnes considérées vulnérables, ne peut-on estimer que les personnes rescapées sont de facto vulnérables ? Que le déplacement dans ces centres albanais de personnes rescapées en mer constitue de facto une action qui vulnérabilise ces personnes ?

Quid du principe de non-refoulement ? En envoyant des personnes en dehors de son territoire, le temps du traitement de la demande d’asile, l’Italie risque de contrevenir au principe de non-refoulement, pourtant énoncé à l’article 33 de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, qui interdit le retour des réfugiés et des demandeurs d’asile vers des pays où ils risquent d’être persécutés [11].

En pratique, sa mise en œuvre impactera les droits des personnes selon les conditions du débarquement (qui ne sera donc pas le lieu sûr le plus proche comme le prévoit la réglementation internationale) : qu’en sera-t-il du respect de la procédure de demande d’asile, de l’identification de la vulnérabilité, de l’accès à une assistance juridique ? Elle impactera aussi, ensuite, les conditions dans lesquelles les personnes seront détenues, à l’image de ce qui s’est passé dans les hotspots en Grèce, dans lesquels les personnes étaient prisonnières de camps à ciel ouvert [12].

Qui sera responsable en cas de violations des droits au sein de ces camps ? Quel droit s’appliquera, le droit italien ou le droit albanais ? Comment pourra être garantie l’effectivité des droits dans un territoire localisé à distance de la juridiction responsable, loin des regards ?

Selon les termes de cet accord, ni les personnes débarquées par les bateaux d’ONG, ni les personnes arrivées de manière autonome ne devraient être concernées. Comment savoir si les autorités italiennes n’élargiront pas cette procédure à tou·te·s les demandeur·euse·s d’asile ? L’accord ne risque-t-il pas, en outre, de mettre en difficulté les conditions dans lesquelles s’effectueront les opérations de recherche et sauvetage des personnes en détresse en mer ? Le tri entre les personnes reconnues vulnérables et les autres se fera-t-il sur le bateau ou en Albanie ?

Pour les personnes expulsées, le seront-elles depuis l’Italie ou depuis l’Albanie ? De sérieux doutes se posent au regard des déclarations du Premier ministre albanais affirmant qu’elles incomberaient aux autorités italiennes (alors qu’initialement cette tâche devait être effectuée par l’Albanie).

La détention aurait lieu durant la procédure frontalière et en vue du retour, mais quid des personnes libérées en Albanie : seront-elles renvoyées vers l’Italie ou un autre État ?

Cet accord tombe-t-il sous le coup du droit européen ou non ? La Commissaire aux affaires intérieures a laissé planer un doute sur la nature européenne des règles qui s’y appliqueraient. La Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe a quant à elle pointé du doigt le risque d’un effet domino « susceptible de saper le système européen » si d’autres États décident eux-aussi de transférer leur responsabilité au-delà des frontières européennes [13].

Les règles édictées dans l’accord politique sur le pacte européen adoptées le 20 décembre 2023 devront-elles s’appliquer sur le territoire albanais car sous juridiction italienne et donc européenne ?

Et pour finir, se pose la question du coût exorbitant de ces déplacements de populations, mais aussi celui de l’accord négocié avec l’Albanie pour disposer d’une partie de son territoire national, et du fonctionnement-même de ces camps.

Pour toutes ces raisons, le réseau Migreurop dénonce un protocole d’accord qui n’aurait jamais dû voir le jour. Et à supposer que le gouvernement italien s’obstine dans cette direction, cela ne peut se faire sans que le droit européen et la protection des droits des personnes soient mis en œuvre et respectés. À commencer par celui de demander l’asile dans de bonnes conditions.

Les mécanismes d’externalisation à l’œuvre – qui se généralisent – violent le droit international avec la complicité des autorités nationales et la complaisance de certaines institutions européennes. Il est urgent de refuser ce contournement incessant du droit qui, loin des regards, s’inscrit dans la stratégie mortifère de mise à distance des personnes étrangères.

▻https://migreurop.org/article3230

18 migrants killed in wildfires raging across Greece, officials say

Eighteen people, believed by fire officials to be migrants or refugees, were found dead in Greece’s Dadia Forest after a raging wildfire swept for the fourth day through the northeastern Greek region near the Turkish border that serves as a major crossing point for refugees and migrants.

The charred remains of the 18 people were recovered Tuesday near a shack close to a national park in Alexandroupolis, a city in Greece’s Evros region. Evros, which shares a land border with Turkey, is seen as a “no man’s land,” where bodies of migrants trying to cross into the European Union are found every year.

“With great sadness, we learned of the death of at least 18 immigrants from the fire in the forest of Dadia,” Dimitris Kairidis, Greece’s migration minister, said in a statement Tuesday. “This tragedy confirms, once again, the dangers of irregular immigration.”

Kairidis added that he denounced the “murderous activity of criminal traffickers” which is “what endangers the lives of many migrants both on land and at sea every day.”

Two other people were killed in this week’s fires — an 80-year-old shepherd and an apparent migrant — bringing the death toll in Greece to at least 20.

While migration numbers into Greece from Turkey have dropped in recent years as a result of strict border controls and deals with Ankara, Greece remains a front-line country for migration to Europe. The Eastern Mediterranean route — which includes arrivals by land and sea — has seen more than 17,000 people trying to cross this year, mostly from Syria, the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.

Earlier Tuesday, the Hellenic Fire Service said that because there were no reports of missing people from surrounding areas, “the possibility that these are people who entered the country illegally is being investigated.”

In early August, Greek officials met to coordinate migration policy after more than 100 migrants — mostly from Syria and Iraq, including 53 children — were found crossing the border in Evros, the Associated Press reported. Last week, Greece’s coast guard stopped nearly 100 migrants in inflatable boats crossing through the Aegean Sea from Turkey — with such crossings increasing in recent weeks, officials said.

Sixty-three wildfires broke out in Greece within 24 hours, the fire service said Monday. The agency added that it sent out more than 100 evacuation messages for the broad area since Monday, amid windy, dry conditions as Southern European temperatures hit 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit).

On Tuesday, the Ministry for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection issued a “very high fire risk” alert for several areas.

Authorities have been evacuating affected villages as the wildfires spread. Flames threatened to engulf a hospital in Alexandroupolis, prompting officials to evacuate all of its patients — including newborns and those in intensive care units — onto a ferry that became a makeshift hospital on Tuesday, Reuters reported. Nuns from a monastery were also evacuated, local media reported.

Satellite images recorded massive plumes of smoke streaming from the affected areas.

Theodore Giannaros, a fire meteorologist and associate researcher at the National Observatory of Athens, called the 18 deaths a “true tragedy.” Nearly 99,000 acres have been burned in the past three days.

“These facts clearly stress … that we need to change our whole approach for managing wildfires in Greece,” he said, calling for an integrated and interdisciplinary fire management approach and better collaboration between authorities and the scientific community.

Fire officials and researchers have raised alarm bells at the region’s lack of preparedness for wildfires — which are increasing in intensity, length and geographic breadth alongside summer heat waves.

Neighboring Turkey and Spain’s island of Tenerife have also dealt with wildfires this week.

The E.U. mobilized more resources Tuesday to help Greece’s firefighting battle. In the last two days, the E.U. has deployed seven airplanes, one helicopter, 114 firefighters and 19 vehicles, the E.U. commission said in a statement.

Greece is seeing “an unprecedented scale of wildfire devastation this summer,” European Commissioner for Crisis Management Janez Lenarcic, said in a statement Tuesday.

▻https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/22/greece-wildfires-bodies-heat-europe

Elliniki Lysi MP for Evros P. Papadakis also made similar statements live to local outlet e-evros, where he clearly blames people on the move for the #Evros #wildfires:
[from 1.06] ’I said it and will say it again, we’re at war, the mountains are full and everywhere, at all sites [of fire], there’ve been interfered with. Arrests have been made by ordinary citizens but also by the police at all (fire) fronts … we have war, they have come here in coordination, and they have put, the illegal immigrants specifically, fires at more than ten locations. At all mountains and where there are fires, there are illegal immigrants. They know this very well the police, the fire brigade and the volunteers who are very many.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbwC1D1Nq2c

–—

The MP with the extreme-right party Greek Solution, P. Papadakis, invites people on Facebook to “take measures” & “be alert to do what we do best” against “illegal migrants” who, he alleges, “hinder the work of pilots”.
In another post he states that “illegals” were “starting fires”. “It’s a war” he says, and urges: “declare an emergency”!
The comments are a cesspool of pure, unadulterated racist hatred.

These are the depths to which parts of Greek society have sank -and the @kmitsotakis govt has everything to do with it.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/mjwz3wvympU1/BU6LnYnStPo8GM4xtiwS9a8DnDfikQGZQMantG3z.png https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/rXQ2nGRkTDgC/2jTx94KeZAI5xO8bA4MsUmxwG3oHIPXYXC7h98xp.png

▻https://twitter.com/ninarei/status/1694096863094288864

19 refugees dead in the devastating fires and escalation of racist violence in Evros, Greece

https://rsaegean.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/19-refugess-dead-in-the-fires-and-racist-violence-no-text-1024x576.jpg

While the situation seems to be out of control with fires burning across a large part of Greece, from Evros region to Parnitha in Attica, the tragic human toll currently includes 19 confirmed dead refugees on Evros.

One refugee was found charred on Monday 21/8 in Lefkimi, Evros, where he was reportedly trapped and died from the fumes. Another 18 refugees, including two children, died yesterday, Tuesday 22/8 in the Dadia forest, where they were also found charred by firefighters.

At the same time, the fires have destroyed and threaten vast forest and residential areas, many of which have been evacuated. The evacuation of the Alexandroupolis hospital at dawn on Tuesday is characteristic: 65 impatiens, including babies and intubated patients, were transferred to a passenger ferry boat that served as a floating hospital and to the port of Alexandroupolis, in tents. Νursing homes in the city were also evacuated.

The lack of effective fire protection, prevention and response to the fires is blatant, also due to the severe understaffing – also blatant is the overall inadequacy of the state mechanism. The fires, which burn huge green areas and now also residential areas every year, are a predestined tragedy, to the extent that no effective protection and response policies are implemented.

At a time when at least 19 refugees are dead, instead of the State assuming its responsibilities, we unfortunately see its representatives obfuscating reality, and in some cases, accepting, if not fomenting, racist discourse and practices. Characteristic is the statement of the Minister of Migration and Asylum Dimitris Kairidis on the deaths that “this tragedy confirms, once again, the dangers of irregular migration”, as well as the respective statement by the Minister of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, Vassilis Kikilias. At the same time, an attempt is unfolding to collectively incriminate refugees in part of the media, referring to alleged arson and fires emerging on the paths they follow.

To top it off, we see an escalation of racist violence in Evros, targeting refugees and migrants as allegedly responsible for the fires: yesterday, on Tuesday, a video was released in which a civilian has 13 refugees imprisoned in his truck – he referred to 25 people – and calls for a pogrom against them. After the extent of the incident, he was arrested along with two alleged accomplices without, however, any official information on the fate of the kidnapped refugees. At the same time, many other reports and videos speak of vigilante “militias” and “bounty hunters”, citizens that are called to swoop in against refugees and migrants. Further, members of the parliament appear to foment such practices through their public statements, which include racist language and a “call to action” to citizens in the area.

This escalation of racist discourse and practices is extremely worrying and cannot be tolerated! The murderous persecution of refugees at the borders and racist “pogroms” must stop now, their victims must be protected, existing incidents must be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators must be punished, taking into account a potential racist motive. The State must assume its responsibilities and act immediately to identify and rescue people who may be in danger in the region, both from these practices and from the devastating fires. Furthermore, as regards the dead, all the relevant protocols must be followed to identify them, inform their relatives and bury their remains, with respect for the dead and their rights.

▻https://rsaegean.org/en/19-refugees-dead-fires-and-escalation-of-racist-violence
#racisme #violence #violence_raciste

Greece: Suspected asylum seekers killed in Evros fires

Eighteen bodies were found in two different locations in Dadia national park amid forest fires, the Evros fire department reported today.

Fire fighters have found the charred remains of 18 suspected asylum seekers in the Dadia forest in Evros amid wildfires in Greece that have been raging for the past four days.

Fire department spokesman Yiannis Artopoios confirmed in a televised address on Tuesday that the bodies were found in two different locations near the Turkish border, one of the most common migration entry points for Syrian and Asian migrants crossing the Evros River from Turkey.

No local people have been reported missing, so the remains are thought to belong to asylum seekers.

“We know very quickly if it’s a local or not, because [they] will be reported missing very fast,” forensics anthropologist Jan Bikker, who is working to identify the bodies, told MEE. “If they’re not reported, then most likely it’s an asylum seeker.”

According to Bikker, Dadia is a common migration route, as it is densely forested, allowing migrants to hide from the Greek authorities who would likely push them back out to sea.

“The safest way [for them] is through the forest. This is what people do after they cross over the river,” he told MEE.

“A lot of migrant groups [that] travel [do] not even [travel] on the roads, but in the middle of the forest.”

Amid soaring temperatures, these routes are also the sites of devastating forest fires.

“There is always a possibility that someone could have died in one of those fires…and the bodies are never recovered," he said.

“It’s very, very dangerous terrain…if they go missing, it’s very difficult to trace them."

While Artopois said that emergency alerts were sent to all mobile phones in the area, according to Bikker, it is unlikely the group would have carried phones or had any signal if they did.

“Often, they are not able to communicate with the outside world until they reach like a village where there is some internet signal,” he said.
Struggling to breathe

The NGO Alarm Phone had reportedly been in contact with two groups of 250 people stranded on different islets of the Evros River for days. Some of them sent videos of the approaching fires with pleas for help: “The fires are getting very close to us now. We need help as soon as possible!"

“They fear for their lives as the wildfires approach & the air is unbreathable. Their cries for help have remained unanswered by authorities for days,” the NGO tweeted.

Later, the NGO reported receiving another alert from a group near the town of Soufli. “They tell us one person struggles to breathe. They unable to move due to the nearby fires and worry they will die,” they tweeted.

Greece has seen a devastating wave of wildfires since July, fuelled by high winds and soaring temperatures. The recent deaths have brought the overall toll to 20. Fifty-three new blazes broke out across the country on Monday.

For Bikker, who works to trace long-term missing people in the region, the impact of wildfires on migrants is often overlooked.

“People think of the locals, but it also [impacts] the migrants.” He added: “For many of the people who go missing, we will not find anything…because they get lost in the fires and the remains will never be recovered.”

Since 2020, civil actors have reported a surge in disappearances and deaths of asylum seekers on the Greek islands.

When they arrive on the islands, migrants are driven to hiding in forested or mountainous areas in order to evade pushback by the Greek authorities.

▻https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/greece-suspected-asylum-seekers-killed-evros-fires

Fires, Pushbacks and the Far Right: Misplaced Blame and the Mobilisation of Violence Against People on the Move in Evros

▻https://borderviolence.eu/reports/fires-evros
#extrême_droite #extrême_droite

Deaths in Greece wildfires highlight the plight of asylum seekers

Firefighters find 18 burned bodies in Dadia Forest, suspected to be asylum seekers, as wildfires ravage northern Greece.

The discovery of 18 bodies in the Greek wildfires – thought to be asylum seekers – has prompted new discussion around the plight of those on the move in the country.

Greek authorities found the remains of 18 people in the national forest of Dadia on Tuesday, in the northeastern Greek region of Evros where the blaze is still raging.

The group, reportedly made up of two children and 16 adults, was likely trying to flee from the flames, according to the local coroner Pavlos Pavlidis, who said the children were between 10 and 15 years old.

It was separately reported that the body of a man was found on Monday also presumed to be an asylum seeker.

Locals have had to abandon homes and livelihoods to escape the fires as villages and even the main hospital in Alexandroupoli, the region’s capital, were evacuated.

The Evros region shares a land border with Turkey and lies along a well-trodden route for asylum seekers crossing into Europe from Turkey.

The area is highly monitored by Greek authorities and there have been ongoing reports of illegal and brutal pushbacks of asylum seekers, which authorities adamantly deny.

Some people who used this route, which consists of swathes of forests, have previously described to Al Jazeera how they have hidden to avoid detection.

Alarm Phone, an emergency hotline frequently contacted by people on the move in distress, told Al Jazeera they had been in contact with a number of groups of people in the region in recent days who described being threatened by the flames, but said were equally afraid of being pushed back over the border.

Alarm Phone said the area was essentially a “no-man’s land” for asylum seekers.

The Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum expressed “great sadness” on the news of the deaths, but added that “despite the constant and persistent efforts of the Greek authorities to protect the borders and human life, this tragedy confirms, once again, the dangers of irregular immigration”, and denounced “the murderous activity of criminal traffickers”.

The Civil Protection Ministry also expressed condolences, but added “the unfortunate foreigners, while they were forbidden to be in the forest … and despite multiple 112 messages to Greeks and foreigners in the area, did not leave”.

It is not known if the group had working mobile phones, understood the language of the messages or knew it was forbidden to be in the forest.

Two Greeks and one Albanian were arrested on Tuesday after posting a video online of a group of people presumed to be asylum seekers locked in a trailer.

In the video, the man accused migrants of having started the fires but offered no evidence and none has emerged that this is the case.
Conspiracy theories

The Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN), a coalition of more than 14 organisations, in a statement with Lena Karamanidou, a noted researcher on Evros, pointed to far-right galvanisation around conspiracy theories that migrants were responsible for the fires.

They said that figures such as Kyriakos Velopoulos, a member of parliament and leader of the far-right party Hellenic Solution had shared the video of the people locked in the trailer.

“Yet again, a tragic situation has been manipulated to blame people on the move themselves for their own deaths, and to strengthen links between migration and criminality that has led to the proliferation of mobilised right-wing groups in the region,” the BVMN said, criticising the response of some Greek authorities.

“Greece’s intense focus on migration has come at the cost of its land and its citizens, with tens of millions of euros poured into high-tech Closed Controlled Access Centres and the Automated Border Surveillance Systems used to ‘prevent entry’ of 2,170 undocumented persons between the 14th and 17th of August, and arrest 29 alleged human traffickers,” they said.

“Yet, there were few fire-preparedness measures taken for the wildfires that everyone knew were coming, and that have destroyed Greece’s natural landscape and razed homes and livelihoods to the ground,” BVMN added.

Eftychia Georgiadi, International Rescue Committee’s head of programmes in Greece, told Al Jazeera it was “devastating that at least 18 people have needlessly lost their lives”.

“Nobody should be forced to seek shelter in the forest and left without adequate protection,” Georgiadi said.

She said – once confirmed – the deaths “demonstrate the deadly consequences of the EU’s failure to agree on a humane, sustainable asylum system”.

“This lack of coordinated action leaves people exposed to grave dangers at every step of their journeys in search of protection in Europe,” Georgiadi said, adding it was vital “the EU and its member states uphold the fundamental right to apply for asylum, and create more safe routes so that fewer people are left with no option but to risk their lives on such dangerous journeys”.
‘Invisible’

Alarm Phone told Al Jazeera that asylum seekers moving through the region had become “invisible”, and sent a list of the groups they had lost contact with in recent days as well as a catalogue of reports of pushbacks and violence in the area.

“Nobody implied that foreigners set the fires on Rhodes one month ago,” they said, “state mechanisms – not just Greek – did everything to evacuate tourists”, and highlighted the difference between how international media focussed heavily on tourists impacted by the fires on Rhodes earlier this summer compared to the muted response now.

The group told Al Jazeera that climate change added an extra layer of violence to the lives and treatment of those on the move.

“The comparison between how foreigners are treated during disasters in Greece shows that the right to life is arbitrarily determined based on racist and colonial socioeconomic standards.”

▻https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/24/deaths-in-greece-wildfires-highlight-the-plight-of-asylum-seekers
#invisibilité #droit_à_la_vie #touristes #tourisme

Update : originally it was reported that 18 died, but now 8 more dead have been added.

“The first 18 #migrants were found dead near a landslide in the Avanda area , as the Fire Service spokesman said, while the second group was found in the Lefkimmi area”

▻https://twitter.com/EleniKonstanto/status/1693983836298776988

–---
Φρίκη : 18 οι απανθρακωμένοι μετανάστες μέσα στο δάσος της Δαδιάς - Εγκλωβίστηκαν από τη φωτιά

18 πτώματα εντοπίστηκαν μέσα στο δάσος της Δαδιάς - Οι μετανάστες βρήκαν φριχτό θάνατο

Τραγωδία στο Δάσος της Δαδιά. Οπως αναφέρουν οι πληροφορίες, η μεγάλη φωτιά στον Εβρο έχει προκαλέσει τον θάνατο 18 μεταναστών, που εγκλωβίστηκαν μέσα στο δάσος της Διαδιάς. Και υπάρχουν φόβοι ότι ενδεχομένως ο αριθμός θα αυξηθεί. Πάντως η πληροφορορία που μετέδωσε ο Σκάι ότι βρέθηκαν και άλλοι 8 μετανάστες νεκροί στη Λευκίμμη δεν επιβεβαιώθηκε.

Μέχρι στιγμής έχουν εντοπιστεί 18 πτώματα.

Σύμφωνα με τα όσα έχουν διαρρεύσει από πηγές της Πυροσβεστικής, μονάδες πυροσβεστών που επιχειρούν στην περιοχή, βρέθηκαν ξαφνικά μπροστά σε ένα αποτρόπαιο θέαμα. Δεκάδες απανθρακωμένα πτώματα μεταναστών, που εγκλωβίστηκαν στην φωτιά μέσα στο δάσος. Τις πληροφορίες επιβεβαιώσε σε έκτακτη ανακοίνωση που έκανε ο εκπρόσωπος της Πυροσβεστικής κ. Αρτοποιός, σημειώνοντας ότι γίνονται ενέργειες μέσω Διεθνών οργανισμών βοήθειας, για την αναγνώριση των θυμάτων.

Οι 18 μετανάστες βρέθηκαν νεκροί κοντά σε παράπηγμα στην περιοχή του Αβαντα, όπως είπε ο εκπρόσωπος τύπου της Πυροσβεστικής Υπηρεσίας.

« Στην πυρκαγιά της Αλεξανδρούπολης, σε επιτόπιο έλεγχο από στελέχη της Πυροσβεστικής στην ευρύτερη περιοχή του Άβαντα εντοπίστηκαν οι σωροί 18 ατόμων πλησίον παραπήγματος. Με δεδομένο ότι από τις γύρω περιοχές δεν έχει υπάρξει καμία δήλωση εξαφάνισης ή αγνοουμένων κατοίκων διερευνάται το ενδεχόμενο να πρόκειται για ανθρώπους που εισήλθαν παράτυπα στη χώρα.

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι από χθες είχαν σταλεί μηνύματα 112 εκκένωσης της ευρύτερης περιοχής. Σημειώνεται ότι, τα μηνύματα μεταδίδονται και σε κινητά από ξένα δίκτυα που βρίσκονται στην περιοχή. Ήδη από το αρχηγείο της ελληνικής αστυνομίας έχει ενεργοποιηθεί η ομάδας αναγνώρισης θυμάτων καταστροφών. Οι έρευνες σε όλο το μήκος της περιοχής που εκδηλώθηκε και βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη η πυρκαγιά, συνεχίζονται ».

▻https://www.thetoc.gr/koinwnia/best-of-internet/plirofories-gia-dekades-apanthrakomenous-metanastes-mesa-sto-dasos-tis-dadias

Greece: Evros wildfire dead are victims of ‘two great injustices of our times’

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/kBio25of5l2o/ZXGIXnPqmItT1VnAX6udu2uleOJlGVCpDJesXeYD.png

Reacting to the deaths of 19 people, likely migrants and refugees, on 21 and 22 August in fires affecting the Evros region, Northern Greece, Adriana Tidona, migration researcher at Amnesty International said:

“The 19 people killed by wildfires in northern Greece appear to be victims of two great injustices of our times. On the one hand, catastrophic climate change, which governments are failing to address and is worsening the scale of wildfires worldwide as rising temperatures lead to longer and more destructive fire seasons. On the other hand, the lack of access to safe and legal routes for some people on the move, and the persistence of migration management policies predicated on racialized exclusion and deadly deterrence, including racist border violence.

“Though the identities of the people killed by the fires are not known, it seems likely that they were migrants and refugees who had recently crossed the border into Greece. Because of the lack of access to safe and legal routes for people trying to reach Europe, migrants and refugees increasingly use the land borders in the Evros region to cross irregularly from Turkey into Greece. Authorities there have systematically responded with unlawful forced returns at the border, denial of the right to seek asylum and violence.

“The fires have fuelled racist rhetoric and abuses against migrants and refugees. On his Facebook account, Paraschos Christou Papadakis, an ultra-nationalist Greek MP, racist language to claim that fires had been started by migrants and refugees. A private individual was arrested, after he abducted a group of migrants and refugees in his vehicle and incited others to do the same, uploading a video of his actions online.

“Alarm Phone, an NGO, has reported that hundreds of refugees and migrants are stranded in different areas of Evros while fires blaze in the region. Amnesty International calls on the Greek authorities to urgently evacuate all those stranded in the Evros region and who are unable to move safely due to fires and to ensure that refugees and migrants who have entered into Greece irregularly can seek asylum and are not illegally forcibly returned at the border. The Greek authorities must publicly condemn and investigate any act of racist violence or speech or incitement to such behaviours, including on the part of politicians.”

▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/08/greece-evros-wildfire-dead-are-victims-of-two-great-injustices-of-our-times
#injustice #climat #changement_climatique #exclusion #exclusion_raciale

Reçu via la mailing-letter Migreurop, de Eirini Markidi, 23.08.2023

▻https://hellas.postsen.com/local/475765/Fire-in-Evros--Locked-immigrants-in-a-truck-trailer-and-calls-for-a-

He kidnapped and forcibly locked migrants and refugees in a truck, spewing his racist venom on live broadcast

Unthinkable situations unfold in streets of Alexandroupolis. While he rages for the fourth day the fiery fronta man broadcast and even to live broadcast video on social media, in which it has been locked immigrants and refugees in truck trailers and in his racist delusion, he mentions that he has “25 tracks inside the trailer”.

This is a resident of the area, who essentially forcibly kidnaps refugees and immigrants in a truck, spreading the his racist poison. In fact, he calls others to organize and follow these inhumane practices, because as he says about the refugees “they will burn us.”

Characteristically, in his racist delirium he states “We are sleeping! A ride from Chili to Scopo Volis I have loaded 25 pieces I have here in the trailer. Open up a little. 25 pieces. Open the wire a little. They will burn us…, they will burn us. Oops, see? 215 pieces. It’s filled the whole mountain, guys. The whole mountain is full. They are sworn, they are sworn to burn us. Full of holly. Full of holly, everywhere, that’s what I’m telling you guys. Get organized, let’s all go out and collect them. They will burn us, that’s all I’m telling you.”

In fact, some of the comments under the video, which are full of racism and hatred, make a sad impression. Indicatively, some users wrote to him “Turn off the camera and give pain”“Kapstous”, “At sea with the trailer”, cleaning Apostoli etc.

video (without subs): ▻https://youtu.be/LxMugRHvXP0

▻https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greece-detains-man-calling-migrants-be-rounded-up-police-2023-08-23

August 23, 2023

THENS, Aug 23 (Reuters) - Greek police said they had detained a man who held migrants in a trailer and called on citizens to “go out and round up” migrants he accuses of setting wildfires in Greece.

The man was detained after a video posted on social media showed a jeep pulling a trailer along a dirt road in northern Greece, and he can be heard asking another person to open its doors. Two migrant men can be seen crammed inside the trailer.

“Get organised, let’s all go out and round them up. They will burn us...,” the man, who police said is a foreign national, can be heard saying in Greek in the video.

In a statement late on Tuesday, police said the man, who owns the vehicle, had illegally detained 13 Syrian and Pakistani migrants. Two Greek nationals who allegedly helped him were also arrested.

The three were expected to appear before a prosecutor on Wednesday, after which it will be decided if they are formally arrested and charged.

A police official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the 13 migrants had also been detained for entering the country illegally.

The semi-official state news agency ANA said a Supreme Court prosecutor has ordered an investigation into the video. In a document published by ANA, the prosecutor is quoted as saying: “Phenomena of racist violence against immigrants are worrying.”

She described the video as “a racist delirium of violence, accusing immigrants of ’burning us’ and inciting others to racist pogroms, calling on them to organise and imitate him”.

Major wildfires have broken out in Greece in recent days, with the biggest front in the northern region of Evros bordering Turkey, from where migrants typically cross into Greece via the river separating the two countries.

The burned bodies of 18 people, believed to be migrants, were found in a rural area in the region on Tuesday.

Reporting by Karolina Tagaris and Lefteris Papadimas, editing by Mark Heinrich

Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, de Vicky Skoumbi, 25.08.2023

Le comble de l’horreur : les 13 migrants kidnappés par trois hommes faisant partie d’un réseau constitué de chasseurs de migrants non seulement ont subi l’expérience atroce et traumatisante étant traité comme des animaux, retenus à 13 dans un cagot pour chiens, mais ils n’ont pas été vraiment libérés par la police mais arrêtés. Ils sont accusés d’avoir fabriqué des mécanismes incendiaires et doivent maintenant faire face à des charges très lourdes, le tout sur la foi des témoignages de leurs …kidnappeurs ! Les charges contre ces 13 personnes migrantes sont très lourdes : tentative d’incendie criminel mettant en danger la vie d’autrui, fabrication et possession d’explosifs et entrée illégale au territoire L’avocat de l’homme qui a monté la vidéo où il se vantait d’avoir attrapé « 25 pièces » lors de sa patrouille, soutient que son client les avait surpris à essayer de mettre le feu par des mécanismes incendiaires artisanaux aux abords du tissu urbain et que lui-même et ses deux complices étaient désarmés, tandis que les 13 migrants –les 25 proies de la chasse au "clandestin" étaient finalement 13 syriens et pakistanais- avaient des armes blanches.

Comment trois individus désarmés arrivent à capturer et à enfermer dans une remorque 13 personnes armées de couteaux, c’est sans doute une question qui n’a pas trop préoccupé le juge d’instruction. Car, c’est bien sur la foi de ce témoignage incroyable et qui plus est, en flagrante contradiction avec la vidéo que l’homme qui les avait capturés avait tournée et de ses complices, que les 13 migrants voient leur cauchemar continuer et même s’aggraver. Enfin, quel intérêt auraient ces personnes migrantes qui se tiennent au loin d’endroits habités, en tentant de passer inaperçues au risque d’être piégées par le feu, de s’exposer à la proximité d’une ville pour y mettre le feu avec un mécanisme incendiaire ?

Tout cela arrive à un moment où des députés locaux, dont un de la Nouvelle Démocratie au pouvoir actuellement, appellent la population à se défendre contre les étrangers incendiaires, tandis que des chefs locaux de milices paramilitaires constituées des honnêtes gens rassemblent des foules qu’ils haranguent afin qu’elles prennent la situation en main, et ceci au vu et au su de tous.

Il est évident que les 13 victimes de ce pogrom ont besoin en toute urgence de notre soutien et surtout d’une assistance juridique à la hauteur des risques qu’ils encourent, avec des charges si lourdes, Y-aurait-il des avocats ou des ONG –HIAS, GCR etc- en mesure de fournir une aide immédiate et efficace à ces 13 victimes de violences et de traitements inhumains qui doivent maintenant se défendre devant un tribunal grec ?

Ci-dessous les sources d’information en anglais

▻https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/401767_katigoroyn-toys-13-gia-emprismo-me-martyres-toys-apagogeis-toys

They accuse the "13" [migrants, victims of kidnapping] of arson, with their captors as witnesses

24.08.23 16:02

efsyn. gr

The public prosecutor of Alexandroupolis decided to impeach the uninvited sheriffs who locked 13 refugees and immigrants in a cart. According to today’s proposal from the Prosecutor, the indictment attributed to them concerns incitement to commit crimes, violence or discord with racial motives in combination with robbery with racial motives together and complicity and exposure to danger, while the foreign owner of the vehicle that appears in a video pulling the trailer is also charged with violating the law on personal data.

As far as the 13 immigrants and refugees are concerned, they are charged with attempted arson endangering human life, manufacturing and possession of explosives and illegal entry. But it is a referral that raises reasonable questions, as according to information the charge against them arose from the testimonies of their alleged captors. Therefore, the question arises as to how reliable the accusation of attempted arson is when the arrest of the alleged arsonists was not made by the police authorities themselves, but by those who launched the pogrom against the refugees who have an interest in establishing the case of arson to make their trial a more favorable position. Even according to the statement of the lawyer of the 45-year-old Albanian who speaks in the shameful video, the immigrants were holding knives in their hands, while he was not armed, yet he managed to trap them inside the closed cart. How is it possible for three unarmed men to capture 13 armed and dangerous arsonists ?

Even more surprising is the fact that the three men claimed that they called the police to hand over the alleged arsonists around 5.30 pm and that they finally handed over the 13 men a few minutes later when the police arrived at the scene, to whom they also handed over the alleged incendiary device. Consequently, there is also a significant time gap between the statements that talk about the police being called at the time of the "arrest" of the immigrants at 17.30 and the arrest of the three men which took place late at night after the reactions that caused the release of the video. According to the police, the 13 immigrants were found in the 45-year-old’s cart at the moment they arrested him, so how did they surrender to them at 5:30 p.m.?

▻https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-24/no-guns-no-knives-civilian-militias-hunting-migrants-on-greek-border

‘No guns, no knives :’ Civilian militias ‘hunting’ migrants on Greek border amid devastating wildfires

The Supreme Court has ordered an investigation into what it terms an ‘alarming phenomena of violence’ against immigrants and incitement to ‘racist pogroms’

ANDRÉS MOURENZALOLA HIERRO

Istanbul / Madrid - AUG 24, 2023 - 12:47 CEST

The Greek province of Evros, where at least 18 migrants were found burned to death Tuesday in a wave of wildfires ravaging the country, was already a hell on earth for those fleeing their countries in search of a better life in Europe. For more than a decade, countless cases of abuses and violations of the most basic rights against people attempting to cross the territory — where the homonymous river serves as a natural border between Greece and Turkey — have been reported. Beatings, forced deportations, rapes, and illegal detentions have been recorded by human rights organizations. But if the situation for people attempting to reach EU territory was already dangerous, now it has become considerably worse : since the most recent fire broke out last Saturday, groups of local residents have organized themselves into militias to hunt down migrants. It is not the first time such practices have been witnessed, but tensions have been stoked further by the popular belief that they are to blame for the fires.

The chief prosecutor of the Greek Supreme Court, Georgia Adilini, on Wednesday ordered a double investigation to look for possible evidence of “an organized plan” to provoke the fire — although the police later stated that it had been caused by lightning — and to discover more details about the “alarming phenomena of violence” against migrants and incitements to “racist pogroms.”

These investigations have arisen following a video shared on social networks on Tuesday in which a man triumphantly displays the result of what he considers his hunting booty. The man, who is also the alleged author of the recording, opens the hatch of a trailer attached to a van to display an undetermined number of captured men looking confusedly at the camera. Their captor refers to these people as “pieces,” claims there are 25 of them and that he has “hunted them down” because they are responsible for the fires. “The mountains are full of these,” he adds.

“Part of the population thinks that the fires are the fault of the migrants and that’s why they chase them,” explains Lefteris Papayannakis, director of the Greek Institute for Refugees, in an interview with EL PAÍS. “They function as a militia ; they arrest them on their own account and use violence against them.”

The owner of the vehicle and suspected author of the video, a resident of the province of Albanian origin, and two other people of Greek nationality were arrested Wednesday. But Vassilis Kerasiotis, director of the NGO HIAS Greece and a lawyer specializing in migration, says that these militias are far from a one-off phenomenon and are organized with absolute impunity because the authorities prefer to look the other way. “There is tolerance on the part of the authorities, that’s why they feel they can freely publicize these criminal acts,” he adds. “Obviously, when a criminal act occurs, the authorities must react. That’s why they have arrested them,” he insists.

“It’s frightening how openly accepted hostility against migrants is in a certain part of society,” says a spokesman for Alarm Phone, an organization dedicated to receiving messages from migrants in distress throughout the Mediterranean area and passing them on to the relevant authorities.

Appeals to chase and capture migrants are spread through messages on social networks such as Facebook, X or TikTok. The video of the Albanian citizen showing the result of his “hunt” was uploaded to a channel on the Viber messaging network, with 240 members. Another recording released Wednesday shows a man dressed in military attire instructing several dozen residents of Evros to organize another pogrom. “Whoever can, start patrolling [...] But I’m going to ask you, no guns, no knives, or you’re going to get in trouble. It’s illegal. You will be arrested,” he says.

Before the video of the illegally detained migrants appeared, Paris Papadakis, deputy of the far-right Greek Solution party for the province of Evros, published another inflammatory tirade in which he accused the migrants of “obstructing the work of firefighters” and of starting the blaze.

Several left-wing MPs have called for Papadakis to be investigated by the Greek Parliament’s Ethics Committee. In his publication, the far-right MP described the situation as a “war” and called on his fellow citizens to organize raids to “arrest” illegal migrants “in the same way as in March 2020,” during the Greek-Turkish border crisis, when the government of Ankara facilitated the arrival of tens of thousands of migrants on the frontier with Evros. At that time, some locals organized themselves into militias to assist the police and the Greek Army in their defense of the border.

Hiding for fear of deportations

Evros was the main entry route to Greece and Europe until 2015 and 2016, when migrants started using boats to reach Aegean islands such as Chios or Lesbos. However, the transit of refugees has never stopped. So far in 2023, around 3,700 migrants have entered Greece via the land route, compared to some 6,000 in total in 2022, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It is possible that the numbers of those who have made it into Greek territory via Evros is in fact much higher. “More than 250,000 illegal entries were prevented at the Evros border during 2022,” the Ministry of Citizen Protection said in a statement. Some of that number probably crossed the border but were illegally deported by the Greek authorities, a very common practice in the area despite the fact that it violates both Hellenic and European laws. Various NGOs and human rights organizations have collected testimonies and evidence of about 400 such incidents during the last six years, in which some 20,000 migrants were illegally deported, in most cases with violent methods and having been stripped of their money and belongings.

Between Tuesday and Wednesday, Alarm Phone passed on alerts about four groups comprising hundreds people trapped in the area affected by the wildfires : three of them on islets in the river and another in a wooded area near the town of Sufi. “The fact that in the face of a fire people are hiding in the forest instead of trying to get to safety gives an idea of the need they feel to hide for fear of deportations,” Vassilis points out.

The Alarm Phone spokesman explains that the authorities contacted them and assured them that they had not found anyone at the indicated points. The organization also adds that on Wednesday, contact was lost with two of the four groups and that only the two larger ones, stranded on islets, remained in contact : one, of about 250 people, had been surrounded by the police. Another, of about 100 people trapped on an islet near the town of Lagina, was rounded up by officers and taken to a detention center. “We cannot say much more about the situation [of the groups], but previously, when the authorities claim they cannot find them, what they do is to attack the migrants and return them illegally to Turkey. It’s an excuse they often use,” says Vassilis.

Groups of civilians hunting for migrants is yet another threat that adds to the already treacherous conditions they face when crossing the border. The route involves a militarized zone where no one is permitted to enter, not even humanitarian aid organizations. They use the dense forests to hide for indeterminate periods of time during which they have no access to food, sanitation, or any other basic necessity. “There is no assistance there. It is almost impossible to help them when they are in hiding. Sometimes they take food with them, sometimes they go somewhere nearby to look for it,” says Lefteris Papayannakis of the Greek Refugee Institute. “We know that sometimes the Turks give them food while forcing them to cross, or give them access to power to charge their phones.”

Papayannakis adds that road accidents involving vehicles carrying migrants are frequent. “They are trafficked in cabs or vans to the cities. It is illegal, so sometimes the traffickers go very fast, in the wrong direction... We know of people who have died or been seriously injured because they were involved in an accident.”

For his part, the Minister of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, Vassilis Kikilias, has attributed the death of migrants to not having followed the evacuation orders that are sent automatically, in Greek and English, to all cellphones in the affected area : “In Evros there have been 15 fire outbreaks at the same time, which have joined together to form a huge fire,” read one. Satellite images show an immense area in flames, with a front reaching 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) and advancing “uncontrollably” in several directions. The dense smoke from this large fire, together with that of other fronts in Greece, has reached the islands of Sicily and Malta, more than a 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) away, and now covers 80% of Greek territory. Kerasiotis, of HIAS, takes a different view of the tragedy : “The cause of these 18 deaths is a combination of the absence of legal and safe entry procedures on Greek and European territory, together with the fact that potential asylum seekers are afraid of being illegally returned to Turkey.”

NGO umbrella group condemns self-proclaimed ‘militia’ groups

https://www.ekathimerini.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/3935361-960x600.jpg

An umbrella group comprising 55 non-governmental organizations and civil society bodies across Greece has condemned recent incidents involving civilian self-proclaimed “militia” groups engaging in unlawful acts of violence against refugees and migrants.

In an “alarming incident” in the Evros region, “citizens appeared to threaten and illegally detain a group of migrants and refugees inside a trailer, while using racist and derogatory language and inciting similar acts of violence,” the Racist Violence Recording Network said, in statement issued through the UNHCR in Greece.

“The incident came to light through a relevant video and subsequent articles, which triggered numerous racist comments. These events coincide with the tragic news of discovering dead people, reportedly refugees and migrants, in the Evros region due to the fires.”

The network said it was pleased to note “that the authorities have included the investigation of racist motive” under the relevant article of the Penal Code.

The network also expresses “serious concern regarding the deteriorating climate against refugees and migrants in the political and public discourse, which is even expressed by representatives of parties in the Greek Parliament, in light of the aforementioned incidents.”

“Such phenomena normalize, encourage, and ultimately escalate racist reactions, firstly in the media and social media, that sometimes result in attacks on the street, with the clear risk of irreparably disrupting social cohesion,” it said.

Coordinated by the Greek National Commission for Human Rights and UNHCR in Greece, the network comprises 55 non-governmental organizations and civil society bodies, as well as the Greek Ombudsman and the Migrant Integration Council of the Municipality of Athens as observers.

▻https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1218541/ngo-umbrella-group-condemns-self-proclaimed-militia-groups

#milice #milices

En Grèce, les feux attisent des propos et des actes racistes

A la frontière gréco-turque, les migrants sont tenus pour responsables des incendies qui brûlent la forêt depuis six jours par des groupes d’habitants, qui s’organisent pour les chasser.

Avec plus de 73 000 hectares brûlés en six jours, les incendies autour d’#Alexandroupoli, ville frontalière avec la Turquie, dans le nord-est de la Grèce, sont les feux les plus dévastateurs jamais enregistrés dans l’Union européenne. Devant des paysages de désolation, la tristesse laisse place depuis deux jours à la rage, voire à la haine envers des boucs émissaires tout trouvés, des migrants, désignés comme responsables des départs de feux par des groupes d’extrême droite agissant dans la région.

Mercredi 23 août, 19 personnes (dont deux enfants, selon le médecin légiste), très probablement des migrants, selon les autorités, qui avaient traversé le fleuve Evros séparant la Grèce et la Turquie, ont été retrouvées mortes. Quelques heures après cette annonce, des rumeurs alimentées par des groupuscules d’extrême droite circulaient sur les réseaux sociaux : des migrants auraient été à l’origine des feux, il ne s’agirait pas d’un hasard si les incendies ont lieu sur la route empruntée par les exilés. S’ensuit une vidéo diffusée sur Facebook par un homme qui montre un groupe de migrants enfermés dans la remorque de son véhicule. « J’ai chargé 25 morceaux », dit-il fièrement. « Ils vont nous brûler !(…) Organisez-vous tous pour les ramasser ! » , ajoute-t-il.

Sous la publication, un internaute commente : « Jette-les dans le feu ! » Les propos, repris par les médias grecs, ont choqué le pays et le ministre de la protection du citoyen, Yannis Oikonomou, a réagi : « La Grèce est un Etat de droit, doté de solides acquis démocratiques et d’une tradition humanitaire. Faire justice par soi-même ne peut être toléré. » Le propriétaire de la voiture et deux de ses complices ont été interpellés et ont été inculpés pour « enlèvement à caractère raciste et mise en danger de la vie d’autrui ». Treize demandeurs d’asile, syriens et pakistanais, sont eux aussi détenus, accusés d’être entrés illégalement sur le territoire grec et d’avoir été non intentionnellement à l’origine de départs de feux. Tous doivent être présentés devant la justice vendredi.

Depuis mardi, plusieurs groupes d’hommes de la région frontalière de l’Evros, s’organisent pour patrouiller et débusquer ceux qu’ils appellent les « clandestins ». Dans une vidéo, diffusée par le média en ligne The Press Project, un homme en treillis militaire s’adresse à la foule : « Commencez à patrouiller, prenez toutes les informations nécessaires… Mais s’il vous plaît, pas d’armes, pas de couteaux sur vous, vous allez avoir des problèmes ! Les autorités ne nous laissent pas faire, même si nous faisons face à une guerre hybride ! »

« Le climat est effrayant ! »

Thanassis Mananas, un journaliste local, le confirme : « Autour d’Alexandroupoli, des patrouilles de civils s’organisent pour attraper des migrants (…).Ils échangent sur des groupes Viber ou WhatsApp et appellent clairement à des actes violents. Plusieurs centaines de personnes se regroupent et le climat est effrayant ! », confie le jeune homme.

Les appels à la haine sont relayés par des députés d’extrême droite, notamment ceux du petit parti Solution grecque, qui a recueilli 8,8 % dans le nome de l’Evros aux élections législatives, en juin. Paraschou Papadakis, un avocat originaire d’Alexandroupoli et député de ce parti, est bien connu dans la région. « J’ai des informations sérieuses sur des clandestins qui dérangent le travail des pilotes [des Canadair]. Il faut passer à l’action ! (…) Nous avons une guerre, Messieurs ! », écrit-il sur son compte Facebook. Le député s’adresse aux membres de l’Ainisio Delta, l’association des propriétaires de cabanes de la région du delta de l’Evros, qui, fin février-début mars 2020, avaient coopéré avec la police et l’armée pour empêcher le passage de milliers de migrants, incités par le président turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, à prendre le chemin de l’Europe.

En février 2020, dans le village de Poros, le maire, Athanassios Pemoussis, confiait au Monde que « la démonstration de force » des agriculteurs qui avaient quadrillé le fleuve de l’Evros avec des tracteurs avait été efficace. Aujourd’hui, il assure que « les patrouilles n’ont plus lieu, mais que les arrivées de migrants ont repris de plus belle » .

Lena Karamanidou, une chercheuse spécialisée sur la question migratoire, estime que « les feux ont été instrumentalisés par ces groupes d’extrême droite, mais les phénomènes de violence et de chasse aux migrants ne sont pas nouveaux » . En 2020, « ces hommes ont été valorisés, dépeints par les médias grecs comme des héros qui défendent les frontières de la Grèce et de l’Europe. Les hommes politiques, dont le premier ministre, leur ont rendu visite en les remerciant pour leur action et ils jouissent d’une grande impunité, puisqu’ils côtoient la police et les gardes-frontières quotidiennement ! » , explique-t-elle.

Plusieurs ONG qui ont déjà dénoncé les refoulements illégaux de migrants à la frontière, accompagnés de vols, de violences et d’humiliations, s’inquiètent du sort des centaines d’exilés qui seraient actuellement bloqués à la frontière avec les feux. Adriana Tidona, chercheuse à Amnesty International, appelle « les autorités grecques à évacuer de toute urgence toutes les personnes bloquées dans la région d’Evros (…) , et à enquêter sur tout acte de violence raciste ou tout discours incitant à de tels comportements, y compris de la part d’hommes politiques ».

►https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/08/25/en-grece-les-feux-attisent-des-propos-et-des-actes-racistes_6186488_3210.htm

Greek wildfires spur anti-migrant sentiment

As Greece was hit by wave after wave of wildfires this week, asylum-seekers found themselves at the receiving end of several allegations they started fires, leading to an anti-migrant frenzy online.

At least two news reports implicating migrants were soon denied.

The verbal assault intensified after a group of 13 Pakistani and Syrian men were accused by locals of being caught red-handed trying to light a fire outside the city of Alexandroupoli, in the Evros region bordering Turkey.

One of the locals on Tuesday posted a live Facebook video showing the migrants stacked in a trailer, boasting that he had caught them for trying to “burn us.”

“Don’t show them... burn them,” another user commented on the feed.

The 45-year-old man was arrested alongside two alleged accomplices, with authorities insisting that “vigilantism” will not be tolerated.

The three detainees have been charged with inciting racist violence. The migrants were charged by a prosecutor in Alexandroupoli with illegal entry and attempted arson.

But a government source told Kathimerini daily that the evidence so far suggested migrants could more likely be linked to accidental arson by making campfires, rather than premeditated.

A picture of the alleged arson device posted on social media showed two car tyres crammed with styrofoam and wood.

The 45-year-old caught for detaining the migrants — dubbed the “Evros sheriff” by Greek media — was placed under house arrest Friday.

The man, who lives in the area after emigrating from Albania, claimed that he intervened after seeing the migrants attempting to light the device in bushes near a supermarket.

Heightened fears in the area have also given rise to media misinformation.

An Evros news portal on Tuesday said that 20 migrants had been arrested outside Alexandroupoli after exchanging gunfire with police.

Authorities later denied this.

Similarly, national TV station Open on Wednesday issued a correction after erroneously reporting that two migrants had been caught lighting a fire in the neighbouring region of Rodopi.

Northern Greece has been engulfed in a mega fire that originally broke out Saturday and required over 14,000 evacuations, including at a local hospital.

Lightning sparked the fire, according to Alexandroupoli’s mayor Giannis Zamboukis.

By Thursday, the various fronts had merged into a line stretching over 15 kilometres (nine miles), burning over 60,000 hectares (148,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest.

The area is just a few kilometres from the Turkish border. Migrant crossings aided by smugglers occur on a regular basis.

In 2020, tens of thousands of migrants tried to break through this remote northeastern area, clashing for days with Greek security forces.

Work on extending a 37.5-kilometre (23-mile) steel barrier to block the path is to be completed by the end of the year.

After the first fires broke out Saturday near Alexandroupoli, pictures and videos have been posted on social media claiming to show makeshift arson devices created by migrants crossing the border with Turkey.
’They want to destroy us’

Anti-migrant sentiment is strong in Greek border areas, where locals accuse asylum seekers of stealing and say reckless driving by smugglers poses a serious traffic risk.

“I am absolutely convinced that the fires were caused by migrants,” Evros resident Christos Paschalakis told AFP.

“They burn us, they steal from us, they kill us in road accidents,” he said.

“I have no doubt that the forest fire was started by migrants,” said Vangelis Rallis, a 70-year-old retired logger from Dadia, a village near a key national park that also burned last year.

“They burned it last year, and this year they returned to finish the job. They may have even been paid to do it. They want to destroy us,” he said.

The issue also sparked political controversy this week after Kyriakos Velopoulos, the leader of nationalist party Greek Solution, joined the attacks on migrants and praised the man arrested for illegally detaining them.

An MP for Velopoulos, Paris Papadakis, also called on locals to “take measures” as migrants were allegedly “obstructing” fire-fighting plane pilots.

“We are at war,” Papadakis said in a Facebook post.

In national elections in June, Velopoulos’ party and two other far-right groups posted their highest ratings in northern Greece.

In the Evros region, Greek Solution scored nearly nine percent of the vote.
Wildfire victims

Of the 20 people killed in this week’s fires, it is believed 19 were migrants.

One group of 18, including two children, was found Tuesday near a village 38 kilometres (24 miles) from the Turkish border.

Another migrant was found dead in the area of Lefkimmi near the Turkish border a day earlier.
Of the 20 people killed in this week’s fires, it is believed 19 were migrants

The head of Evros’ border guards, Valandis Gialamas, told AFP he expects more bodies of migrants to be found, as crossings from Turkey have increased in recent days.

Amnesty International on Wednesday called on Greece to “urgently evacuate all those stranded in the Evros region and who are unable to move safely due to fires, and to ensure that refugees and migrants who have entered into Greece irregularly can seek asylum and are not illegally forcibly returned at the border.”

▻https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230825-greek-wildfires-spur-anti-migrant-sentiment

Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, de Vicky Skoumbi, 25.08.2023:

Tandis que les trois auteurs de séquestration de 13 personnes migrantes sont libres de rentrer chez eux assignés à domicile par le procureur et le juge d’instruction, leurs victimes sont toujours en détention et doivent se présenter au juge d’instruction ce lundi
Bref le signal à la société locale est claire: impunité de chasseurs de tête de migrants et pénalisation des victimes
En même temps; Le parc National de Dadia, détruit en très grande partie par le feu, ne cesse de révéler de personnes migrantes et réfugiées qui ont trouvé une mort atroce dans leur effort de rester cachées pour éviter un refoulement vers la Turquie. Jusqu’aujourd’hui il y a au moins 20 personnes dont deux enfants qui ont connu ce sort; mais il devrait y avoir plus voire beaucoup plus qui ont été piégés par le feu dans la forêt

–---

Charred body found in Dadia forest; number of migrants burned in Evros rises to 20: ▻https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2023/08/25/migrants-burned-dadia-evros

August 25, 2023

Τhe body of one more person has been found charred in the forest of Dadia in Evros, north-eastern Greece. The fire victim was most possible a migrant, raising the number of migrants who lost their lives in the wildfires to 20.

The body was found with burn injured in the area of Lefkimmi on late Thursday afternoon, at the point where the destructive and deadly fire in Evros passed through and where another migrant was found charred on on Monday, August 21, 2023.

On Tuesday, August 22, the bodies of 18 migrants were found charred in the forest of Dadia. Among the dead were also two children.

Speaking to Reuters news agency, coroner Pavlos Pavlidis said that one group of seven to eight bodies were found huddled together in what appeared to be a final embrace. Others were buried in the wreckage of a shelter destroyed by the flames.

“They realized, at the last moment, that the end was coming, it was a desperate attempt to protect themselves,” Pavlidis said.

DNA samples have been taken form the bodies in an effort to identify them and have an answer to relatives who may seek them.

The fire in Dadia has been raging since beginning of the week.

Spokesperson of the Fire Service, Giannis Artopoios, said on Friday that two suspects of arson are being sought, while investigation being carried out in depth.

“Free without restrictive conditions for the charges of attempted arson & possession of incendiary materials & incendiary device, 4 Pakistani nationals were released.” Racist motivated vigilante accusations against 13 #Evros #migrants are falling apart!

▻https://twitter.com/EleniKonstanto/status/1695545622147858504

–---

Ελεύθεροι οι 4 Πακιστανοί – Μόνο οι « σερίφηδες » είδαν εμπρηστικό μηχανισμό

Αρκετές αντιφάσεις ως προς τον χειρισμό της υπόθεσης απ’ τις διωκτικές αρχές εντοπίζει ο έγκριτος νομικός Θανάσης Καμπαγιάννης. O ισχυρισμός περί « αυτοσχέδιου εμπρηστικού μηχανισμού » βασίζεται αποκλειστικά στον λόγο των τριών κατηγορουμένων για αρπαγή.

Ελεύθεροι χωρίς περιοριστικούς όρους για τις κατηγορίες της απόπειρας εμπρησμού και κατοχής εμπρηστικών υλών και εμπρηστικού μηχανισμού, αφέθηκαν οι τέσσερις υπήκοοι Πακιστάν, έπειτα από πολύωρη διαδικασία, η οποία έλαβε τέλος με τη σύμφωνη γνώμη εισαγγελέα και ανακρίτριας.

Όσον αφορά τους υπόλοιπους εννέα που βρέθηκαν στο « κλουβί » των αυτόκλητων σερίφηδων της περιοχής θα απολογηθούν τη Δευτέρα (28/08).

Στο μεταξύ, σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες, η ανακρίτρια διέταξε ιατροδικαστική εξέταση για τους « 13 » καθώς φαίνεται πως έχουν τραύματα που τα προκάλεσε -όπως λένε- ο 45χρονος κατηγορούμενος για διέγερση και διάπραξη εγκλημάτων, βιαιοπραγίες και αρπαγή με ρατσιστικά κίνητρα από κοινού και κατά συναυτουργία, έκθεση σε κίνδυνο και για παράβαση της νομοθεσίας περί προσωπικών δεδομένων.

Αντιφάσεις

Για την υπόθεση που έχει ξυπνήσει τα δημοκρατικά αντανακλαστικά αρκετού κόσμου τοποθέτηθηκε ο γνωστός δικηγόρος Θανάσης Καμπαγιάννης, που επισημαίνει αρκετές αντιφάσεις ως προς τον χειρισμό της υπόθεσης απ’ τις διωκτικές αρχές.

- Ένα απ’ τα σημεία που τονίζει είναι ότι τα θύματα αρπαγής δεν κλήθηκαν να καταθέσουν ως μάρτυρες στο πλαίσιο της προανάκρισης, ενώ δύο φαίνεται να κατέθεσαν στην ανακρίτρια.

– Η μόνη περίπτωση που μέχρις στιγμής ακούστηκε η φωνή των προσφύγων είναι η έγγραφη δήλωση παράστασης υποστήριξης της κατηγορίας από πλευράς ενός 24χρονου Σύριου πρόσφυγα, με επιμέλεια των εξουσιοδοτημένων δικηγόρων του, Κατερίνας Γεωργιάδου και Γιάννη Πατζανακίδη, που μετέβησαν χτες στο κρατητήριο του Αστυνομικού Τμήματος Φερών και σήμερα στο Δικαστικό Μέγαρο Αλεξανδρούπολης, σημειώνει.

- Ένα δεύτερο στοιχείο που υπογραμμίζει ο κ. Καμπαγιάννης είναι ότι ενώ ζητήθηκε η κατάσχεση των κινητών τηλεφώνων των τριών κατηγορούμενων δραστών για να διαπιστωθούν οι συνεννοήσεις και οι κινήσεις τους, ακόμα δεν έχει διαταχθεί η κατάσχεση.

– Το τρίτο στοιχείο που υπογραμμίζει είναι ότι η η δίωξη στους μετανάστες για απόπειρα εμπρησμού βασίζεται αποκλειστικά και μόνο στις καταθέσεις των τριών δραστών της κακουργηματικής αρπαγή, με την επισήμανση ότι στην περίπτωση αυτή οι προανακριτικοί υπάλληλοι αστυνομικοί μερίμνησαν να λάβουν μαρτυρικές καταθέσεις.

- Το τέταρτο στοιχείο είναι πως ο αστυνομικός που κατέθεσε στην προανάκριση, προσήλθε όταν οι 13 πρόσφυγες ήταν ήδη κλειδωμένοι στο κλουβί, οπότε ο ισχυρισμός περί “αυτοσχέδιου εμπρηστικού μηχανισμού” γύρω από τον οποίο βρέθηκαν οι 13 πρόσφυγες βασίζεται αποκλειστικά στον λόγο των τριών κατηγορουμένων για αρπαγή και σε καμία άλλη κατάθεση, στοιχείο ή έκθεση αυτοψίας.

Στο σπίτι τους οι « σερίφηδες » κατόπιν διαφωνίας εισαγγελέα και ανακριτή

Νωρίτερα, χθες, οι τρεις που είχαν συγκροτήσει τάγμα εφόδου σε παράνομο πογκρόμ μίσους και συμμετείχαν στην απαγωγή τουλάχιστον 25 μεταναστών, τους οποίους κλειδαμπάρωσαν σε τρέιλερ φορτηγού, εμφανίστηκαν στο δικαστικό μέγαρο Αλεξανδρούπολης για να απολογηθούν αλλά κατόπιν διαφωνίας μεταξύ εισαγγελέα και ανακριτή για το αν πρέπει να προφυλακιστούν αποφασίστηκε να τεθούν σε κατ’ οίκον περιορισμό.

Για την τύχη τους θα αποφασίσει τώρα το δικαστικό συμβούλιο.

Σύμφωνα με τα όσα δήλωσε μετά το πέρας της διαδικασίας ο Βασίλης Δεμίρης, συνήγορος του ιδιοκτήτη του οχήματος που εμφανίζεται σε βίντεο να έλκει το τρέιλερ, « τη διαφωνία αυτή καλείται να λύσει το Συμβούλιο Πλημμελειοδικών εντός πέντε ημερών όπως προβλέπει ο Κώδικας Ποινικής Δικονομίας. Μέχρι τότε έχει επιβληθεί ο όρος του κατ’ οίκον περιορισμού, της απαγόρευσης εξόδου από τη χώρα και της αφαίρεσης διαβατηρίου ».

Αναφορικά με το επίμαχο βίντεο ο κ. Δεμίρης δήλωσε : « Υπήρχε ένα ατυχές βίντεο για τους χαρακτηρισμούς τους οποίους χρησιμοποίησε (σ.σ. ο εντολέας μου) δηλώνει δια στόματός μου πλήρως μετανοημένος. Όλη του η οργή όμως και η αγανάκτηση έχει εξαντληθεί σ’ αυτό το βίντεο. Δεν άσκησε ποτέ βία, δεν χρησιμοποίησε ποτέ οπλισμό, κάλεσε τις Αρχές ως όφειλε να κάνει και οι Αρχές έφτασαν στο σημείο. Θα αναμείνουμε με αγωνία την απόφασή του Συμβουλίου Πλημμελειοδικών. Εντός τριών ημερών θα πρέπει να γίνει η πρόταση και να εισαχθεί από τον εισαγγελέα πρωτοδικών προς το Συμβούλιο και εντός πέντε ημερών θα πρέπει να υπάρχει και το σχετικό βούλευμα του Συμβουλίου », ανέφερε.

▻https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/dikaiosyni/401935_eleytheroi-oi-4-pakistanoi-mono-oi-serifides-eidan-empristiko-mihanismo

Lena K. sur twitter :

Just finished talking with family back home in #Evros. I’ll write down some of what I’ve heard, at least as an antidote to media coverage focusing on locals blaming border crossers for the fire etc. Note: family & their friends are mostly but not exclusively leftwing.

They don’t seem to have fallen for the narrative of border crossers being responsible for the fire, & were angry with media & govt not counting them among the dead. Lots of disagreements with locals blaming borders crossers & discounting their deaths.

The dominant view was that the worst was averted because of local people. Some participated in firefighting, but (especially in relation to the village we come from) what they did before & after the night the village partly burned - such as hosing water around houses to prevent fires restarting & clearing out unburned grass and weeds. There seems to be a belief that failure (mostly by the local authorities) to clear such vegetation (& also e.g. wheat stalks after fire) contributed to the fire spreading more quickly.

Lots of anger towards the government & local authorities for this - not doing enough for fire prevention. Reports of firefighting equipment breaking down too, a perception of lack of coordination between Greek & EU firefighting forces who came to help.

Lots of anger towards the government for not showing up when the fires were at their worst, too.
The contrast with frequent visits by government officials before the fires (for whatever reason, not only the wall) is not unnoticed.

I’d note on this that there’s a very deep-rooted (and justified) belief in Evros being largely neglected by Athens, the fires seem to reinforce it. Nationalism & anti-migration discourses have been used ’manage’ this (& IMO the far right has been useful) but did not eradicate it.

▻https://twitter.com/lk2015r/status/1695780783288615323

Locked immigrants in a truck trailer and calls for a pogrom

Les 13 migrants détenus à Evros ont été libérés et l’accusation d’incendie criminel a été complètement abandonnée.

Les 9 immigrants, à savoir 8 Syriens et un Pakistanais, accusés de tentative d’incendie criminel à Evros, ont été libérés sans conditions restrictives. Selon dikastiko.gr, la décision a été prise avec l’accord de l’enquêteur et procureur d’Alexandroupolis, qui avaient déjà libéré vendredi 25 août les quatre Pakistanais accusés des mêmes charges. Comme l’a souligné dans son message l’avocat Thanasis Kabayannis, l’accusation de « tentative d’incendie criminel » a été totalement abandonnée. Il est rappelé que des poursuites pénales avaient été engagées contre les 13 migrants pour tentative d’incendie criminel à Alexandroupoli sur la base exclusive des témoignages des trois auteurs présumés de leur enlèvement, à savoir les shérifs « autoproclamés », qui ont « arrêté » et entassé les 13 réfugiés syriens et pakistanais dans une remorque fermée, les ont accusés de tentative d’incendie criminel. Les personnes migrantes ont déclaré qu’elles ont été violemment frappées avec une barre métallique par les chasseurs de tête de migrants.

▻https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/dikaiosyni/402168_eleytheroi-kai-oi-alloi-9-metanastes-ston-ebro-katepese-pliros-i-katigo

Mais l’ ‘exploit’ des trois chasseurs de tête a fait des émules :

Nouvel incident avec un shérif autoproclamé à Evros.

Déchaînement de l’extrême droite à Evros avec des shérifs autoproclamés appelant toujours à des pogroms contre les migrants et mettant en ligne des vidéos fières de " leurs exploits’’. La réaction du représentant du gouvernement est assez molle. Réaction forte de SYRIZA-P.S.

La nouvelle vidéo publiée sur les réseaux sociaux qui montre ouvertement l’action d’un autre "chasseur de têtes" ne peut susciter que la honte. À Aisimi Evros, le shérif autoproclamé et ses deux assistants auraient immobilisé quatre migrants terrifiés sur un chemin de terre, en rivalisant avec l’homme qui avait capturé 13 immigrés dans une remorque de camion, provoquant l’intervention de la Cour suprême. Dans la vidéo qui circule sur Internet, on entend le « gardien » d’extrême droite de la patrie dire : « Quatre de plus, quatre de plus, des investisseurs... Vous voyez ? A midi, où sont les autorités...où sont les autorités, où sont les autorités...Quatre autres investisseurs, on appelle la police, il n’y a pas de réseau … ». La vidéo a été « sauvée » par d’internautes, l’auteur lui-même parlant de diffamation, il a supprimé les messages de haine qu’il avait publiés. Il n’y a jusqu’à présent aucune réaction de la part de la police ou du parquet d’Evros.

La réaction du représentant du gouvernement est molle. Lors du briefing habituel, le représentant du gouvernement a été interrogé sur le rôle de l’Etat et sur ce qu’il compte faire. Pavlos Marinakis a répondu simplement en disant : "dans tout acte illégal, comme cela s’est produit dans un cas précédent, il est de la responsabilité des autorités de faire leur travail et cela sera fait". Que disent-ils à SYRIZ-PS ? A Koumoundourou, le siège de Syriza, on se demande "que font les autorités compétentes et la justice face à ces réseaux qui veulent imposer la loi du Far West, qui capturent les gens et incitent à la haine ? Ils appellent les autorités et la justice à « intervenir de manière décisive ».

Rappel : il y a quelques jours, les trois qui avaient formé une escouade d’assaut dans un pogrom haineux illégal et participé à l’enlèvement d’au moins 25 immigrés (des « morceaux » selon leurs dires), qu’ils ont enfermés dans une remorque de camion, se sont présentés au palais de justice d’Alexandroupoli, mais suite à un différend entre le procureur et le juge d’instruction sur leur éventuelle détention provisoire, il a été décidé de les assigner à résidence. Le conseil judiciaire qui va siéger cette semaine va désormais décider de leur sort.

▻https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/402105_ta-kommatia-tora-eginan-ependyte

–—

Déclaration des avocats de la défense des 8 réfugiés syriens

(traduction par Vicky Skoumbi)

Après une procédure très longue qui s’est terminé tard dans la nuit au palais de justice d’Alexandroupoli, le juge d’instruction et le procureur ont accepté la libération inconditionnelle des 8 réfugiés de nationalité syrienne et de l’un de nationalité pakistanaise, accusés de tentative d’incendie criminel, le seul élément étant le témoignage de l’auteur accusé de leur enlèvement et de leur séquestration dans une caravane le 22 août. Après la libération inconditionnelle des 4 accusés d’origine pakistanaise le vendredi 25 août, et étant donné que les 13 citoyens syriens et pakistanais n’ont pas de résidence connue dans le pays, on peut conclure que l’accusation portée contre eux a été jugée dépourvue de tout fondement. Les auteurs de l’enlèvement sont assignés à résidence, suite au désaccord entre le juge d’instruction et le procureur, et la décision finale sur leur détention provisoire sera prise par le Conseil Juridique.

L’affaire n’est pas terminée.

Les 13 réfugiés sont toujours détenus administrativement en raison de leur entrée illégale dans le pays. Étant donné qu’ils sont déjà victimes et témoins essentiels d’actes criminels poursuivis en vertu de l’article 82A du Code pénal pour le délit à caractère raciste, pour lequel une déclaration de soutien à l’accusation a été présentée, l’octroi d’un permis de séjour à tous les 13 pour raisons humanitaires doit être décidé immédiatement

En plus de nos propres actions, les autorités policières et le Département des Violences Racistes de l’ELAS (police hellénique) doivent assurer leur séjour légal dans le pays.

Nous tenons à remercier les milliers de citoyens qui ont exprimé leur solidarité avec les victimes et les centaines qui ont aidé à couvrir les frais de leur défense juridique. La possibilité de représenter les migrants signifiait l’exercice pratique de leur droit à la défense et la mise en évidence, de notre part, du caractère raciste organisé des « milices » autoproclamées opérant dans la région d’Evros. De nouvelles séquences vidéo diffusées aujourd’hui montrent que l’incident en question était tout sauf isolé.

Alexandroupoli, 28/8/2023,

Aikaterini Georgiadou, Ioannis Patzanakidis,

avocats de la défense des 8 réfugiés syriens dans l’affaire de l’#enlèvement d’Evros.

▻https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02XULbKN47o1nCQEZE3VB8TiqDsJaa8NLwPFXo5jQ2Tk

To date, the tragic death toll from the #fires in #Evros #Greece has risen to 20 dead, all refugees. The fire is still burning in the area, for the 10th day, while the overall scale of the destruction is terrifying.

▻https://twitter.com/rspaegean/status/1696076952874951005

–----

Στους 20 οι νεκροί του Εβρου

Πρωτοφανές και σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο το μέγεθος της καμένης γης που έχει ήδη ξεπεράσει τα 700.000 στρέμματα.

Στους 20 νεκρούς ανέρχεται ο τραγικός απολογισμός της φονικής πυρκαγιάς που κατακαίει τον Εβρο για περισσότερο από μία εβδομάδα και παραμένει το ενεργότερο μέτωπο στη χώρα. Είχε προηγηθεί ο εντοπισμός 18 μεταναστών που βρέθηκαν νεκροί κοντά σε παράπηγμα στην περιοχή του Αβαντα, ενώ στις 21 Αυγούστου είχε εντοπιστεί ο πρώτος νεκρός από τη φωτιά που μαίνεται στον Εβρο στην περιοχή της Λευκίμμης.

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι ολική απανθράκωση είναι η αιτία θανάτου των μεταναστών που βρέθηκαν νεκροί στο δάσος λόγω της πυρκαγιάς, σύμφωνα με τον ιατροδικαστή Αλεξανδρούπολης Παύλο Παυλίδη. Συνεχίζουν να σοκάρουν τα στατιστικά στοιχεία που δείχνουν το μέγεθος της καταστροφής. Σύμφωνα με την ευρωπαϊκή υπηρεσία Copernicus για τις πυρκαγιές στον Εβρο μέχρι την 6η ημέρα από την έναρξή τους, έχει καεί το 17% της συνολικής έκτασης του νομού και το 45% του δασικού συμπλέγματος που εκτείνεται από τον κεντρικό έως τον νότιο Εβρο, στους δήμους Σουφλίου και Αλεξανδρούπολης.

Η καμένη έκταση υπολογίζεται σε 723.440 στρέμματα και χαρακτηρίζεται « η μεγαλύτερη που έχει καταγραφεί σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος εδώ και χρόνια ». Η καταστροφή είναι τεράστια εάν αναλογιστεί κανείς ότι η έκταση του Εβρου είναι 4.242 τετραγωνικά χιλιόμετρα (ή 4.242.000 στρέμματα) και το δασικό σύμπλεγμα των δήμων Σουφλίου και Αλεξανδρούπολης είναι περίπου 1,6 εκατ. στρέμματα. Σε όλα αυτά πρέπει να προστεθεί και το κύριο πλήγμα που δέχτηκε το παραγωγικό μοντέλο της περιοχής με τις τεράστιες υποδομές σε αγροτικό και ζωικό κεφάλαιο.

▻https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/401920_stoys-20-oi-nekroi-toy-ebroy

« Recherche de coupables », #milices organisées… En Grèce, les incendies réveillent la xénophobie

Si les feux ravageant le pays depuis des jours sont un révélateur de l’inefficacité de l’Etat, ils exacerbent aussi le racisme qui se propage dans une partie de la société : la vidéo d’un passage un tabac de migrants par des sympathisants d’#extrême_droite fait polémique depuis ce lundi.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/08W3DxMdBgf4/ShSQ01pBSLznwj0bwsIvOoVKFSgve0tCwDE9euqY.png

D’un côté, il y a la Grèce qui affronte le « plus grand incendie jamais enregistré dans l’Union européenne », comme l’a déclaré ce mardi 29 août un représentant de la Commission européenne. De l’autre, il y a celle qui recherche des #boucs_émissaires.

Depuis près de deux semaines, sous une #canicule asséchant encore un peu plus le pays après un des étés les plus chauds de ces dernières décennies, les flammes dévorent le nord du pays. Dans la région d’Alexandroúpoli, à la frontière avec la Turquie, elles ont provoqué l’évacuation de villages, d’une partie de l’hôpital… Elles ont carbonisé la forêt de Dadia, un parc du réseau européen Natura 2000 connu pour abriter de nombreux rapaces et déjà brûlé l’an dernier. A ce jour, plus de 81 000 hectares ont été réduits en cendres, soit une superficie plus grande que la ville de New York, selon l’agence Copernicus.

Certes, les Vingt-Sept mobilisent actuellement près de la moitié des moyens aériens européens communs pour lutter contre les feux. Mais les onze avions et l’hélicoptère de la flotte européenne, ainsi que les 407 pompiers envoyés pour aider la Grèce, ne suffisent pas à éteindre un brasier qui s’étend sur un front de près de 10 kilomètres. D’après un porte-parole des pompiers, ces flammes sont « toujours hors de contrôle ».

En parallèle du combat quasi désespéré des soldats du feu, la colère ne cesse de monter chez les Grecs. « Il y avait un manque de préparation des autorités », déplore Antonis Telopoulos, journaliste à Alexandroúpoli pour Efsyn (« le journal des rédacteurs »). Prévention insuffisante, entretien des forêts défaillant, moyens des pompiers manquants… Le constat revient depuis des années. Mais bien que le pays ait retrouvé des marges de manœuvre budgétaires depuis 2018, le gouvernement du Premier ministre, Kyriákos Mitsotákis, de droite conservatrice, n’a ni investi dans du matériel récent ni recruté des pompiers. Selon leurs syndicats, il y aurait au moins 4 000 postes vacants.

« Un #discours_dominant inattendu et très dangereux de l’extrême droite »

Il semble que l’incendie ait été déclenché par la foudre. La météo est la première raison invoquée par les autorités. Ce qui ne les empêche pas non plus de se lancer dans « la recherche des coupables », poursuit le journaliste d’Efsyn, ciblant « le récit mis en place par le Premier ministre » Mitsotákis.

C’est le cas concernant le foyer ravageant la banlieue d’Athènes, notamment la ville d’#Asprópyrgos, où vit une communauté Rom dans un bidonville, stigmatisée par une grande partie de la population. « Ces derniers jours, nous avons été témoins, en Grèce, d’un discours dominant inattendu et très dangereux de l’extrême droite. Les médias, le gouvernement et l’administration locale accusent les migrants d’avoir allumé le feu en Evros et les #Roms d’être les responsables des incendies à Apsrópyrgos », analyse le chercheur Giorgos Katsambekis, sur Twitter (renommé X).

Cette inquiétude trouve sa source dans de nombreux discours politiques. Le ministre de la Protection civile, Vassilis Kikilias, a visé des « pyromanes de bas étage » à la télévision, sans que personne ne lui demande de preuve de ce qu’il avançait. Puis il a ajouté : « Vous commettez un crime contre le pays, vous ne vous en tirerez pas comme ça, nous vous trouverons et vous devrez rendre des comptes. » Le président du parti d’extrême droite Solution grecque, Kyriákos Velópoulos, accuse les « immigrants illégaux » d’être à l’origine des incendies. La chasse aux coupables est officiellement lancée.

Elle atteint son point culminant au fleuve Evros. Différents médias tel que Efsyn ou The Press Project ont révélé des vidéos où des habitants de la région s’organisent en milices, comme ils l’avaient déjà fait en mars 2020. Leur objectif ? Chasser les migrants. Paris Papadakis, député du parti d’extrême droite pour la région d’Evros, est allé jusqu’à déclarer « être en guerre ». Il a lui-même participé aux patrouilles, tout en débitant des horreurs : « Les migrants illégaux sont venus ici de manière coordonnée et les migrants illégaux ont spécifiquement mis le feu à plus de dix endroits. »

18 migrants morts dans les flammes

Des vidéos font le tour des réseaux sociaux. Elles montrent des migrants à terre, sans doute battus. Le gouvernement est-il, alors, dépassé par la situation ? Il n’a en tout cas pas condamné ces actes racistes et xénophobes pour l’instant. Toutefois, le procureur général de la Cour de cassation et son adjoint ont appelé à conduire une enquête sur ces phénomènes de milices organisées sur les réseaux sociaux et leur composante raciste.

Plus de 20 personnes sont mortes dans les incendies depuis le début de l’été, dont 18 migrants pris dans les flammes à Evros. Dans la même région, trois migrants ont depuis été arrêtés, ainsi que trois miliciens qui les avaient capturés. Les trois premiers ont été relâchés lundi, sans preuve aucune de leur implication dans l’incendie.

▻https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/recherche-de-coupables-milices-organisees-en-grece-les-incendies-reveille
#bouc_émissaire #responsabilité

Incendies en Grèce : les exilés désignés comme boucs émissaires

Les incendies se poursuivent dans le nord-est de la Grèce, près du fleuve Evros. Les réseaux d’extrême-droite, très actifs dans la région, assurent que les exilés seraient à l’origine des départs de feu et incitent à la violence.

(#paywall)
▻https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Incendies-en-Grece-les-exiles-designes-comme-boucs-emissaires

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/w1zf9ZYp6V4z/M07tTnAoZ9R7vm3qHQk4dAkZhRBO4j5dufkKJWcx.png

Le Premier ministre grec à propos des migrants morts dans l’Evros avec les feux : « ils n’auraient jamais dû se trouver là dans la forêt et le msg du 112 (pour les évacuations) avait été envoyé » …

▻https://twitter.com/News247gr/status/1697237541588447435

–->

Ο πρωθυπουργός, @PrimeministerGR για τους νεκρούς μετανάστες στη Δαδιά από το βήμα της Βουλής « Δεν έπρεπε ποτέ να βρίσκονται στο δάσος και με το μήνυμα από το 112 που εστάλη και στις δύο γλώσσες ».

▻https://twitter.com/MarinaRafen/status/1697246231523905797

Grèce : des militants d’extrême droite arrêtent des migrants au nom de la lutte contre l’incendie

Des hommes apeurés dans une remorque, ou humiliés à terre au pied d’un 4X4 : deux vidéos ont montré depuis le 23 août des arrestations de migrants par des militants d’extrême-droite dans la région grecque de l’Evros, frontalière de la Turquie. Ce genre d’arrestations n’est pas nouveau, mais n’a que rarement été documenté en images. Les agresseurs accusent les migrants d’être responsables de l’immense incendie dans la région, dans un contexte politique anti-migrants disent nos Observateurs.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/eHVh4E3a4KWX/F3uUy3zpjTGG13HQOqyotEhvYXkk1Fuk9sgNkQqj.png

"Quatre autres... Vous voyez ? Il est midi et où sont les autorités ? [...] Nous contactons la police, mais il n’y a pas de réponse" s’énerve un homme qui filme cette vidéo publiée le 27 août et tournée dans la région de l’Evros, à une date inconnue. On y voit quatre migrants à terre, au pied d’un véhicule devant lequel se trouvent au moins deux autres hommes debout, manifestement complices de celui qui filme. Ce dernier se montre à la fin de la vidéo, vêtu d’un t-shirt noir et d’un pantalon à motif militaire. L’homme s’appelle Walandi Abrassis sur ses comptes sur les réseaux sociaux où il a directement diffusé sa vidéo.

▻https://twitter.com/parameteoros/status/1695824660884070411

Quelques jours plus tôt, une autre vidéo montrait une scène similaire : un homme filme son 4x4 puis ouvre la porte de la remorque qu’il y avait attachée, dans laquelle on voit au moins quatre hommes apeurés. "J’ai chargé 25 pièces dans la remorque. Organisez-vous, sortons tous et récupérons-les" dit-il, ajoutant : "Toute la montagne est pleine, les gars (…) Ils ont juré de nous brûler (…) Ils vont nous brûler, c’est tout ce que je vous dis", une référence claire à l’incendie, qui ravage le nord-est de la Grèce, considéré comme le plus important jamais enregistré dans l’Union européenne. Selon la presse locale, cette vidéo a été prise à Alexandroúpolis, à quelques kilomètres de la frontière turque, démarquée par le fleuve Evros.

Les victimes, au total 13 hommes et non 25, ont affirmé au site The Press Project avoir été frappées avec des barres en métal : “Ils ont enlevé tous nos vêtements et nous ont filmés. Nous sommes restés là un long moment, en sueur et incapables de respirer" a déclaré l’un des 13 hommes arrêtés.

▻https://twitter.com/EFSYNTAKTON/status/1694020764012359710

L’auteur de cette deuxième vidéo a été placé en résidence surveillée dans l’attente d’une éventuelle inculpation.

“Ces miliciens arrêtent des migrants mais comme ils ne peuvent pas les refouler, ils les remettent ensuite aux policiers”

Panayote Dimitras est le porte-parole de l’Observatoire grec des accords d’Helsinki, une ONG de défense des droits de l’homme qui alerte notamment sur les refoulements de migrants par la Grèce, qu’ils soient fait par la police ou par des civils :

Ce phénomène existe depuis des années, mais cette fois ils ont vraiment décidé d’eux-mêmes de présenter les vidéos de leurs actions. Cela illustre des choses dont des organisations comme la nôtre parlent de longue date, et cela a incité un procureur adjoint de la Cour suprême à charger un procureur local de s’en saisir. Ceci dit, rien n’a été fait face à tous les cas de refoulements illégaux vers la Turquie orchestrés par la Grèce, bien qu’ils aient été largement documentés, donc on peut douter que qui que ce soit, soit condamné ici. Mais toutes ces données enrichissent les dossiers qu’on peut présenter aux institutions internationales comme la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme, pour montrer comment ça se passe pour les migrants dans cette région.

On sait que ces milices coopèrent avec la police locale. Dans l’Evros, ces miliciens arrêtent des migrants mais comme ils ne peuvent pas les refouler, ils les remettent ensuite aux policiers, qui ne vont pas enregistrer l’incident parce que sinon, la présence de ces hommes est notifiée et ils ont le droit de faire une demande d’asile et ne peuvent plus être refoulés illégalement.

Les partis d’extrême droite comme Aube dorée ou Solution grecque cherchent à trouver des soutiens dans cette région. Il est clair que ces hommes sont liés à des organisations locales d’extrême droite.

L’auteur de la vidéo publiée le 27 aout, qui n’a pas été interpellé, a réagi dans une interview dans un journal d’extrême droite ainsi que sur la page Facebook d’un leader local d’extrême droite. Il assure qu’il souhaitait seulement apporter de l’eau et venir en aide aux migrants.

Les migrants désignés responsables

Sur les réseaux sociaux grecs, des groupes citoyens s’organisent dans la région avec des appels à chasser les migrants venus de Turquie, comme le montre The Press Project avec une capture d’une conversation sur Viber. Des leaders d’extrême droite ont ouvertement imputé la responsabilité de l’incendie aux migrants qui passent par l’Evros. Le député du parti Solution grecque, ParisPapadakis, originaire d’Alexandroupolis, a notamment écrit sur Facebook : “J’ai des informations sur des clandestins qui dérangent le travail des pilotes [des Canadair]. Il faut passer à l’action ! (…) Nous avons une guerre, messieurs !”.

Le 30 août, le Premier ministre de droite, Konstantinos Mitsotakis, a laissé entendre que les migrants étaient responsables des feux - ce que rien n’étaye - déclarant : "Il est presque certain que les causes sont d’origine humaine. Il est également presque certain que cet incendie s’est déclaré sur des routes souvent empruntées par des migrants illégaux qui sont entrés dans notre pays", ajoutant cependant que "les actes d’autodéfense et les shérifs autoproclamés ne seront pas tolérés par ce gouvernement”.

“L’action de ces hommes est adoubée par la police tout simplement parce qu’ils ont la même idéologie que l’État”

Eva (pseudonyme), une habitante de la région de l’Evros qui suit de près la situation et a requis l’anonymat, ajoute :

En mars 2020, quand la Turquie avait ouvert sa frontière pour faire pression sur l’Union européenne, la police avait officiellement demandé l’aide des civils, et une association locale de pêcheurs de l’Evros, Aenisio Delta Evros avait été très active pour arrêter des migrants. Officiellement, ce n’est plus le cas, la police ne veut pas donner l’impression qu’elle tolère cela. Mais quand on leur demande s’ils le font encore… ils ne répondent pas à la question, ce qui en dit long.

L’action de ces hommes est adoubée par la police tout simplement parce qu’ils ont la même idéologie que l’État : protéger les frontières, utiliser la violence pour le faire, pour eux tout ce qu’ils font est dans l’intérêt de l’État grec. Au sein de l’association Aenisio Delta Evros, on trouve d’ailleurs énormément de réservistes de l’armée.

▻https://observers.france24.com/fr/europe/20230901-migrants-turquie-grece-extreme-droite-milice-incendie-e

« Brûlez-les ! » : les incendies en Grèce attisent la haine contre les migrants
▻https://reporterre.net/Brulez-les-les-incendies-en-Grece-attisent-la-haine-contre-les-migrants

https://reporterre.net/local/cache-gd2/bf/3b2d4db1a65325f529c3afa7a04305.jpg?1693586437

4 septembre 2023 à 09h53 Mis à jour le 5 septembre 2023 à 10h26

Les incendies qui ravagent toujours le nord-est de la Grèce se conjuguent avec une déferlante de racisme. Sous les encouragements de l’extrême droite, des citoyens capturent des migrants qu’ils tiennent pour responsables des feux.
Parc de Dadia (Grèce), reportage

« Vous voyez, là-bas c’est l’incendie de l’an dernier et maintenant ça brûle de l’autre côté. C’est sûr que ce sont eux qui sont revenus pour terminer leur travail. Nous sommes en danger », affirme cette habitante de Dadia, dans le nord-est de la Grèce.

Sans détenir la moindre preuve, elle est certaine que des demandeurs d’asile ont délibérément provoqué cet incendie historique qui fait rage depuis plus de deux semaines. Certaines autorités penchent toutefois pour un départ de feu d’origine naturelle, causé par la foudre.

https://reporterre.net/IMG/jpg/img_7731.jpg

Les exilés utilisaient la forêt pour se cacher de la police. © Romain Chauvet / Reporterre

Cette forêt protégée de Dadia est située dans la région de l’Evros, près de la frontière avec la Turquie. Une route empruntée par les demandeurs d’asile qui veulent rejoindre l’Europe et qui s’y cachent pour échapper aux autorités. Près d’une vingtaine d’exilés y ont été retrouvés morts, calcinés.

https://reporterre.net/IMG/png/allain-parc_de_dadia_gre_ce.png

© Louise Allain / Reporterre

Mais le Premier ministre grec, Kyriakos Mitsotakis (conservateur), a déclaré au parlement qu’il était « presque certain que ce feu soit d’origine humaine », allumé sur des « itinéraires empruntés par les migrants illégaux ». Des propos qui font écho à ce que l’on entend sur place.

« Tout ça c’est la faute des réfugiés, ils sont partout dans la forêt et ils mettent le feu, ils veulent nous tuer ! » lance en colère un habitant qui doit évacuer, les flammes se rapprochant dangereusement de son hameau.

Kidnappings racistes

Ce méga incendie n’en finit plus de susciter des propos et actes racistes, dans cette région reculée, pauvre et très encline à voter pour l’extrême droite. « Ce sont les Pakistanais, ils nous envahissent, c’est un problème, un immense problème ici », dit cet autre habitant de la région.

Durant les derniers jours, plusieurs citoyens, encouragés par l’extrême droite, se sont filmés en train d’arrêter des migrants, qu’ils tiennent pour responsables de ce feu. « J’ai chargé 25 morceaux », s’est vanté en vidéo sur les réseaux sociaux un homme après avoir mis une dizaine de demandeurs d’asile dans une remorque.

« Brûlez-les ! » a répondu une internaute à la vidéo. Ces demandeurs d’asile ont depuis été mis hors de cause et plusieurs auteurs d’arrestations poursuivis par les autorités.

https://reporterre.net/IMG/jpg/img_7616.jpg

Alors que le gouvernement est vivement critiqué pour sa gestion des feux, la communication du Premier ministre est loin de décourager l’extrême droite. © Romain Chauvet / Reporterre

« En temps de crise, il y a toujours une forte tendance à blâmer les autres, ceux qui ne sont pas comme nous. Ça permet aussi d’éviter d’être confronté à des critiques pour une mauvaise gestion », analyse la politologue spécialisée dans les migrations, Eda Gemi.

Depuis le début de l’été, le gouvernement grec est sous le feu des critiques pour sa gestion des incendies et son manque de préparation. Plusieurs médias locaux ont aussi alimenté ce climat raciste, dans un pays qui se classe dernier de l’Union européenne en matière de liberté de la presse, selon Reporters sans frontières.

Une chaîne de télévision a par exemple rapporté que deux migrants avaient été surpris en train d’allumer un incendie avant de démentir, alors que sur une autre chaîne de télévision, une présentatrice s’est réjouie en direct qu’il n’y ait pas eu de décès, si ce n’est ces « pauvres migrants ».

Un mur à la frontière

« Le soutien aux partis de droite et d’extrême droite semble avoir augmenté depuis 2015, ce qui coïncide avec le pic des arrivées de demandeurs d’asile dans le pays », explique Georgios Samara, professeur en politique publique, qui analyse les mouvements d’extrême droite.

Plus de 850 000 arrivées de demandeurs d’asile avaient été enregistrées sur le sol grec cette année-là, marquant le début de ce que l’on a appelé en Europe la crise des réfugiés.

Mais depuis, la situation a considérablement changé, avec un durcissement de la politique migratoire. Un mur de plusieurs kilomètres a été construit à la frontière terrestre avec la Turquie.

https://reporterre.net/IMG/jpg/img_7594.jpg

Des personnes ont été arrêtées pour enlèvement, mise en danger d’autrui et incitation à commettre des crimes racistes après s’être filmées en train d’arrêter et d’enfermer des exilés. © Romain Chauvet / Reporterre

Pendant ce temps, les autorités sont régulièrement accusées de criminaliser l’aide humanitaire et de refouler violemment les migrants, refoulements communément appelés « pushbacks ». La Grèce est donc devenue un point de transit, plutôt qu’une destination finale.

Ce climat de tension fait suite à la poussée de l’extrême droite en Grèce, près de 15 % aux dernières élections. « Les partis d’extrême droite pourraient être les grands gagnants de cet incendie, dans la mesure où les électeurs pourraient vouloir encore plus de mesures extrêmes (contre les migrants) », s’inquiète Georgios Samara. Depuis le début de l’année, plus de 17 000 arrivées de demandeurs d’asile ont été enregistrées en Grèce.

Survivors: ‘Greek coastguard was next to us when boat capsized’

Two Syrian refugees recall their harrowing journey and pin blame on the coastguard for the devastating shipwreck.

“The boat was too heavy,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We were sitting next to each other, and there was a constant fear of sinking.”

On the derelict blue ship that was soon to hit international headlines, he saw about 750 people crammed together, shoulder-to-shoulder, unable to move. They had all hoped to eventually reach Europe.

In a few days, he would see hundreds of these people drown as a Greek coastguard ship floated nearby.

Ahmed fled Syria with his friend Mohammed*, 23. They both asked to use pseudonyms because they fear the Greek government would punish them for speaking out about what they saw that night.

They are two of the 104 survivors of the shipwreck off the coast of Pylos, Greece. Seventy-eight people have been confirmed dead.

Like hundreds of other people on board, their third companion, Mohammed’s cousin, was never found.

Their path to the central Mediterranean was taken in many steps. Ahmed and Mohammed said they left home hoping for a future without violence.

Their journey took them to Lebanon, then Egypt and Libya.

They spent about a month in Libya, where smugglers kept them closed up in an apartment with Egyptians, Pakistanis and other Syrians also making the journey.

Mohammed said the smugglers beat the Egyptians and Pakistanis, constantly cursing and insulting them.

Finally, in the first days of June, they were told, “You are leaving today.”

They were put on the back of trucks that drove to the shore, were loaded onto small boats and were taken to a trawler, the Adriana, out in deeper waters.

“They were beating people there,” Ahmed said.

“They were beating them while taking them to the lower deck of the boat. … It was very bad down there. It smelled of diesel and fish. You couldn’t breathe.”

Ahmed and his companions managed to pay a bribe of $200 to get themselves a spot on the upper deck.

But wherever the passengers sat on the ship, they were wedged together.

Women and children were kept below in the hold. From their cramped spot on the top deck, the young men could see the sea.
‘People were starting to lose consciousness’

From the second day of the voyage, the boat’s engine started breaking down.

“They would repair it, and after a while, it would break down again,” Mohammed said. “Every time they repaired it, it would stop again after two to three hours.”

After the second day at sea, food and water ran out. Panic began to percolate across the ship.

“At that time, people were starting to lose consciousness,” Ahmed said.

“They were falling on the ground. They were fainting. Some were shaking. We were seeing tens, hundreds of people in this state.”

They heard fights were breaking out all across the boat due to hunger, thirst and fear.

“Me, Ahmed and my relative who is now missing were always trying to keep our spirits up,” Mohammed said. “When someone cried, we made jokes. ‘We will make it,’ we were saying to ourselves. But everyone was going crazy.”

By the fourth day, they heard disturbing news from the hold.

“Some people coming up from below said, ‘There are dead people down there,’” Ahmed said.

“They said there were six dead bodies on the boat. Five bodies were down below, and we didn’t see them. One was on the upper deck. We saw him.”

Ahmed and Mohammed said the passengers started telephoning the Italian authorities and the Greek coastguard to ask for help.

“From the fourth day onwards, the Greek coastguard had been aware of us,” Mohammed said.

By the fifth day, June 13, they said it looked like the Adriana had stopped moving completely.

In the afternoon, a helicopter flew overhead.

The passengers could not understand from the deck, but it was the Greek coastguard. In the afternoon, one and then another commercial ship passed by and tossed those on board water over the waves.

“People were saying: ‘Take us with you.’ They were saying, ‘No.’” Mohammed said. “We asked for help, but they refused to help us.”

A Greek coastguard vessel finally approached the fishing trawler around midnight in the first minutes of June 14, the friends said. “‘Follow us,’ they told us. We followed them,” Mohammed said.

“Half an hour later, our boat stopped completely. It could not move. They came back and tied us to their boat.”

Ahmed and Mohammed said the coastguard started to tow their stalled-out trawler, but it took a sharp turn, and the Adriana heaved precariously left, then right, then capsized.

“They were right next to us when it capsized. In the moment it sank, they moved away from us. They deliberately made us sink,” Mohammed said. “We were standing on top of the boat, and we were able to see everything clearly.”

Tossed into the dark Mediterranean Sea, hundreds of people tried to find something to cling onto, some way to survive. “People were holding onto me,” Ahmed said.

“I was going under the water and getting away from people. Every time I got away, I would come across someone else, and they would hold onto me to save themselves. When someone grabbed onto me, we both went underwater together.”

After an hour and a half, Ahmed said he spotted an inflatable coastguard boat and swam towards it.

“They were 200 or 300 metres [220 to 330 yards] away from us,” he said. “I swam to them and got into the boat. They did not come close to us to save us. They were standing far away, and those who could swim were going towards them, like me.”

As he made his way towards the inflatable boat, Ahmed had to push aside bodies floating in the water.

Once taken to the larger coastguard boat, Ahmed was reunited with Mohammed. The two hugged each other, overwhelmed and elated to have found each other.

They started asking about their third companion. He had not made it, and they realised how incomplete their relief was.

The survivors of the shipwreck were taken ashore. Mohammed said that when they were first held in the Greek city of Kalamata, the authorities came to take his testimony of the tragedy three or four times.

“When we told them that we had been towed with a rope, they stopped,” he said. “They were saying that the problem was our boat. They wrote our statements with their own words. They did not write down what we said. They made us say it and write it down.”

Ahmed said no officials have ever taken his testimony.
‘Accountability vacuum’

Both men are now in the Malakasa refugee camp, 40km (25 miles) north of Athens. They are awaiting their asylum claims to be processed. Mohammed is desperate for news of his cousin, even if that news is confirmation he is dead.

Ahmed’s and Mohammed’s accounts contradict the account of the Greek coastguard, which has said the passengers of the Adriana refused aid, it was only immobile for about 20 minutes before it capsized and the coastguard had not towed the boat prior to it capsizing.

Survivors’ accounts line up with other evidence.

The Greek investigative website Solomon has published emails showing that the Greek authorities had been notified that the ship was in distress by 6pm (15:00 GMT) on June 13. And tracking data published and verified by the BBC and The New York Times show that the trawler was not moving for at least seven hours before it capsized.

When asked to comment on allegations that the coastguard towed the boat and was involved in the shipwreck, the Greek Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy told Al Jazeera: “The required information is part of the investigation procedure that is being conducted under strict confidentiality based on the instructions given by the prosecutor of the Supreme Court. Regarding the details of the operation plan of the Hellenic coastguard, no further comments can be made by our service.”

Fingers have been pointed at the Greek coastguard for both the shipwreck and its large death toll.

“It has been evidenced that the Hellenic coastguard uses a range of tactics to move boats they have intercepted at sea into different territorial areas to avoid responsibility for search and rescue and the lodging of their applications for international protection,” said Hope Barker, a policy analyst at the Border Violence Monitoring Network.

“Whilst this usually includes towing boats back to Turkish territorial waters, it is equally likely that if the boat was closer to Italian territorial waters, they would try to transfer it there instead.”

The organisation is calling for an independent investigation and for Frontex, the European Union’s border agency, to withdraw from Greece.

“Violations of fundamental rights by the Hellenic coastguard are routine and systematised operations that have proven to be under-investigated by the Greek state. There is an accountability vacuum that allows these actions to continue unabated,” Barker said.

In Malakasa, Mohammed said he cannot stop thinking about the moment the boat capsized and the screams of the people around him. He does not know how he survived in the water.

“I shouted Ahmed’s and my cousin’s names for a while,” he said. “In that moment, I heard a voice screaming, ‘Mother! Mother!’ I asked that person for his name, and he said, ‘Fuat’.

“He and I told each other our names, so that whichever of us survived would be able to bring the news to the other’s family.”

▻https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/7/5/survivors-greek-coastguard-was-next-to-us-when-boat-capsized

Under the unwatchful eye of the authorities’ deactivated cameras: dying in the darkest depths of the Mediterranean

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/pylos-solomon-f-featured-1024x576.jpg

A collaborative investigation by Solomon, Forensis, The Guardian and ARD presents the most complete tracing, to date, of the course that the fishing vessel Adriana took until it ultimately sank, causing over 600 people to drown − while under the supervision of Greek and European authorities. A document reveals that according to Frontex recommendations, the Coast Guard vessel was obligated to record the operation on video.

In the early hours of June 14, the state-of-the-art cameras of the Coast Guard vessel ΠΠΛΣ-920 were off.

The deadliest shipwreck within the Greek Search and Rescue Zone, one of the largest the Mediterranean has ever seen, was reportedly not visually detected.

Only hours before, aerial photos of the overloaded fishing vessel were taken. Nearby tankers recorded videos before they were ordered to leave the scene. There were satellite images that captured its movement.

But the exact circumstances in which the Adriana capsized off Pylos, killing more than 600 people, remain unclear three weeks on.

In affidavits and interviews, some of the 104 survivors attributed the sinking of the fishing vessel to an attempt by the Hellenic Coast Guard to tow it to Italian waters.

The Coast Guard emphasizes that it saved human lives, and maintains that the fishing vessel overturned due to a disturbance by the passengers.

Solomon, in a joint investigation with the research group Forensis, The Guardian and German public broadcaster ARD reveals: the Coast Guard vessel ΠΠΛΣ-920, the only vessel present at the time the Adriana capsized, was obligated to “document its operation by video-recording” in accordance with a 2021 Frontex document which recommends that the Greek authorities record their operations continually.

If this had been done, today there would be answers to the questions that the victims’ families are still asking.

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Image-6_Survivor_Justice-1536x863.png

The ΠΠΛΣ-920 cameras were supposed to record

By midday on June 13, the Greek and Italian authorities and Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency), were aware of the overloaded fishing vessel, which had been sailing aimlessly for four days in the central Mediterranean – its only means of navigation was a compass and the position of the sun.

The activist network Alarm Phone had also relayed to the authorities the desperate SOS of some 750 men, women, and children — mostly from Pakistan, Egypt and Syria — who, lacking potable water, were using their shoelaces to lower containers into the sea: “They are urgently asking for help”.

ΠΠΛΣ-920, the Coast Guard vessel which received the order to depart from the port of Souda, Crete to assist, has been the pride of the Coast Guard since 2021. European funding covered 90% of its cost, and it is one of the best-equipped vessels available in Greece.

And it could not be in better hands: earlier this year, in March, its captain was awarded for “his valuable contribution to the protection of maritime borders and human life at sea.”

According to the Coast Guard, ΠΠΛΣ-920, like its three sister ships (ΠΠΛΣ-900, ΠΠΛΣ-910 and ΠΠΛΣ-930), has two state-of-the-art thermal camera systems. According to the Coast Guard, however, when the fishing vessel capsized, the cameras were not in operation because the crew’s attention was focused on the rescue efforts.

“When we have an incident, we try to have the ability to operate seamlessly. Making some crew members ‘inactive’ so that they can record a video, you understand, is unethical,” Coast Guard spokesman Nikos Alexiou stated on June 15, justifying why the incident was not recorded on video.

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/pylos-shipwreck-920-Solomon-1536x864.jpg

However, one of the three former and current Coast Guard officers who spoke to us during our investigation, said that these cameras do not require constant manual operation and they exist exactly for this reason – to record such incidents.

But there is still a critical issue: a document reveals that, according to Frontex recommendations in March 2021, the Coast Guard vessel was obligated to record the operation.

The document states that “if feasible, all actions taken by Frontex assets or Frontex co-financed assets… should be documented by video consistently.”

The cost of the ΠΠΛΣ-290, one of four state-of-the-art vessels purchased for €55.5 million, has been 90% financed through Frontex. It is designated to be “available for four months a year, for Frontex missions outside of Greek waters.”

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/pylos-frontex-1536x864.jpg

Frontex had recommended the visual recording of operations, during a meeting where representatives from Greece were present as well as from other European countries, following complaints of human rights violations by the Coast Guard.

The complaints that were assessed during the meeting referred to the exact same practice, attributed to ΠΠΛΣ-920: towing vessels of asylum seekers outside of Greek waters.
We created a 3D model of the Adriana

Solomon, Forensis, The Guardian and ARD worked together and after analyzing a wealth of evidence, we present the most complete picture to date, of the Adriana’s course up to the time of its sinking.

We collected more than 20 survivor accounts and analyzed material derived from, among others, witness statements, official reports from the Coast Guard and Frontex, deck logs of the Coast Guard vessel and tankers in transit, aerial photographs and data on the position and movement of ships and aircraft. We also secured exclusive footage from the commercial vessels that were in the area and spoke to sources at Frontex, the Coast Guard, and rescuers.

The analysis of this information resulted in a detailed chronology of the events that occurred on June 13 and 14, an interactive map showing Adriana‘s movement, as well as a 3D model of the fishing vessel.

With the help of the 3D model, we were able to do what no official authority or journalistic investigation has done so far: to conduct in-person interviews with survivors of the wreck, using the visual impression of this body of data.

Using the method of situated testimony, the survivors placed themselves in the 3D model of the ship, indicated their location on the deck, and recalled the events that unfolded before the sinking of the Adriana: from the alleged towing to its capsize.

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Survivor_rope_3-1536x865.png

In this way, we were able to cross-reference accounts of what happened in the presence of the Coast Guard vessel, based on each person’s eyewitness account.
Main conclusions

Eleven critical findings emerge from the joint investigation:

– Frontex offered to help three times. A Frontex source stated that the Coast Guard did not respond to any of the three requests for assistance.

- The records of ΠΠΛΣ-920 are incoherent and raise questions. For example, while it is reported that immediately before the sinking, the fishing vessel was moving west, it actually appears to be moving for about an hour (00:44 – 01:40) in a southerly direction at a speed of only 0.6 knots. In addition: since, according to the Coast Guard, the fishing vessel’s engine had stopped working at 00:44, why was the preparation of life-saving equipment carried out an hour later, at 01:40?

- While the fishing vessel’s engine was running but there was no navigation capability, according to testimonies, ΠΠΛΣ-920 approached the vessel and gave directions to Italy. A survivor stated: “[a crew member] told us that the Greek ship would go ahead of us and lead us to Italian waters. He told us that in two hours we would be in Italy.” ΠΠΛΣ-920 directed the fishing vessel from a distance, which followed until its engine broke down again.

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/image-1_follow-us_1-1536x774.png

– According to Syrian survivors on deck, when the engine broke down, masked men from ΠΠΛΣ-920 boarded the fishing vessel and tied a blue rope to the stern. The above-mentioned testimonies are also consistent with an entry in the ΠΠΛΣ-920 deck logbook, which mentions the participation of a four-member team from the Special Missions Unit in the operation.

- According to the same survivors, there were two brief attempts to tow the fishing vessel. The first time the rope broke. The second time the ΠΠΛΣ-920 increased its speed and the fishing vessel rocked to the right, then to the left, then to the right again and flipped onto its right side.

– The Pakistani survivors were located in the interior of the ship, and could not see what was happening. They stated, however, that while the fishing vessel’s engine was not working, they felt a sharp forward thrust “like a rocket” — a sensation that corroborates the use of a rope for towing.

– Testimonies in this investigation support testaments presented by other journalistic investigations, as well as survivor statements included in the official case file: this action appears to have led to the capsize and eventual sinking of the ship.

- The fishing vessel capsized and survivors climbed on top of it. ΠΠΛΣ-920 left the scene, creating waves that made it more difficult for the survivors to stay afloat.

– After withdrawing, ΠΠΛΣ-920 directed its floodlights on the shipwreck site. Survivors tried to swim to the Coast Guard vessel, but the distance was too great.

– ΠΠΛΣ-920 began the rescue operation 30 minutes after the sinking, and only after the fishing vessel had completely disappeared from the water’s surface.

- Survivors claim that their phones (which were protected in plastic cases) contain visual material from the incident. Immediately after the rescue, according to the same testimonies, Coast Guard officers confiscated their phones, which have not been returned to them.

▻https://vimeo.com/843117800

Survivor accounts of the towing

In the deck log of ΠΠΛΣ-920, which we have seen, there is no mention of any towing attempt. The Coast Guard captain reports that they approached the fishing vessel to offer assistance, received no response, and followed it “from a discreet distance”.

This is disputed by the accounts of the survivors, some of whom not only tell of a rope that was tied to the fishing vessel, but they all mention its color: blue.

This investigation documents, for the first time, the blue cable that was used by ΠΠΛΣ-920, which can also be seen in earlier photos of the vessel.

https://wearesolomon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/pylos-rope-1536x864.jpg

The estimation that the attempt to tow the fishing vessel by the ΠΠΛΣ-920 led to its sinking is underlined by the statements of survivors, that form part of the case file which is available to the journalists that participated in this investigation.

“Then the Greek ship came and threw the rope which was tied to the front of our ship,” says a survivor who was on the deck.

The Coast Guard started towing the fishing vessel, he adds, and “when it was going slowly the fishing vessel was fine, but instead of approaching the Greek ship we were moving away. When they hit the gas, I’m sorry to say, that’s when our ship sank.”

The same survivor estimates that the fishing boat capsized due to the “pulling from the Greek ship, because then our ship began to lean to one side. And I, who was standing in a corner, slipped into the water with a relative of mine, who died.”

Another survivor who was also on the deck, but at the stern and without full visibility, says in his testimony that “it was night, the guys in front told me that they tied the rope, but I could feel the motion too, because then we moved, but not for more than two minutes.”

“Then we said stop-stop because our ship is leaning,” he says, adding, “I think we sank due to the fact that our boat was in bad condition and overloaded and that it shouldn’t have been towed.”

In another testimony, the description of the towing attempt is concise: “On the last day the Greek ship threw us a rope and tied us to their ship. The Greek one turned right, then ours overturned and we fell into the water.”

We contacted the Coast Guard, asking questions about the timeline of the shipwreck and asking them to comment on the findings of our investigation. At the time of publication, we have not received a response.
Why didn’t Greece respond to Frontex?

The picture of what actually happened would be more complete if the ΠΠΛΣ-920 was not the only vessel present during the incident.

According to the captain of the merchant ship Faithful Warrior, at 00:18 the Coast Guard’s Search & Rescue Coordination Center gave him permission to depart the scene, thus removing the last witness present. The Faithful Warrior left at 00:30, about 15 minutes before the fishing vessel’s engine stopped working, according to Coast Guard records.

Frontex, which operates in the central Mediterranean, had informed the Greek authorities about the fishing vessel early in the afternoon, and had offered to help.

Specifically, at 19:35 (local Greek time) Frontex offered to assist with the Eagle I aircraft. Afterwards, the Greek side asked Frontex to assist in a search and rescue incident south of Crete, where 80 people were in danger. The vessel in question was spotted by the Frontex Heron drone at 22:50.

At 00:34, Frontex again offered to provide assistance with the Eagle I and a few minutes later, at 00:52, it also offered the Heron. According to a Frontex source who spoke to our joint investigation, the Greek authorities did not respond to any request to send aerial assets to the overloaded fishing vessel.
Fabricated testimonies?

Concerns have also been raised about the possible alteration of survivors’ testimonies.

Survivors gave two rounds of statements: first to the Coast Guard and then to an investigator. Both versions are available to Solomon and the international colleagues who participated in this investigation.

While there are no references to the attempted towing of the fishing vessel in the survivor testimonies recorded by the Coast Guard, the same survivors spoke about it in the second interview with the investigator.

Also, when describing the shipwreck, the testimonies that appear to have been given to the Coast Guard by two survivors of different nationalities, are the same, word for word: “There were too many people in the boat, which was old and rusty … that’s why it capsized and sank in the end.”
Inside the hold

The TikTok video shows his older brother hugging him tightly and kissing him, before he enters the airport, dragging along his suitcase.

He had flown from Karachi to Dubai, and from Dubai to Alexandria, Egypt. From there he boarded another plane that took him to Benghazi, Libya, where he spent over ten days locked in a trafficker’s hideout, before he was taken to board the Adriana.

When he saw the old fishing boat he couldn’t believe it — he thought the trip to Italy would also be by plane. He wanted to go back to Pakistan, but the traffickers wouldn’t let him.

Inside the Adriana, Abdul traveled on the lowest of three levels, in suffocating conditions where he had to sit with his knees bent. “To get from one place to another, you had to step on people.”

Conditions were similar on the middle level, where about 300 people were reportedly crammed in, with more than 200 people still on deck. The testimonies speak of another, separate space inside the fishing vessel, where women and children were located. No women were among the 104 people that were rescued.

The Pakistani travelers had paid a total of €8,000-€10,000 each for the long journey to Europe – Abdul’s family of rice farmers had sold their land to finance his trip.

Abdul had learned to swim in the canals around his family’s crops – when the Adriana sank, it was his ability to swim that allowed Abdul to reach the Coast Guard vessel and save himself.

As he walks along in Athens, Abdul’s relatives call him, asking what’s the name of the city he’s in. He tells us about his family, but he also shows us photos of loved ones who perished: he was onboard the Adriana with 14 of his friends and his uncle. Only he survived.

And of his 350 fellow Pakistanis who were also in the hold with him, only 12 were rescued. “Beautiful people were lost,” says Abdul.

People who participated in the investigation: Christina Varvia, Lydia Emmanouilidou, Katy Fallon, Ebrahem Farooqui, Armin Ghassim, Sebastian Heidelberger, Stefanos Levidis, Andreas Makas, Stavros Malichudis, Iliana Papangeli, Corina Petridi, Timo Robben, Georgia Skartadou, Sulaiman Tadmory, George Christides.

▻https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/investigation/under-the-unwatchful-eye-of-the-authorities-deactivated-cameras-dying-

Greek shipwreck: hi-tech investigation suggests coastguard responsible for sinking

Research into loss of trawler with hundreds of deaths strongly contradicts official accounts – while finding a failure to mobilise help and evidence that survivor statements were tampered with

Attempts by the Greek coastguard to tow a fishing trawler carrying hundreds of migrants may have caused the vessel to sink, according to a new investigation by the Guardian and media partners that has raised further questions about the incident, which left an estimated 500 people missing

The trawler carrying migrants from Libya to Italy sank off the coast of Greece on 14 June. There were 104 survivors.

Reporters and researchers conducted more than 20 interviews with survivors and drew on court documents and coastguard sources to build a picture of missed rescue opportunities and offers of assistance that were ignored. Multiple survivors said that attempts by the Greek coastguard to tow the vessel had ultimately caused the sinking. The coastguard has strenuously denied that it attempted to tow the trawler.

The night that the trawler capsized, 47 nautical miles off Pylos, in south-western Greece, was reconstructed using an interactive 3D model of the boat created by Forensis, a Berlin-based research agency founded by Forensic Architecture, which investigates human rights violations.

The joint investigation by the Guardian, German public broadcaster ARD/NDR/Funk and Greek investigative outlet Solomon, in collaboration with Forensis, has given one of the fullest accounts to date of the trawler’s course up to its sinking. It unearthed new evidence such as a coastguard vessel moored at a closer port but never dispatched to the incident and how Greek authorities failed to respond not twice, as previously reported, but three times to offers of assistance by Frontex, the EU border and coastguard agency.

Forensis mapped the final hours before the sinking, using data from the coastguard’s log and the testimony of the coast guard vessel’s captain, as well as flight paths, maritime traffic data, satellite imagery and information from videos taken by nearby commercial vessels and other sources. The ship’s last movements contradict the coastguard and reveal inconsistencies within the official account of events, including the trawler’s direction and speed.

Crucially, the investigation showed the overcrowded trawler started moving westward on meeting the single Greek coastguard vessel sent to the scene. According to multiple survivor testimonies given to the Guardian and Greek prosecutors, the coastguard had told the migrants it would lead them to Italy – clashing with the official version that the trawler started moving west of its own accord. The investigation also showed the trawler had turned to the south and was almost stationary for at least an hour until, survivors said, a second and fatal towing attempt took place.
Survivors use the 3D model of the boat to describe what happened on the night of the 14 June.

Two survivors used the 3D model to describe the towing itself, while three others, who were sitting inside or on the vessel’s lower deck, described being propelled forward “like a rocket”, but with the engine not operating. That suggests a towing attempt.

Another survivor separately said he heard people shouting about a rope being attached by the “Greek army” and described being towed for 10 minutes shortly before the trawler sank. “I feel that they have tried to push us out of Greek water so that their responsibility ends,” a survivor said after considering the map of events and reflecting on his memories of the night.

Maria Papamina, a lawyer from the Greek Council for Refugees, one of two legal organisations representing between 40 and 50 survivors, said that there had been two towing attempts recounted to her team. Court documents also show that seven out of eight survivors gave accounts to the civil prosecutor of the presence of a rope, towing and a strong pull, in depositions conducted on 17 and 18 June.

The exact circumstances of the sinking cannot be conclusively proved in the absence of visual evidence. Several survivors testified to having had their phones confiscated by the authorities and some mentioned having filmed videos moments before the sinking. Questions remain over why the newly acquired Greek coastguard vessel at the scene did not record the operation on its thermal cameras. The vessel, called the 920, was 90% financed by the EU to bolster the capabilities of Frontex in Greece and is part of the EU border agency’s joint operations in the country. Frontex recommends that “if feasible, all actions taken by … Frontex co-financed assets should be documented by video consistently”.

In official statements the Greek coastguard said the operation was not recorded because the crew’s focus was on the rescue operation. But a source within the coastguard said cameras do not need constant manual operation and are there precisely to capture such incidents.

The presence of masked men, described by two survivors as attaching a rope to the trawler, is also documented in the ship’s log, which includes an entry about a special ops team known as KEA joining the 920 that night.

According to coastguard sources, it would not be unusual to deploy KEA – typically used in risky situations such as suspected arms or drug smuggling at sea – given the vessel’s unknown status, but one source said that their presence suggested the vessel should have been intercepted on security and maritime safety grounds alone.

One source described the failure to mobilise help closer to the incident as “incomprehensible”. The 920 was deployed from Chania, in Crete, about 150 nautical miles from the site of the sinking. The source said the coastguard had somewhat smaller but still capable vessels, based in Patras, Kalamata, Neapoli Voion and even Pylos itself. The 920 was ordered by coastguard HQ to “locate” the trawler at about 3pm local time on 13 June. It finally made contact close to midnight. An eyewitness official confirmed another vessel was stationed in Kalamata on 14 June and could have reached the trawler within a couple of hours. “It should have been a ‘send everything you’ve got’ situation. The trawler was in clear need of assistance,” the source said.

The Greek coastguard and Frontex were alerted to the trawler on the morning of 13 June. Both agencies had photographed it from the air but no search and rescue operation was conducted – according to the Greek side, because the boat had refused assistance. Authorities received an urgent SOS said to have been relayed to them at 5.53pm local time by the small boats emergency hotline Alarmphone, which was in contact with people on board.

Two of the coastguard sources told the Guardian they believed towing was a likely reason for the boat capsizing. This would not be without precedent. In 2014, an attempt to tow a refugee boat off the coast of Farmakonisi cost 11 lives. Greek courts cleared the coastguard, but the European court of human rights passed a damning judgment in 2022.

Allegations have also been made that survivors’ statements were tampered with. Two rounds of testimonies were given – first to the coastguard and then to a civil prosecutor – both seen by the Guardian. Testimonies to the coastguard by two separate survivors of different nationalities are word for word the same when describing the sinking: “We were too many people on the boat, which was old and rusty … this is why it capsized and sank in the end.”

Under oath to the civil prosecutor, days later, the same survivors describe towing incidents and blame the Greek coastguard for the sinking. The same Syrian survivor who stated in his coastguard testimony that the trawler capsized due to its age and overcrowding would later testify: “When they stepped on it, and I am sorry to mention this, our boat sank. I believe the reason was the towing by the Greek boat.”

Brussels has asked for a “transparent” investigation into the wreck, while there is frustration within Frontex, which repeatedly offered assets to Greek authorities – a plane twice and later a drone – but received no reply. Although Frontex is facing mounting calls to pull out of Greece, the Guardian understands it is considering less drastic measures such as discontinuing co-financing of Greek coastguard vessels.

The Coast Guard said it “would not comment on operational issues or the ongoing investigation which is confidential according to a Supreme Court Order.”

Nine Egyptians on the trawler have been arrested on charges including involuntary manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and migrant smuggling; they deny wrongdoing. According to Guardian information, the accused testified there were two towing attempts, the second resulting in the sinking of the boat. A brother of one of the accused said his sibling paid about £3,000 to be on the boat, amounting to proof, he said, that he was not a smuggler.

In Greece and beyond, survivors and victims’ families are trying to understand what happened. Three Pakistani survivors said they flew from Pakistan through Dubai or Egypt to Libya. Two believed they would fly from Libya to Italy and were shocked on seeing the trawler. “I can’t sleep properly. When I sleep I feel as if I am sinking into the water and will die,” one said.

Nearly half of the estimated 750 people on board are thought to have been Pakistani citizens taking an emerging people-smuggling route to Italy. Pakistani authorities estimate that 115 came from Gujranwala in the east of the country, a region known for its rice plantations and cotton fields but deeply mired in Pakistan’s economic crisis.

Ahmed Farouq, who lives on the outskirts of the city of Gujranwala, lost his son in the Pylos shipwreck. Talking of the alleged towing, he saids: “They wanted it to sink. Why didn’t they save the people first? If they don’t want illegal migrants, let them deport us, but don’t let us drown.”

▻https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jul/10/greek-shipwreck-hi-tech-investigation-suggests-coastguard-responsible-f

Greek coastguard ’pressured’ disaster survivors to blame Egyptian men

New evidence found by BBC News casts further doubt on the Greek coastguard’s version of events surrounding last month’s deadly migrant boat sinking, in which up to 600 people died.

Two survivors have described how the coastguard pressed them to identify nine Egyptians on board as traffickers.

A new video of the overcrowded boat foundering at sea also challenges the Greek coastguard’s account.

It was taken when the boat was said to be on a “steady course”.

BBC Verify has confirmed the footage was filmed when the coastguard claimed the boat was not in need of rescue - and was in fact filmed by the coastguard itself.

We have also confirmed that the larger vessel in the background is the oil tanker Faithful Warrior, which had been asked to give supplies to the migrant boat.

The official Greek coastguard account had already been challenged in a BBC Verify report - but now we have seen court documents which show serious discrepancies between survivors’ witness statements taken by the coastguards, and the in-person evidence later presented to a judge.

A translator has also come forward with his account of a people-smuggling investigation last year, after another group of migrants were rescued by the coastguard. He describes how witnesses from that incident were intimidated by the coastguard. The legal case collapsed before it could reach trial.

The revelations raise fresh questions about how the Greek authorities handle such disasters.

Both the Greek coastguard and Greek government did not comment and declined our requests for interview.
A map of a section of the Mediterranean Sea showing the possible route taken by the migrant boat off the coast of Libya, near the city of Tobruk. The possible route shows the last approximate location of the boat before it sunk and the path taken by the Faithful Warrior, which had made contact with the boat. Also shown is the Greek port city of Pylos.

Survivors ’silenced and intimidated’

Soon after the 14 June sinking, nine Egyptian men were detained and charged with manslaughter and people-smuggling.

But two survivors of the disaster say migrants were silenced and intimidated by Greek authorities, after suggesting the coastguards may have been to blame for the tragedy.

For the past month, allegations have been made that the coastguard used a rope to tow the fishing vessel, causing it to sink.

The two survivors we spoke to in Athens - who we are calling Ahmad and Musaab to protect their identities - say that is what happened.

“They attached a rope from the left. Everyone moved to the right side of our boat to balance it,” says Musaab. “The Greek vessel moved off quickly causing our boat to flip. They kept dragging it for quite a distance.”

The men described how they spent two hours in the water before being picked up by the coastguard.

When I ask how they knew it was that amount of time, Musaab says his watch was still working so he could tell.

Once on land, in Kalamata, they claim the coastguard told survivors to “shut up” when they started to talk about how the Greek authorities had caused the disaster.

“When people replied by saying the Greek coastguard was the cause, the official in charge of the questioning asked the interpreter to tell the interviewee to stop talking,” says Ahmad.

Ahmad says those rescued were told to be grateful they hadn’t died.

He says there were shouts of: “You have survived death! Stop talking about the incident! Don’t ask more questions about it!”

he men say they are scared to speak out publicly because they fear they too will be accused like the Egyptians.

“If there was a fair system in place, we would contribute to this case,” says Ahmad.

The men told us they had both paid $4,500 (£3,480) for a spot on the boat. Ahmad’s younger brother was also on board. He is still missing.
Collapsing court cases

As well as this testimony given to us by survivors, we have seen court documents which raise questions about the way evidence is being gathered to be presented in court.

In initial statements from five survivors, none mentioned the coastguard trying to tow the migrant vessel with a rope. But days later, in front of a judge, all explained that there had been a failed attempt to tow it.

One initial statement reads:

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/bf0f52ff2-92677b/GZPtNGn28ert/TCqaetyAAqySoqUQIAtj0hLdxHJ0fJAgpHniKDZ6.png

But the same witness later told a judge:

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/bf0f52ff2-92677b/LO6j82vDE8Lf/ivYbuO2JgxmC84URc3B9UsVHTpLjSAmTHEfrIXvs.png

BBC Verify has not spoken to these witnesses and so we can’t say why their accounts changed.

The Greek coastguard initially denied using a rope - but later backtracked, admitting one had been used. But it said it was only to try to board the vessel and assess the situation. It said this was at least two hours before the fishing vessel capsized.

Eighty-two people are confirmed dead in the sinking, but the United Nations estimates as many as 500 more lost their lives.

The Greek authorities say the charged Egyptian men are part of a smuggling ring and were identified by fellow passengers. They face up to life imprisonment if found guilty.

Some survivors allege some of the nine suspects mistreated those on board - while other testimony says some were actually trying to help.

But Ahmad and Musaab told us the coastguard had instructed all of the survivors to say that the nine Egyptian men were to blame for trafficking them.

“They were imprisoned and were wrongly accused by the Greek authorities as an attempt to cover their crime,” says Musaab.

A Greek Supreme Criminal Court deputy prosecutor is carrying out an investigation, but calls - including from the UN - for an international, independent inquiry have so far been ignored. The European Commission has indicated it has faith in the Greek investigation.

But Ahmad and Musaab are not alone in their concerns about the Greek coastguard.
Interpreter comes forward to BBC

When the nine Egyptian men were arrested in the hours after the shipwreck, it was widely reported as an example of efficient detective work by the Greek authorities.

But for Farzin Khavand it rang alarm bells. He feared history was repeating itself.

He says he witnessed Greek coastguards put two innocent Iranian men in the frame for people-smuggling last year, following the rescue of 32 migrants whose boat had got into trouble crossing from Turkey.

Mr Khavand, a UK citizen who speaks Farsi and has lived in the Kalamata area for 20 years, acted as a translator during the coastguard’s investigation into what happened then.

He says the migrants - 28 from Afghanistan and four from Iran - explained that they had set off from Turkey and been at sea for eight days before being rescued.

During this time, the Greek coastguard had approached the boat, before leaving, he was told.

Two Arabic-speaking men had abandoned the boat after the engine blew up, Mr Khavand was told by the Afghan migrants. They said that most people on board had taken turns to try to steer the stricken boat to safety - including the two accused Iranians, who had paid to be on board like everyone else.

“They [the Iranian men] were highly traumatised,” Mr Khavand said.

“They were repeating to me that they’d never even seen an ocean before they set off in Turkey. And they kept being told they were the captain and they said: ’We know nothing about the boat. We can’t even swim.’”

One of the two accused - a man called Sayeed who was facing a long prison sentence - had been rescued with his young son, explained Mr Khavand.

“I asked him ’Why did you take a six-year-old child on a boat?’ And he said the smugglers told us it’s only two hours’ journey.”

Mr Khavand relayed their accounts to the coastguard, exactly as it had been told to him - but he says when he saw the transcripts, the Afghans’ testimony had changed. He fears they altered their stories after pressure from the Greek authorities.

He says the Iranians told him that some of their fellow Afghan passengers had been leaned on by the coastguard to name them as the people-smugglers - to avoid being “treated unpleasantly”, threatened with prison, and being “returned to the Taliban”.

The case eventually collapsed. Mr Khavand says he was not willing to assist the Greek coastguard again. He says when Sayeed and his son were released from custody the €1,500 (£1,278) that had been confiscated from them was not returned.

“The scene ended with me thinking I don’t want to do this again because they were not trying to get to the bottom of the truth. They were trying to pick a couple of guys and accuse them of being people smugglers.”

All of these accusations were put to the Greek authorities by the BBC - but we have received no response. Our request for an interview with Greece’s minister of maritime affairs - who oversees the coastguard - was also rejected.
Greece previously accused of human rights violations

Kalamata lawyer Chrysanthi Kaouni says she has seen other criminal cases brought against alleged people smugglers which have troubled her.

She has been involved in more than 10 such cases, she tells us.

“My concerns are around the translations, the way evidence is gathered and - later on - the ability of the defendants to challenge this evidence,” she said.

“Because of these three points, I don’t think there are enough safeguards according to the international law, and in the end I don’t believe justice is done.”

A new study has found that the average trial in Greece for migrants accused of people smuggling lasted just 37 minutes and the average prison sentence given was 46 years.

The study, commissioned by The Greens/European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, looked at 81 trials involving 95 people - all of whom were tried for smuggling in eight different areas of Greece between February 2020 and March 2023.

The study claims verdicts were reached often on the testimony of a single police or coastguard officer and, in more than three-quarters of the cases, they didn’t appear in court for their evidence to be cross-examined.

Ahmad says he and the other survivors now want authorities to recover the shipwreck and the people that went down with it, but they have been told it’s too difficult and the water is too deep.

He compares this to the vast amounts of money and resources spent on searching for five people on the Titan submersible in the North Atlantic in June.

“But we were hundreds,” he says. “It’s not just a ship. It’s our friends and family.”

▻https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66154654

Italy warned of dead children on migrant ship hours before it capsized

The findings of an investigation by Welt am Sonntag and

POLITICO raise questions about whether the authorities knew the boat was in distress earlier than they admitted.

Early on the morning of the Adriana’s final day at sea, the Italian authorities sent a troubling warning to their EU and Greek colleagues: Two children had died aboard the overloaded migrant boat.

The alert was sent at 8:01 a.m. UTC, just over an hour after the Italians initially spotted the vessel at 6:51 a.m., an investigation by Welt am Sonntag and POLITICO found. The ship would later stall out in the ocean and capsize that night, killing hundreds of migrants on board.

The new details are revealed in an internal document at the EU border agency Frontex and seen by Welt, part of a “serious incident report” Frontex is compiling on the tragedy.

The findings raise questions about whether the authorities knew of serious distress on the boat much earlier than they have admitted. The document further complicates the timeline European authorities have given about the boat — Frontex has said its own plane was the first to discover the Adriana at 9:47 a.m., while the Greek government has said it was alerted around 8 a.m.

According to the internal document, Rome’s warning went to both Frontex and the Greek coast guard’s central office for rescue operations in Piraeus, which sits on the coast near Athens. Yet despite the alert, the Greek authorities did not send a coast guard vessel to the boat until 7:40 p.m., nearly 12 hours later. The boat then capsized around 11 p.m., roughly 15 hours after Rome’s notice first came through, leaving approximately 600 people dead.

Survivors have said the Greek coast guard’s attempts to attach ropes to the ship caused it to capsize — accounts Greek officials say are not definitive. Only 104 people were brought to shore alive.

Frontex declined to comment on the internal document showing the Italian warning, citing the “ongoing investigations” and referring to a June 16 statement. That statement lists a chronology of events starting at 9:47 a.m. with the Frontex plane spotting the boat.

Dimitris Kairidis, Greece’s newly appointed migration minister, told POLITICO in Brussels that he had not seen the Frontex note, and he neither confirmed nor denied that Athens had received the Rome alert mentioning dead children.

There is, he said, an “independent judicial investigation,” and if anyone is found responsible, “there will definitely be consequences.”

“But until then,” he added, “we should not rush to conclusions and bow to political pressure.”

Asked for comment, the Greek government referred to a statement on its coast guard website from June 14, which mentions information coming from Rome around 8 a.m. It doesn’t say whether that information included a warning about dead children on board.

The Italian government did not respond to a request for comment.

Greece has faced mounting political pressure over the tragedy.

German lawmaker Clara Bünger, a member of The Left, is pushing for a review of the drama that unfolded off the shore of Pylos.

She told Welt that “upon sighting such an overcrowded boat, Frontex should have immediately issued a mayday distress signal; even more so if Frontex knew that there were already Tuesday morning about two dead children on board.”

That this didn’t happen, she added, is “outrageous and unforgivable.”

Frontex has been trying to rehab its reputation under new Director Hans Leijtens, but Bünger argued he is on a doomed mission. Frontex, she argued, should just be dissolved.

“This project has failed miserably,” she said.

Erik Marquardt, a German European Parliament member from the Greens, pointed out that Germany chairs the Frontex Management Board.

“I expect the German government to enforce full transparency here,” he said.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive, said it does not comment on “ongoing investigations” or “leaks.”

But the Commission stressed: “The facts about the tragic incident off the coast of Pylos must be clarified. That is the priority now.”

▻https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-warned-greece-of-dead-children-on-migrant-ship-hour-before-it-capsize

Frontex und Athen wussten 15 Stunden vor Bootsdrama von toten Kindern an Bord

Mitte Juni starben vor der griechischen Küste 600 Migranten, als ihr Boot kenterte. Über die Verantwortung für die schlimmste Katastrophe seit Jahren im Mittelmeer wird seitdem gestritten. Nun kommt heraus: Eine wichtige Information zu den wahren Abläufen wird nach Informationen von WELT AM SONNTAG bewusst zurückgehalten.

Die EU-Grenzschutzagentur Frontex sowie die griechische Regierung verschweigen die wahren Abläufe eines Bootsdramas im Juni mit rund 600 Toten. Wie WELT AM SONNTAG und das ebenfalls zum Axel-Springer-Verlag gehörende Nachrichtenunternehmen „Politico“ erfuhren, muss die hochdramatische Situation vor der griechischen Küste Athen und den Grenzschützern viel früher bewusst gewesen sein als bislang bekannt.

Frontex hatte in einer Stellungnahme mitgeteilt, als Erstes habe ein agentureigenes Flugzeug das völlig überladene Boot um 9.47 Uhr (UTC) entdeckt. Allerdings soll das Boot – so geht es aus einem internen Frontex-Dokument hervor – bereits um 6.51 Uhr erstmals gesichtet worden sein – und zwar durch italienische Behörden.

Um 8.01 Uhr alarmierte die Seenotrettungstelle Rom demnach sowohl Frontex als auch die Leitstelle in Piräus, von wo aus Rettungseinsätze der griechischen Küstenwache gesteuert werden. Noch brisanter: Bestandteil dieses Alarms war die Information, dass an Bord des Bootes bereits zwei Kinder verstorben seien. Wie Italien an seine Informationen zu der Existenz des Bootes und den toten Kindern gelangte, ist unklar.

Der Alarm ist nach Informationen von WELT AM SONNTAG Teil der Notizen des noch in Arbeit befindlichen „Serious Incident Report“, der das Aktenzeichen 12595/2023 trägt. Trotz des Alarms aus Roms unternahmen die griechischen Behörden lange nichts. Erst gegen 19.40 Uhr traf ein Schiff der Küstenwache in der Nähe der Migranten ein.

Das Boot kenterte schließlich gegen 23 Uhr, 15 Stunden nach dem Alarm aus Rom. Unmittelbar davor hatten griechische Küstenwächter Seile an das Boot angebracht, was – so berichteten Überlebende – zum Kentern geführt habe. Nur 104 Menschen wurden lebend an Land gebracht.

WELT AM SONNTAG konfrontierte Frontex mit den Informationen zu dem Alarm aus Rom. Wann ging dieser ein? Was war die Reaktion der Agentur? In einer schriftlichen Antwort hieß es, man könne „aufgrund von laufenden Ermittlungen“ kein Statement abgeben, das über jenes vom 16. Juni hinausgeht. Darin wird die Chronologie der Ereignisse geschildert – mit 9.47 Uhr als Startpunkt, der Sichtung des Bootes durch ein Frontex-Flugzeug.

Der neu ernannte griechische Migrationsminister Dimitris Kairidis sagte in Brüssel, er habe die Frontex-Notiz nicht gesehen; weder bestätigte noch dementierte er, dass Athen diese Information aus Rom erhalten hat. Er erklärte, dass „eine unabhängige gerichtliche Untersuchung“ stattfinde. Sofern jemand für schuldig befunden werde, „wird es definitiv Konsequenzen geben.

Bis dahin solle man „keine voreiligen Schlüsse ziehen und sich dem politischen Druck beugen“. Am Freitag verwies Athen auf ein Statement auf der Küstenwache-Webseite vom 14. Juni, in dem eine Info zu dem Boot aus Rom gegen acht Uhr erwähnt wird. Von toten Kindern kein Wort. Die italienische Regierung beantwortete eine Anfrage zu dem Sachverhalt nicht.

Der Druck aus der Politik auf die Behörde und Athen wächst derweil. Die Linken-Bundestagsabgeordnete Clara Bünger, die auf eine Aufarbeitung des Pylos-Dramas drängt, sagte WELT AM SONNTAG: „Beim Sichten eines derart überfüllten Bootes hätte Frontex sofort einen Mayday-Notruf machen müssen. Das gilt umso mehr, wenn Frontex wusste, dass es am Dienstagmorgen bereits zwei tote Kinder an Bord gab.“ Dass das nicht geschehen ist, sei „ungeheuerlich und unverzeihbar“. Frontex-Direktor Hans Leijtens hätte angekündigt, er wolle Vertrauen wiederherstellen und Menschenrechte achten: „Dieses Vorhaben ist krachend gescheitert.“ Bünger sagte, Frontex sei nicht reformierbar – und forderte die Auflösung.

Der EU-Parlamentarier Erik Marquardt (Grüne) verwies darauf, dass Deutschland den Vorsitz im Frontex-Verwaltungsrat hat: „Ich erwarte von der Bundesregierung, dass sie hier vollständige Transparenz durchsetzt.“ Derartige Versprechen seitens Leijtens würden bislang nicht eingehalten.

Die EU-Kommission ließ verlauten, man äußere sich „weder zu laufenden Untersuchungen noch zu Leaks“, machte aber klar: „Die Fakten über den tragischen Vorfall vor der Küste von Pylos müssen geklärt werden. Das ist jetzt die Priorität.“

▻https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article246382076/Migration-Frontex-und-Athen-wussten-15-Stunden-vor-Bootsdrama-von-toten-Kindern

Pylos shipwreck: the Greek authorities must ensure that effective investigations are conducted

In a letter to the Prime Minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, published today, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, stresses that Greece has the legal obligation to conduct effective investigations into the Pylos shipwreck, which resulted in the death of more than 80 persons with many hundreds still missing, to establish the facts and, where appropriate, to lead to the punishment of those responsible.

The Commissioner expresses concern about reports of pressure having been exercised on survivors and about allegations of irregularities in the collection of evidence and testimonies, which may have led to a minimisation of the focus on certain actors in this tragedy, including the Greek Coast Guard. In the case of Safi and Others v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights spelled out the parameters of an effective investigation into a similar event. Among those parameters, the Commissioner notes that independence is critical to securing the trust of the victims’ relatives, the survivors, the public and Greece’s international partners. While stressing that investigations cannot be limited to the role of alleged smugglers, she requests clarifications on the scope of the investigations initiated after the shipwreck.

Referring to the right of missing persons’ families to know the truth, the Commissioner seeks information on the efforts made to ensure that the remains of deceased migrants are located, respected, identified, and buried.

Expressing concerns at restrictions on survivors’ freedom of movement and the way asylum interviews have been conducted, she requests information on the concrete measures that Greece has taken to abide by its human rights obligations regarding reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure.

"In my view, the shipwreck of 14 June is unfortunately not an isolated incident”, writes the Commissioner. This should prompt a reconsideration of the approach to refugees and migrants arriving by sea at the political, policy and practical level. In this context, the Commissioner urges the Prime Minister to ensure that Greece abides by its international obligations regarding search and rescue, both under maritime law and human rights law.

Finally, the Commissioner reiterates her call for the Greek government to actively create and maintain an enabling legal framework and a political and public environment which is conducive to the existence and functioning of civil society organisations and to the work of human rights defenders and investigative journalists, and to stop their criminalisation and other forms of harassment.

▻https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/pylos-shipwreck-the-greek-authorities-must-ensure-that-effective-investigations

Pour télécharger la lettre:
▻https://rm.coe.int/letter-addressed-to-the-prime-minister-of-greece-by-dunja-mijatovic-co/1680ac03ce

#conseil_de_l'Europe

Après le naufrage d’un bateau avec 750 personnes à bord au large de la Grèce, une enquête de la médiatrice européenne sur le rôle de Frontex

#Emily_O’Reilly, dont le rôle est de demander des comptes aux institutions et aux agences de l’Union européenne, a annoncé avoir ouvert cette procédure à la suite du naufrage survenu en juin, le pire en Méditerranée depuis 2016.

Un peu plus d’un mois après le pire naufrage d’un bateau de migrants depuis 2016 en Méditerrannée, survenu mi-juin au large de la Grèce et qui a fait des centaines de morts, la médiatrice européenne a annoncé, mercredi 26 juillet, avoir ouvert une enquête afin de « clarifier le rôle » de Frontex, l’agence de l’Union européenne (UE) chargée des frontières, dans les opérations de sauvetage.

« Alors que le rôle des autorités grecques fait l’objet d’une enquête au niveau national, celui de Frontex dans les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage doit également être clarifié », a souligné dans un communiqué Emily O’Reilly. Le rôle de la médiatrice est de demander des comptes aux institutions et aux agences de l’UE.

« Il a été signalé que Frontex avait bien alerté les autorités grecques de la présence du navire et proposé son assistance ; mais, ce qui n’est pas clair, c’est ce qu’elle aurait pu ou aurait dû faire d’autre », a-t-elle ajouté.

Le patron de Frontex, Hans Leijtens, a salué l’ouverture de cette enquête, assurant être prêt à coopérer « en toute transparence » pour expliquer le rôle de son agence. « Si nous ne coordonnons pas les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage, sauver des vies en mer est essentiel. Nous apportons une aide aux autorités nationales lorsque cela est nécessaire », a-t-il ajouté dans un message sur X (ex-Twitter).

Partage d’informations entre Frontex et les autorités nationales

Le chalutier vétuste et surchargé, qui était parti de Libye, a fait naufrage au large du sud de Grèce dans la nuit du 13 au 14 juin. Il transportait environ 750 personnes à son bord, mais seule une centaine de migrants ont survécu.

Depuis le naufrage, les interrogations sont tournées autour de la lenteur de l’intervention des gardes-côtes grecs et sur les causes du chavirement de l’embarcation.

Par cette enquête sur le rôle de Frontex, Mme O’Reilly veut en particulier se pencher sur le partage d’informations entre l’agence européenne et les autorités nationales en matière d’opérations de recherche et de sauvetage.

Elle la coordonnera aux côtés du médiateur grec, Andreas Pottakis, qui a « la compétence d’examiner » la façon dont les autorités grecques se sont occupées du bateau Adriana.

Mi-juillet, les eurodéputés ont réclamé l’élaboration d’une « stratégie de recherche et de sauvetage fiable et permanente » des migrants en Méditerranée. Dans une résolution transpartisane, dépourvue de caractère contraignant, ils ont appelé Bruxelles à apporter aux Etats membres de l’UE un « soutien matériel, financier et opérationnel » pour renforcer leurs capacités de sauvetage en mer.

Les élus du Parlement européen citaient les chiffres de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), selon laquelle plus de 27 600 personnes ont disparu en Méditerranée depuis 2014.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/07/26/naufrage-d-un-bateau-de-migrants-au-large-de-la-grece-la-mediatrice-europeen

Smuggler, Warlord, EU ally

The lead smugglers behind the Pylos shipwreck are closely linked to General Khalifa Haftar, the Libyan warlord who EU leaders are partnering with to curb migration

On the night of 13 June, a vessel carrying around 750 men, women and children mainly from Pakistan, Egypt and Syria capsized in Greek waters. Only 104 men survived. All women and children died.

In an earlier investigation we revealed Greek coastguard efforts to cover up their role in the fatal shipwreck. The country’s naval court has since launched a preliminary investigation into the coastguard’s response to the sinking, with no arrests or suspensions of officers so far.

The only arrests made were those of nine Egyptians, accused in a separate inquiry of being part of the smuggling network behind the deadly voyage. They were charged with six counts including illegal trafficking of foreigners, organisation crime and manslaughter by negligence.

Using the contacts and documents already available to us, we pursued a follow-up investigation to establish the truth about any smugglers behind the fatal sea crossing, with the aim of identifying the key players and establishing the extent to which the nine Egyptians in prison in Greece are actually responsible.
METHODS

Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, SIRAJ, El País and Reporters United used the previously established relationships with survivors and their families, as well as a network of sources in Libya, to investigate the smuggling network behind the Pylos wreck.

We also looked into the ongoing court case against nine alleged smugglers, analysing confidential court documents and speaking to five of the families of those arrested.
STORYLINES

While investigating the circumstances that led to the shipwreck and Greece’s responsibility in it, we spoke to 17 survivors.

Many named the key smugglers involved in organising the trip during our interviews with them – none of them were people on board the ship.

Some were Eastern Libyan nationals with ties to the region’s powerful ruler, Khalifa Haftar.

One name stood out: Muhammad Saad Al-Kahshi Al-Mnfi. Three sources identified him as a key player in the smuggling operation: a survivor, a lower level smuggler and a Libyan insider all gave his name.

Al-Kahshi works for a special forces navy unit called the “frogmen”, run by a family member of his, Bahar Al-Tawati Al-Mnfi. Al-Tawati Al-Mnfi works under the direct orders of Khalifa Haftar.

One survivor explained that Al-Kahshi Al-Mnfi used his position to issue the licence that allowed the boat (which came from Egypt) to navigate in Libyan waters and made sure the Libyan coast guards were paid to shut off the marine radar devices that detect ship movements to allow the departure.

We found that the network goes far beyond Al-Kahshi Al-Mnfi.

Survivors, insiders and analysts explained that the trip was organised with wide ranging support from powerful people reporting to Haftar.

Libya expert Jalel Harchaoui said the “migrant business” had been flourishing in Eastern Libya in the last 18 months. “Haftar cannot say that he’s not aware,” he added. “He can’t say that he’s not involved.”

“All trips are overseen by his son, Saddam Haftar” said one survivor. “Saddam leads the cooperation himself or assigns one of the frogmen battalions [this may have been the case for the Pylos trip] or the 2020 battalion, depending on who has more migrants to pay the fees.”

Five survivors who flew from Syria to Libya describe how immigration officials facilitated their arrival at Benghazi’s military airport. One said: “At the airport, a person took my passport, went to immigration office, put a stamp and took us outside”.

There was a curfew in Eastern Libya on the night of departure (حظر التجول ليلاً في طبرق الليبية), yet the survivors we interviewed said that it was at night that they, along with hundreds of passengers, were taken to a small bay near Wadi Arzouka, east of Tobruk, and boarded onto the vessel.

Militias supported by Khalifa Haftar are not only involved in smuggling, they are also active in illegal “pullbacks” of migrants in EU waters.

At least two pullbacks (in May and July this year) were carried out by a militia (Tariq Bin Ziyad) controlled by Haftar’s son, including one in Maltese waters.

At least four of the people who died in the Pylos shipwreck were on the boat that was pulled back by the Tariq Bin Ziyad militia on 25 May, according to family members.

These findings raise serious questions about EU member states’ migration prevention policies.

It is known by EU authorities that Eastern Libyan militias answering to Haftar carry out both pullback and smuggling operations. The IOM and the UNHCR briefed EU officials on an increase in departures from eastern Libya , describing them as a “lucrative source of income for the eastern Libyan rulers involved”.

In spite of this, Italy and Malta are making deals with Haftar to prevent migration.

In May, Haftar met with Italian PM Meloni to discuss migration related issues and in June Italy’s interior minister said they would ask Haftar to collaborate in stopping departures.

The same month, for the first time, a Maltese delegation met Haftar in Benghazi to discuss security challenges in the region, with particular emphasis on irregular migration.

Internal EU documents show the commission is looking for ways to curb arrivals from Benghazi’s airport with the collaboration of local operators.

Harchaoui described Italian efforts to encourage Khalifa Haftar to stop departures as “bribery” and pointed to “a very clear admission of how Italy intends to work and what it promised to Haftar: if you reduce the human smuggling volumes, we will inject capital”.

Meanwhile, there’s growing evidence that nine Egyptians imprisoned for trafficking in Greece are being scapegoated.

We spoke to the families of five of the nine Egyptians under arrest – all of them say that they were passengers, not smugglers.

Three of them provided evidence that their relatives paid for their trip, indicating that it’s highly unlikely that they were involved in organising the smuggling operation.

We were able to verify the identity of a smuggler who asked one of the accused men for money ahead of the trip.

We previously found that witness testimony provided to the coast guard had been tampered with, including survivors’ answers to questions about smugglers.

In the documents, two answers to questions about smugglers contain identical sentences.

Those who were interrogated by the coast guard mentioned being pressured to place the blame on the nine Egyptians later indicted.

▻https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/smuggler-warlord-eu-ally

Naufrage au large de la Grèce : deux ONG pointent les défaillances des autorités grecques

Dans un rapport publié le 3 août, Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch reviennent sur les circonstances troubles du drame survenu aux portes de l’Europe dans la nuit du 13 au 14 juin, qui a coûté la vie à au moins six cents personnes. Les associations réclament une enquête « efficace, indépendante et impartiale ».

C’est un naufrage qui a d’abord marqué les esprits de par son ampleur : pas moins de 750 personnes se trouvaient à bord d’un bateau de pêche en bois, L’Adriana, au moment où il a chaviré, dans la nuit du 13 au 14 juin, au large de Pýlos en Grèce. Partie de Tobrouk en Libye pour rejoindre l’Italie, l’embarcation surchargée transportait des ressortissants syriens, égyptiens, palestiniens ou pakistanais, dont de nombreuses femmes et enfants placés dans la cale pour être « à l’abri » des éventuelles intempéries ou du soleil.

Mais on retient aussi les circonstances troubles dans lequel il s’est produit. Très vite après le naufrage, des premières voix parmi la centaine de rescapés se sont élevées pour pointer le rôle potentiel des gardes-côtes grecs dans ce drame.

Mediapart a documenté, dès le 17 juin, cette version différente de celle avancée par les autorités du pays. Une enquête de la BBC est venue l’appuyer, puis le New York Times a suivi : des témoignages de survivant·es attestent que les gardes-côtes ont non seulement tardé à organiser un sauvetage, mais ont aussi tenté de tirer le bateau à l’aide d’une corde, pouvant ainsi avoir contribué à le faire chavirer.

Après un déplacement de neuf jours en Grèce et une vingtaine d’entretiens réalisés avec des exilé·es sur place, Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch ont relevé également les « disparités extrêmement préoccupantes » entre les récits des survivant·es du Pýlos et la version des événements livrée par les autorités.

Les survivant·es interrogé·es par les deux ONG « ont systématiquement déclaré que le navire des gardes-côtes grecs envoyé sur les lieux avait attaché une corde à L’Adriana et l’avait remorqué, le faisant tanguer, puis chavirer », peut-on lire dans le rapport d’enquête publié conjointement ce jeudi 3 août.

Aux ONG, les responsables des gardes-côtes ont de leur côté affirmé que leurs équipes s’étaient approchées du bateau, reconnaissant avoir utilisé une corde, mais qu’après de « premières négociations », les passagers avaient repoussé la corde pour poursuivre leur trajet.
Le rôle des gardes-côtes grecs et de Frontex interrogé

Une version contredite par le témoignage des survivant·es interrogé·es : « Peu importe leur position sur le bateau, les survivants disent tous avoir ressenti le mouvement du bateau une fois tracté, qui avançait alors très vite alors que le moteur ne fonctionnait plus, précise Alice Autin, chercheuse pour la division Europe et Asie centrale à Human Rights Watch. Tous sont d’accord pour dire que c’est cela qui a fait vaciller le bateau, avant de le faire chavirer. »

Frontex a par ailleurs déclaré avoir repéré l’embarcation dès la veille du naufrage, ce qui a poussé certains acteurs à s’interroger sur le rôle de l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières. Pourquoi n’est-elle pas intervenue pour venir en aide aux passagers ? A-t-elle bien alerté les autorités grecques pour qu’une opération de recherche et de sauvetage soit menée en urgence ?

Dans un communiqué, Frontex a précisé que l’un de ses avions de surveillance « avait immédiatement informé les autorités compétentes », sans toutefois intervenir, au prétexte que les exilé·es avaient refusé « toute aide ». Le lendemain du drame, le patron de l’agence Hans Leijtens était en déplacement en Grèce pour « mieux comprendre ce qu’il s’était passé », et voir comment ses équipes pouvaient aider les autorités grecques, précisant que le fait de « sauver des vies était leur priorité ».

Une version qui ne semble pas avoir convaincu la médiatrice européenne, qui a décidé, le 24 juillet dernier, d’ouvrir une enquête de sa propre initiative pour interroger le rôle de Frontex dans les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage à la suite du naufrage survenu en Grèce.

« Il est clair que Frontex a joué un rôle important dans la mission de recherche et de sauvetage du point de vue de la coordination. À ce titre, je pense qu’il est possible de clarifier davantage son rôle dans de telles opérations », a déclaré dans une lettre ouverte Emily O’Reilly, qui occupe le poste de Médiateur européen.

« Il a été signalé que Frontex avait bien alerté les autorités grecques de la présence du navire et proposé son assistance ; mais ce qui n’est pas clair, c’est ce qu’elle aurait pu ou aurait dû faire d’autre », a-t-elle souligné. Frontex s’est dite prête à coopérer « en toute transparence ».

« Cela posera des questions importantes sur le rôle, les pratiques et les protocoles de l’agence dans le contexte des opérations [en mer] et sur les mesures qu’elle a prises pour se conformer à ses obligations en matière de droits fondamentaux et aux lois de l’UE », estiment Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch.
Des appels à l’aide ignorés

Les deux ONG s’interrogent aussi sur l’aide que les gardes-côtes grecs auraient pu apporter aux migrant·es dans les heures ayant précédé le naufrage. De hauts responsables des gardes-côtes leur auraient affirmé que « les personnes à bord du bateau limitaient leur demande d’aide à de l’eau et de la nourriture » et avaient exprimé leur volonté de poursuivre leur route vers l’Italie.

Mais les survivant·es interrogé·es par Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch ont « déclaré que les passagers avaient demandé à être secourus » et qu’ils avaient entendu d’autres personnes à bord de l’embarcation appeler à l’aide lors d’un échange avec un téléphone satellite, plusieurs heures avant le naufrage. Certains auraient enlevé leur T-shirt pour le secouer en l’air et appeler à l’aide, d’autres auraient hurlé à l’attention des deux navires marchands croisés avant le drame.

« Des récits concordent pour dire que des personnes ont perdu la vie à bord du bateau avant le naufrage et que l’un des corps a été placé sur le pont supérieur au-dessus de la cabine pour signifier l’urgence de la situation », poursuit Alice Autin d’Human rights watch. Et d’ajouter : « Les gardes-côtes grecs avaient la responsabilité de venir en aide aux passagers du bateau et il apparaît au vu des résultats de notre enquête qu’il y a des doutes sur la manière dont cela s’est déroulé. »

Plusieurs survivants ont enfin déclaré que les autorités leur auraient confisqué leur téléphone après le naufrage, poursuivent les ONG. Or, certaines personnes auraient « tout filmé ». Ces téléphones pourraient, s’ils réapparaissaient, servir dans le cadre de l’enquête ouverte par la justice grecque.

« Il est essentiel d’analyser ce qu’ils contiennent pour faire toute la lumière sur le déroulement des faits », conclut Alice Autin. Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch réclament une enquête « efficace, indépendante et impartiale ».

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/030823/naufrage-au-large-de-la-grece-deux-ong-pointent-les-defaillances-des-autor

Greece: Disparities in accounts of Pylos shipwreck underscore the need for human rights compliant inquiry

Starkly divergent accounts from survivors and Greek authorities around the circumstances of the deadly Pylos shipwreck, underscore the urgent need for an effective, independent, and impartial investigation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today. 

The disparities between survivors’ accounts of the Pylos shipwreck and the authorities’ version of the events are extremely concerning

The fishing vessel, Adriana, was carrying an estimated 750 people when it sank on 14 June off the coast of Pylos. In the aftermath, accounts from several of the 104 survivors suggest that the vessel was towed by a Greek coast guard boat, causing the fatal wreck.  The Greek authorities have strongly denied these claims.

“The disparities between survivors’ accounts of the Pylos shipwreck and the authorities’ version of the events are extremely concerning” said Judith Sunderland, Associate Europe and Central Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.

“The Greek authorities, with support and scrutiny from the international community, should ensure that there is a transparent investigation to provide truth and justice for survivors and families of the victims, and hold those responsible to account.”  

A delegation from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch visited Greece between 4 and 13 July 2023 as part of ongoing research into the circumstances of the shipwreck and steps toward accountability. They interviewed 19 survivors of the shipwreck, 4 relatives of the missing, and nongovernmental organizations, UN and international agencies and organizations, and representatives of the Hellenic Coast Guard and the Greek Police.

The organizations’ initial observations confirm the concerns reported by several other reputable sources as to the dynamics of the shipwreck. Survivors interviewed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch consistently stated that the Hellenic Coast Guard vessel dispatched to the scene attached a rope to the Adriana and started towing, causing it to sway and then capsize. The survivors also consistently said that passengers asked to be rescued, and that they witnessed others on the boat plead for a rescue by satellite phone in the hours before their boat capsized.  

In a meeting with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, senior officials of the Hellenic Coast Guard said individuals on the boat limited their request for assistance to food and water and expressed their intention to proceed to Italy. They said the crew of the Coast Guard vessel came close to the Adriana and used a rope to approach the boat to assess whether passengers wanted help, but that after the first “negotiations”, passengers threw the rope back and the boat continued its journey.

This preventable tragedy demonstrates the bankruptcy of EU migration policies predicated on the racialized exclusion of people on the move and deadly deterrence

Greek authorities have opened two criminal investigations, one targeted at the alleged smugglers, and another into the actions of the coast guard. It is vital for these investigations to comply with international human rights standards of impartiality, independence, and effectiveness. 

To enhance the credibility of judicial investigations both in practice and perception, they should be under the supervision of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office. Further, Greek authorities should ensure that the Greek Ombudsman’s office is promptly provided with information and resources necessary to carry out its functions as the National Mechanism for Investigating Incidents of Arbitrariness, in relation to any disciplinary investigation.   

Several survivors said that the authorities confiscated their phones following the shipwreck but did not give them any related documentation or tell them how to retrieve their property. Nabil, a survivor of Syrian origin, told the organisations, “It’s not only the evidence of the wreck that has been taken from me, it is my memories of my friends who were lost, my life has been taken from me”. 

The Greek authorities’ longstanding failure to ensure accountability for violent and unlawful pushbacks at the country’s borders raises concerns over their ability and willingness to carry out effective and independent investigations.

Lessons should be learned from the European Court of Human Rights 2022 decision about the 2014 “Farmakonisi” shipwreck, in which survivors argued that their boat had capsized because the Hellenic Coast Guard used dangerous maneuvers to tow them towards Turkish waters. The Court condemned Greece for the authorities’ failures in handling rescue operations and for shortcomings in the subsequent investigation of the incident, including how victims’ testimony was handled.  

In view of the seriousness and international significance of the Pylos tragedy, Greek authorities should seek out and welcome international and/or European assistance and cooperation in the conduct of national investigations as an additional guarantee of independence, effectiveness and transparency.  

A full and credible investigation into the shipwreck should seek to clarify any responsibility for both the sinking of the ship and delays or shortcomings in the rescue efforts that may have contributed to the appalling loss of life. The investigation should involve taking the testimonies of all survivors, under conditions that guarantee their trust and safety.

All forensic evidence, such as traces of communications, videos, and photographs, should be collected, assessed and safeguarded to facilitate accountability processes. Any property, such as cell phones, taken from survivors for investigative purposes should be appropriately logged and returned within a reasonable amount of time.  

All of those involved in or with knowledge of the incident, including the Hellenic Coast Guard, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the captains and crews of the two merchant vessels, and others who took part in the rescue operation after the shipwreck should be invited or required to testify, as appropriate, and should cooperate fully and promptly with the investigations.

To ensure this is the last, and not the latest, in an unconscionably long list of tragedies in the Mediterranean, the EU should reorient its border policies towards rescue at sea and safe and legal routes

In parallel to the national investigation, the EU Ombudsman has announced that it will open an inquiry into the role of Frontex in search and rescue (SAR) activities in the Mediterranean, including in the Adriana shipwreck. This will pose important questions about the agency’s role, practices and protocols in the context of SAR operations and on what actions it has taken to comply with its fundamental rights obligations and EU laws during this and other shipwrecks.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are continuing to investigate the Pylos shipwreck and demand justice for all those harmed.

“This preventable tragedy demonstrates the bankruptcy of EU migration policies predicated on the racialized exclusion of people on the move and deadly deterrence,” said Esther Major, Amnesty International’s Senior Research Adviser for Europe.

“To ensure this is the last, and not the latest, in an unconscionably long list of tragedies in the Mediterranean, the EU should reorient its border policies towards rescue at sea and safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.”  

Background 

As part of their ongoing investigation, the organizations have sent letters requesting information to several key entities, including the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy, the Prosecutors of the Supreme Court and of the Piraeus Naval Court and Frontex.

On 13 June 2023, Frontex said its surveillance plane spotted the Adriana at 09:47 UTC (12:47 EEST/in Athens) and alerted authorities in Greece and Italy. In the following hours, two merchant vessels and later a Hellenic Coast Guard vessel interacted with the Adriana. After the boat capsized at around 2 a.m. EEST on 14 June, only 104 survivors, including several children, were rescued.

The Prosecutor of Kalamata ordered the arrest of nine Egyptian nationals who survived the shipwreck on charges of smuggling, membership in an organized criminal network, manslaughter, and other serious crimes.

Following an order by the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Piraeus Naval Court, a prosecutor is currently conducting a preliminary investigation into the conditions of the shipwreck and the potential punishable offences by members of the Hellenic Coast Guard. The organizations have sought information with the Greek Minister of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy about any disciplinary investigation opened into the actions of members of the Hellenic Coast Guard.

▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/08/greece-disparities-in-accounts-of-pylos-shipwreck-underscore-the-need-for-h

Lithuania law to allow ’volunteer’ border guards to use violence

https://media.euobserver.com/87e7b29f2d236bc804fbdeecf6ff664d-800x.jpg

Lithuania’s parliament passed a controversial new law allowing volunteers from around Europe to join its national border guard force — while giving them the right to use violence against asylum seekers and migrants crossing in from Belarus.

▻https://euobserver.com/migration/156944
#volontaires #bénévoles #milices

La Lituanie s’apprête à légaliser les refoulements de migrants

Le projet d’amendement à la loi sur les frontières prévoit d’expulser les demandeurs d’asile arrivés illégalement sur le territoire, et de créer une force civile en soutien des gardes-frontières.

Selon le ministère de l’intérieur à Vilnius, le texte qui devrait être adopté définitivement par les députés lituaniens, mardi 25 avril, a pour but de garantir la sécurité du petit Etat balte contre d’éventuelles tentatives de déstabilisation menées par son voisin biélorusse. Les ONG y voient surtout un moyen de pérenniser les « pushbacks », qui consistent à refouler illégalement les migrants sans leur donner la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile, pratiqués par la Lituanie depuis l’été 2021.

Voté en seconde lecture par une grosse majorité des parlementaires, jeudi 20 avril, l’amendement à la loi sur les frontières de l’Etat prévoit qu’en « situation d’urgence », face à l’afflux massif de ressortissants étrangers aux frontières du pays, le gouvernement pourra limiter l’accès au territoire. Les gardes-frontières seront alors autorisés à expulser les migrants entrés illégalement et se trouvant dans une zone large de 5 kilomètres depuis la frontière. Une exception a été ajoutée par les députés pour les personnes fuyant un conflit armé, des persécutions, ou nécessitant une assistance humanitaire.

« A première vue, la proposition semble assez équilibrée et inclut même des garanties », note Viktor Ostrovnoj, en charge de l’asile et de l’immigration à la Croix-Rouge lituanienne. Il rappelle cependant que l’état d’urgence − le premier décret déclarant l’urgence à la frontière avec la Biélorussie est entré en vigueur le 3 août 2021 − est toujours en place. Avec le vote des députés, « ce qui était censé être une mesure temporaire, permettant de faire face à des crises de courte durée, risque de devenir un nouveau statu quo », remarque Viktor Ostrovnoj.

Plus de 20 000 « pushbacks »

Directrice du bureau du Défenseur des droits au Parlement, à Vilnius, Erika Leonaite critique elle aussi le texte. Celui-ci crée, selon elle, « l’illusion » que la Lituanie pourra continuer de garantir le droit d’asile. Or, objecte-t-elle, « c’est un service de l’immigration et non pas les gardes-frontières dans la forêt qui est compétent pour déterminer si une personne fuit des persécutions, telles qu’elles sont définies par la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés ».

A titre d’exemple, Mme Leonaite mentionne le cas de quatre ressortissants cubains, refoulés en avril 2022 alors qu’ils tentaient d’entrer en Lituanie. Ils ont finalement obtenu l’asile en mars, après l’intervention de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. « C’est la preuve que le système ne fonctionne pas », affirme la Défenseure des droits.

Selon les statistiques officielles, les gardes-frontières ont mené 20 150 « pushbacks » depuis le 3 août 2021 et le premier décret ministériel autorisant les refoulements. Des chiffres difficiles à vérifier car peu d’observateurs sont autorisés sur place. En août 2022, la Lituanie a achevé la construction d’une barrière d’environ 550 kilomètres sur sa frontière commune avec la Biélorussie, longue de 700 kilomètres. Les demandeurs d’asile ne peuvent entrer qu’aux postes-frontières, à condition de disposer de papiers d’identité.

« De très gros risques de dérapage »

A plusieurs occasions, les ONG ont dénoncé les conditions désastreuses dans lesquelles vivent les migrants. Plusieurs ont dû être amputés à cause du froid. Le 6 avril, les gardes-frontières lituaniens ont découvert le corps sans vie d’un Indien d’une quarantaine d’années près de la ligne de séparation avec la Biélorussie. En août 2022, un homme originaire du Sri Lanka avait déjà été trouvé mort à la frontière.

La violence et les mauvais traitements risquent aussi de s’intensifier avec la nouvelle loi, qui prévoit d’embaucher des civils pour venir en aide aux gardes-frontières, sur le modèle des « chasseurs frontaliers » recrutés par la Hongrie en 2017. « Il y a de très gros risques de dérapage car ces personnes, qui ne sont pas bien formées, ni entraînées, devraient être armées », révèle Lina Vosyliute, de l’association Global Lithuanian Leaders.

Depuis le 18 avril, plus d’une trentaine d’organisations européennes et 140 universitaires originaires du monde entier ont signé une lettre ouverte, adressée aux députés lituaniens et à la première ministre, Ingrida Simonyte. Ils dénoncent une loi qui « viole non seulement le droit à une procédure d’asile équitable et efficace et le principe de non-refoulement, mais restreint également l’aide humanitaire et les activités indépendantes de surveillance des droits de l’homme par les ONG ».

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/04/21/la-lituanie-s-apprete-a-legaliser-les-refoulements-de-migrants_6170474_3210.

Lithuania’s border protection law to allow ‘volunteer’ patrols to use violence against asylum seekers

A controversial law on border protection, which is making its way in the Lithuanian parliament, may allow volunteers from around Europe to join border guard service and use violence against migrants, EUObserver reports.

The bill, which legalises the controversial practise of forcing irregular migrants back into Belarus, passed the first reading on Thursday with 69 votes in favour, seven against and 24 abstentions. The legislation is being pushed via a fast-track procedure and is scheduled for the final vote on April 25.

Among other things, it institutes border guard service “sponsors” – volunteers who can patrol and use coercion against migrants and asylum seekers, help make arrests, and perform other patrol guard-like duties.

“There is no restriction for people from abroad to come,” Emilija Švobaitė, a lawyer and rights campaigner at the Sienos Grupė (Border Group) NGO, told EUobserver ahead of Thursday’s vote.

She said it means that, for example, radical right-wing groups from Germany could come and patrol alongside national border guards.

Meanwhile, journalists and independent monitors will be banned from the border, she said.

Sponsors can be citizens of any EU member state so long as they speak some Lithuanian and have declared their residence in the country, are at least 18 years old, and are not currently serving as a border guard somewhere else.

Rights groups have also criticised the practice of Lithuanian border guard service to force people back into Belarus. The policy was performed under a decree by the Interior Ministry, but is now being transposed into law.

“Basically they are legalising the pushbacks at the border,” EUObserver quotes Monika Guliakaitė-Danisevičienė of the Lithuanian Human Rights Centre NGO.

Similar comments were made by Amnesty International earlier this week, which described the Lithuanian bill as a green-light to torture.

According to EUObserver, the European Commission said it was not yet able to comment on the draft law.

▻https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1968329/lithuania-s-border-protection-law-to-allow-volunteer-patrols-to-use-violence-aga

Le texte légal :

Projektas Nr. XIVP-2383(2)

LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS

VALSTYBĖS SIENOS IR JOS APSAUGOS ĮSTATYMo Nr.VIII-1666 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26 straipsnių pakeitimo ir ĮSTATYMO PAPILDYMO 231 straipsniu ir NAUJU IX SKYRIUMI

įstatymas

2023 m. d. Nr.

Vilnius

1 straipsnis. 1 straipsnio pakeitimas

Pakeisti 1 straipsnio 1 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„1. Šis įstatymas nustato Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės sienos ir pasienio teisinius režimus, pasienio kontrolės punktų veiklą, valstybės sienos apsaugos organizavimą, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos (toliau – Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba) struktūrą, jos organizavimo pagrindus, finansavimą, funkcijas, bendradarbiavimą su kitomis valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijomis ir įstaigomis bei visuomene, pareigūnų teises ir pareigas, taip pat prievartos panaudojimo teisėtumo sąlygas, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjų veiklos teisinius pagrindus.“

2 straipsnis. 2 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pakeisti 2 straipsnio 8 dalies nuostatą iki dvitaškio ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„8. Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės sienos apsauga (toliau – valstybės sienos apsauga) –veikla, kuria siekiama :“.

2. Pakeisti 2 straipsnio 20 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„20. Prievarta – veiklos metodas, kuris taikomas, kai nevykdomi Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūno ar Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjo reikalavimai ar nurodymai arba siekiama išvengti pavojaus, ir kuriuo siekiama įgyvendinti Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai pavestas funkcijas.“

3. Papildyti 2 straipsnį 221 dalimi :

„221. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjas (toliau – rėmėjas) – šiame įstatyme nustatytus reikalavimus atitinkantis fizinis asmuo, savo noru padedantis Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai vykdyti šiame įstatyme jai nustatytas funkcijas.“

4. Pakeisti 2 straipsnio 26 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„26. Kitos šiame įstatyme vartojamos sąvokos suprantamos taip, kaip jos apibrėžiamos Lietuvos Respublikos asmens duomenų, tvarkomų nusikalstamų veikų prevencijos, tyrimo, atskleidimo ar baudžiamojo persekiojimo už jas, bausmių vykdymo arba nacionalinio saugumo ar gynybos tikslais, teisinės apsaugos įstatyme (toliau – Asmens duomenų, tvarkomų teisėsaugos ar nacionalinio saugumo tikslais, įstatymas), Lietuvos Respublikos civiliniame kodekse, Lietuvos Respublikos atliekų tvarkymo įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos aviacijos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos cheminių medžiagų ir preparatų įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos krizių valdymo ir civilinės saugos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos ginklų ir šaudmenų kontrolės įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos įstatyme „Dėl užsieniečių teisinės padėties“, Lietuvos Respublikos jūros aplinkos apsaugos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos krašto apsaugos sistemos organizavimo ir karo tarnybos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos narkotinių ir psichotropinių medžiagų kontrolės įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos nuodingųjų medžiagų priežiūros įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos policijos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos sprogmenų apyvartos kontrolės įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos saugios laivybos įstatyme, Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus tarnybos statute, Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės ir savivaldybių turto valdymo, naudojimo ir disponavimo juo įstatyme ir Reglamente (ES) Nr. 2016/399, 2016 m. balandžio 27 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamente (ES) 2016/679 dėl fizinių asmenų apsaugos tvarkant asmens duomenis ir dėl laisvo tokių duomenų judėjimo ir kuriuo panaikinama Direktyva 95/46/EB (Bendrasis duomenų apsaugos reglamentas), 1951 m. Konvencijoje dėl pabėgėlių statuso, 1982 m. Jungtinių Tautų jūrų teisės konvencijoje.“

3 straipsnis. 4 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pakeisti 4 straipsnio 6 dalies 2 punktą ir jį išdėstyti taip :

„2) Vyriausybės nustatyta tvarka laikinai atnaujinus patikrinimus prie vidaus sienos siekiant užtikrinti viešąją tvarką, Lietuvos Respublikos nacionalinį saugumą.“

2. Papildyti 4 straipsnį 13 dalimi :

„13. Esant paskelbtai valstybės lygio ekstremaliajai situacijai dėl masinio užsieniečių antplūdžio ir siekiant užtikrinti Lietuvos Respublikos nacionalinį saugumą ir viešąją tvarką, Vyriausybė Nacionalinio saugumo komisijos pasiūlymu gali priimti sprendimą, kad užsieniečiai, ketinantys kirsti ar kirtę valstybės sieną tam nenustatytose vietose arba tam nustatytose vietose, tačiau pažeidę valstybės sienos kirtimo tvarką, ir esantys pasienio ruože, į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją neįleidžiami. Ši nuostata taikoma individualiai kiekvienam minėtam užsieniečiui. Jeigu nustatoma, kad užsienietis traukiasi nuo Vyriausybės sprendime nurodytų ginkluotų konfliktų, taip pat persekiojimo, kaip jis apibrėžtas Konvencijoje dėl pabėgėlių statuso, arba siekia patekti į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją humanitariniais tikslais, nuostata dėl užsieniečių neįleidimo į Lietuvos Respubliką netaikoma. Užsieniečių, kirtusių valstybės sieną tam nenustatytose vietose arba tam nustatytose vietose, tačiau pažeidusių valstybės sienos kirtimo tvarką, buvimas pasienio ruože nelaikomas buvimu Lietuvos Respublikos teritorijoje. Į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją neįleidžiamiems užsieniečiams turi būti atliktas pagalbos poreikio įvertinimas ir, esant pagalbos poreikiui, šiems užsieniečiams suteikiama reikalinga neatidėliotina medicinos ar humanitarinė pagalba. Šioje dalyje nurodyto Vyriausybės sprendimo neįleisti užsieniečių į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją vykdymo ir pagalbos poreikio įvertinimo tvarką nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.“

4 straipsnis. 10 straipsnio pakeitimas

Pakeisti 10 straipsnį ir jį išdėstyti taip :

„10 straipsnis. Valstybės sienos kirtimo laikinas apribojimas arba nutraukimas

Vyriausybė, užtikrindama Lietuvos Respublikos nacionalinį saugumą, visuomenės rimtį, siekdama apsaugoti gyventojus ir aplinką nuo pavojingų ir ypač pavojingų užkrečiamųjų ligų ar jų sukėlėjų įvežimo ir išplitimo, esant paskelbtai ekstremaliajai situacijai, taip pat gretimos valstybės prašymu gali laikinai apriboti arba nutraukti vykimą per valstybės sieną ar tam tikrus pasienio kontrolės punktus.“

5 straipsnis. 11 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pakeisti 11 straipsnio 3 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„3. Pasienio ruožas nustatomas iki 5 km pločio į Lietuvos Respublikos teritorijos gilumą nuo valstybės sienos, einančios sausuma, pasienio vandenimis. Pasienio ruožo ribas tvirtina Vyriausybė vidaus reikalų ministro teikimu.“

2. Papildyti 11 straipsnį 10 dalimi :

„10. Esant paskelbtai valstybės lygio ekstremaliajai situacijai dėl masinio užsieniečių antplūdžio, asmenys į pasienio ruožą gali patekti tik turėdami Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos išduotą leidimą. Šis leidimas išduodamas Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado nustatytais atvejais. Reikalavimas turėti Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos išduotą leidimą netaikomas asmenims :

1) gyvenantiems pasienio ruože ir (ar) esantiems nekilnojamojo turto, kuris yra pasienio ruože, savininkais ar naudotojais ;

2) dirbantiems ar besimokantiems pasienio ruože ;

3) vykdantiems ūkinę, komercinę veiklą ar kelių, ryšio linijų ir kitų viešojo intereso objektų priežiūros veiklą pasienio ruože ;

4) vykstantiems magistraliniais, krašto ar rajoniniais keliais arba geležinkeliais, esančiais pasienio ruože ar kertančiais pasienio ruožą ;

5) kertantiems valstybės sieną per pasienio kontrolės punktus ar vykstantiems į darbo vietą, esančią pasienio kontrolės punkte ;

6) vykdantiems valstybės sienos apsaugos objektų ir įrenginių statybą, įrengimą ir (ar) priežiūrą.“

6 straipsnis. 14 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pakeisti 14 straipsnio 2 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„2. Sąrašas sudaromas Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado nustatyta tvarka. Į sąrašą gali būti įrašyti motyvuotą prašymą pateikę fiziniai ir juridiniai asmenys, juridinių asmenų filialai, atstovybės bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintys asmenys. Šioje dalyje nurodyti subjektai į sąrašą negali būti įrašyti, jeigu :

1) fizinis asmuo, juridinio asmens, juridinio asmens filialo, atstovybės ar juridinio asmens statuso neturinčio asmens vadovas arba kitas atsakingas asmuo turi neišnykusį ar nepanaikintą teistumą už tyčinį nusikaltimą ;

2) nėra praėję vieneri metai nuo fiziniam asmeniui, juridinio asmens, juridinio asmens filialo, atstovybės ar juridinio asmens statuso neturinčio asmens vadovui arba kitam atsakingam asmeniui paskirtos administracinės nuobaudos ar administracinio poveikio priemonės už teisės aktų, reglamentuojančių valstybės sienos kirtimą ir patikrinimą arba pasienio teisinį režimą, pažeidimą, kontrabandą arba akcizais apmokestinamų prekių įsigijimą, laikymą, gabenimą, naudojimą ar realizavimą pažeidžiant nustatytą tvarką, neteisėtą valstybės sienos perėjimą dėl neatsargumo įvykdymo dienos ;

3) juridiniam asmeniui yra įsiteisėjęs apkaltinamasis teismo nuosprendis dėl tyčinio nusikaltimo ir yra bent viena iš šių sąlygų :

a) po bausmės atlikimo nėra praėję treji metai, kai padarytas nusikaltimas pagal Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamąjį kodeksą priskiriamas nesunkiems arba apysunkiams nusikaltimams ;

b) po bausmės atlikimo nėra praėję penkeri metai, kai padarytas nusikaltimas pagal Baudžiamąjį kodeksą priskiriamas sunkiems nusikaltimams ;

c) po bausmės atlikimo nėra praėję aštuoneri metai, kai padarytas nusikaltimas pagal Baudžiamąjį kodeksą priskiriamas labai sunkiems nusikaltimams.“

2. Pakeisti 14 straipsnio 3 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„3. Sprendimas atsisakyti įrašyti fizinius ir juridinius asmenis, juridinių asmenų filialus, atstovybes bei juridinio asmens statuso neturinčius asmenis į sąrašą gali būti priimamas, kai :

1) fizinis ir juridinis asmuo, juridinio asmens filialas, atstovybė bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintis asmuo, pateikdamas prašymą, jame ar kartu su prašymu pateiktuose dokumentuose sąmoningai nurodė tikrovės neatitinkančius duomenis ;

2) fizinis ir juridinis asmuo, juridinio asmens filialas, atstovybė bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintis asmuo pateikė ne visus reikiamus dokumentus, nurodytus sąrašo sudarymo tvarkos apraše ;

3) fizinis ir juridinis asmuo, juridinio asmens filialas, atstovybė bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintis asmuo kartu su prašymu pateikė negaliojančius dokumentus ;

4) nustatomos šio straipsnio 2 dalyje nurodytos aplinkybės, dėl kurių fizinis asmuo, juridinis asmuo, juridinio asmens filialas, atstovybė ar juridinio asmens statuso neturintis asmuo negali būti įrašytas į sąrašą ;

5) asmuo, kurio buvimas valstybės sienos apsaugos zonoje, pasienio juostoje, pasienio vandenyse, kurių vandenimis arba krantais eina išorės siena, gali kelti grėsmę viešajai tvarkai ar visuomenės saugumui ;

6) fizinio ir juridinio asmens, juridinio asmens filialo, atstovybės bei juridinio asmens statuso neturinčio asmens vykdoma veikla pasienio juostos dalyje, kuri yra sausumoje, nesusijusi su valstybės sienos apsaugos objektų bei įrenginių statyba, įrengimu ir (ar) priežiūra.“

3. Pakeisti 14 straipsnio 5 dalies 1 punktą ir jį išdėstyti taip :

„1) paaiškėja šio straipsnio 3 dalies 1, 3, 4 ir 5 punktuose nurodytos aplinkybės arba, kad fizinis ir juridinis asmuo, juridinio asmens filialas, atstovybė bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintis asmuo kartu su prašymu pateikė suklastotus dokumentus ;“

4. Papildyti 14 straipsnio 5 dalį 6 punktu :

„6) paaiškėja, kad nebevykdoma veikla pasienio juostos dalyje, kuri yra sausumoje, susijusi su valstybės sienos apsaugos objektų bei įrenginių statyba, įrengimu ir (ar) priežiūra.“

7 straipsnis. 15 straipsnio pakeitimas

Pakeisti 15 straipsnio 3 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„3. Draudžiama gadinti, naikinti valstybės sienos ženklus, kitus valstybės sienos apsaugos objektus ir įrenginius ar kitaip daryti žalą pasienio juostai. Valstybės sienos apsaugos objektų ir įrenginių apsaugos zonos ir jose taikomos specialiosios žemės naudojimo sąlygos nustatytos Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų žemės naudojimo sąlygų įstatyme.“

8 straipsnis. 16 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pakeisti 16 straipsnio 4 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„4. Juridiniai asmenys, juridinių asmenų filialai, atstovybės ar juridinio asmens statuso neturintys asmenys, kurių teritorijoje yra steigiamas ar įsteigtas pasienio kontrolės punktas, privalo patikrinimų įstaigoms suteikti patikrinimams atlikti reikalingą infrastruktūrą. Už naudojimąsi juridiniams asmenims, juridinių asmenų filialams, atstovybėms ar juridinio asmens statuso neturintiems asmenims priklausančia infrastruktūra, išskyrus šio straipsnio 41 dalyje nurodytą infrastruktūrą, atlyginama Vyriausybės nustatytomis sąlygomis ir tvarka.“

2. Papildyti 16 straipsnį 41 dalimi :

„41. Jeigu valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijų ir įstaigų, valstybės ir savivaldybės valdomų įmonių, valstybės ir savivaldybės valdomų bendrovių dukterinių akcinių ir uždarųjų akcinių bendrovių, kaip šios bendrovės suprantamos Lietuvos Respublikos akcinių bendrovių įstatyme, kurių teritorijoje yra steigiamas ar įsteigtas pasienio kontrolės punktas, patikėjimo teise valdomos, naudojamos ir disponuojamos valstybės infrastruktūros ar jos dalies reikia patikrinimų įstaigoms patikrinimams atlikti, tokia valstybės infrastruktūra ar jos dalis atitinkamų patikrinimų įstaigų prašymu ir vadovaujantis Valstybės ir savivaldybių turto valdymo, naudojimo ir disponavimo juo įstatymu perduodama panaudos pagrindais neatlygintinai valdyti ir naudotis patikrinimų įstaigoms patikrinimams atlikti.“

3. Pakeisti 16 straipsnio 6 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„6. Pasienio kontrolės punkto teritorijos schemą ir pasienio kontrolės punkto darbo nuostatus tvirtina Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas ir Muitinės departamento generalinis direktorius. Pasienio kontrolės punkto, kuriame nėra muitinės įstaigos, teritorijos schemą ir darbo nuostatus tvirtina Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.“

9 straipsnis. 18 straipsnio pakeitimas

Pakeisti 18 straipsnį ir jį išdėstyti taip :

„18 straipsnis. Valstybės sienos apsaugos subjektai, kitų subjektų pasitelkimas, valstybės sienos apsauga ginkluoto užpuolimo, karo, nepaprastosios padėties ar ekstremaliosios situacijos atveju

1. Valstybės sienos apsaugą atlieka Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba.

2. Valstybės sienos apsauga sustiprinama vadovaujantis valstybės sienos apsaugos priedangos planu, kurį tvirtina Vyriausybė.

3. Siekiant sustiprinti valstybės sienos apsaugą, į pagalbą Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai pasitelkiami :

1) vidaus reikalų ministro nustatyta tvarka – vidaus reikalų ministro valdymo srities statutinių įstaigų vidaus tarnybos sistemos pareigūnai ;

2) Krašto apsaugos sistemos organizavimo ir karo tarnybos įstatymo nustatyta tvarka – Lietuvos kariuomenė ;

3) Lietuvos Respublikos Lietuvos šaulių sąjungos įstatymo nustatyta tvarka – Lietuvos šaulių sąjunga ;

4) valstybės sienos apsaugos priedangos plane nustatyta tvarka – patikrinimų įstaigos, Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos ir kiti subjektai.

4. Ginkluoto užpuolimo, karo ar nepaprastosios padėties atveju valstybės siena saugoma šio įstatymo, Lietuvos Respublikos karo padėties įstatymo, Lietuvos Respublikos ginkluotos gynybos ir pasipriešinimo agresijai įstatymo, Lietuvos Respublikos nepaprastosios padėties įstatymo nustatyta tvarka.“

10 straipsnis. 23 straipsnio pakeitimas

1. Pripažinti netekusia galios 23 straipsnio 5 dalį.

2. Pakeisti 23 straipsnio 6 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip :

„6. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba vidaus reikalų ministro valdymo srities centrinių statutinių įstaigų vadovų prašymu padeda atlikti vidaus reikalų ministro valdymo srities statutinėms įstaigoms pavestas funkcijas. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūnų pasitelkimo tvarką ir konkrečias užduotis nustato vidaus reikalų ministras.“

11 straipsnis. Įstatymo papildymas 231 straipsniu

Papildyti Įstatymo VI skyrių 231 straipsniu :

„231 straipsnis. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos bendradarbiavimas su kitomis valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijomis ir įstaigomis bei visuomene

1. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, įgyvendindama šio įstatymo 23 straipsnyje nustatytas funkcijas, bendradarbiauja su kitomis valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijomis ir įstaigomis, asociacijomis bei kitais asmenimis.

2. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba bendradarbiauja su viešosios informacijos rengėjais ir skleidėjais. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba gali rengti ir leisti visuomenės informavimo priemones, kuriose teikiama informacija apie valstybės sienos apsaugai užtikrinti skirtas priemones, nusikalstamų veikų ir administracinių nusižengimų prevencijos priemonių, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos funkcijų įgyvendinimą ir skelbiama kita su Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos veikla susijusi informacija.

3. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba remia ir inicijuoja prevencines ir teisinio švietimo programas, skleidžia teisines, ekspertines, profesines žinias mokymo įstaigose, visuomenės informavimo priemonėse.“

12 straipsnis. 26 straipsnio pakeitimas

Pakeisti 26 straipsnio 1 dalies 12 punktą ir jį išdėstyti taip :

„12) vidaus reikalų ministro nustatyta tvarka konvojuoti sulaikytus ir suimtus asmenis.“

13 straipsnis. Įstatymo papildymas nauju IX skyriumi

Papildyti Įstatymą nauju IX skyriumi :

„IX SKYRIUS

RĖMĖJŲ VEIKLOS TEISINIAI PAGRINDAI

31 straipsnis. Rėmėjų veiklos organizavimas

1. Rėmėjų veikla organizuojama vadovaujantis šiuo įstatymu ir Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado patvirtintais Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjų nuostatais.

2. Rėmėjui išduodamas pažymėjimas, atpažinimo ženklas, liemenė su užrašu „Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjas“. Jų išdavimo, nešiojimo ir grąžinimo tvarką, pažymėjimo blanko ir atpažinimo ženklo pavyzdį bei liemenės su užrašu „Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjas“ formą nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.

3. Rėmėjų veikla finansuojama iš Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės biudžete Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai skirtų lėšų.

32 straipsnis. Priėmimas į rėmėjus

1. Rėmėju gali tapti ne jaunesnis kaip 18 metų mokantis lietuvių kalbą Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyboje netarnaujantis ir neatliekantis tikrosios karo tarnybos Lietuvos Respublikos pilietis ar Lietuvos Respublikoje nuolat gyvenantis kitos Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės pilietis, turintis ne žemesnį kaip vidurinį ar jam prilygintą išsilavinimą. Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės pilietis yra laikomas nuolat gyvenančiu Lietuvos Respublikoje, jeigu jis deklaravo gyvenamąją vietą Lietuvos Respublikoje ir kurio duomenys apie gyvenamąją vietą Lietuvos Respublikoje įrašyti į Lietuvos Respublikos gyventojų registrą.

2. Norintis tapti rėmėju asmuo pateikia prašymą Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai. Lietuvos šaulių sąjungos, kitų asociacijų, kurių įstatuose viena iš funkcijų numatytas viešojo saugumo užtikrinimas, vadovai gali pateikti Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai rekomenduojamų būti rėmėjais asmenų sąrašus kartu su šiuose sąrašuose esančių asmenų prašymais tapti rėmėjais.

3. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, gavusi šio straipsnio 2 dalyje nurodytus prašymus, tikrina, ar norintis tapti rėmėju asmuo atitinka šio straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytus reikalavimus ir ar nėra šio straipsnio 4 dalyje nustatytų aplinkybių. Jeigu norintis tapti rėmėju asmuo atitinka šio straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytus reikalavimus ir nėra šio straipsnio 4 dalyje nustatytų aplinkybių, jam Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba organizuoja mokymą, kurį baigęs, šis asmuo laiko egzaminą. Reikalavimas dėl mokymo baigimo ir egzamino laikymo netaikomas buvusiems Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūnams, kitiems einantiems pareigas ir buvusiems vidaus tarnybos sistemos pareigūnams, šauliams ir buvusiems tikrosios karo tarnybos kariams. Norintis tapti rėmėju asmuo, išlaikęs šioje dalyje nurodytą egzaminą, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado ar jo įgalioto asmens sprendimu įrašomas į rėmėjų sąrašą. Jeigu norintis tapti rėmėju asmuo neatitinka šio straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytų reikalavimų arba yra šio straipsnio 4 dalyje nustatytų aplinkybių arba neišlaikomas šioje dalyje nurodytas egzaminas, asmens prašymas tapti rėmėju netenkinamas. Rėmėjų mokymo organizavimo tvarką, mokymo programai taikomus reikalavimus ir egzamino organizavimo, laikymo, vertinimo tvarką nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.

4. Rėmėju negali būti :

1) asmuo, turintis teistumą už nusikaltimą, taip pat už baudžiamąjį nusižengimą nuteistas asmuo, jeigu nuo teismo nuosprendžio įsiteisėjimo dienos nepraėjo 1 metai, taip pat asmuo, kuriam Lietuvos Respublikos organizuoto nusikalstamumo prevencijos įstatymo nustatyta tvarka taikomi teismo įpareigojimai ;

2) asmuo, kuris anksčiau dirbo statutiniu valstybės tarnautoju, teisėju, notaru, prokuroru, advokatu, antstoliu ar atliko tikrąją karo tarnybą ir buvo atleistas atitinkamai už pareigūno vardo pažeminimą, teisėjo vardą žeminantį poelgį, notarų profesinės etikos ir tarnybinius nusižengimus, prokuroro vardą žeminantį poelgį, advokato profesinės etikos bei profesinės veiklos pažeidimus, antstolio profesinės ar tarnybinės veiklos pažeidimus ar kario vardą žeminančias arba krašto apsaugos sistemos institucijas diskredituojančias veikas ir nuo šio atleidimo dienos nepraėjo 5 metai ;

3) asmuo, kuris yra įstatymų nustatyta tvarka uždraustos organizacijos narys.

5. Į rėmėjų sąrašą įrašytas asmuo pasirašo 3 metų sutartį su Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, kurioje įsipareigoja neatlygintinai padėti Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai vykdyti šio įstatymo 23 straipsnio 1 dalies 1–5 punktuose nustatytas funkcijas (toliau – sutartis). Praėjus 3 metų laikotarpiui, jeigu rėmėjas be pažeidimų vykdė jam keliamas užduotis, sutarties galiojimas šalių sutarimu pratęsiamas tam pačiam laikotarpiui. Sutarties sudarymo tvarką ir sutarties sąlygas nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.

6. Apie nepatenkintą asmens prašymą tapti rėmėju, šio sprendimo apskundimo galimybę ir asmens įrašymą į rėmėjų sąrašą Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba informuoja prašymą pateikusį asmenį ir jį rekomendavusią asociaciją Viešojo administravimo įstatymo nustatyta tvarka. Sprendimas netenkinti asmens prašymo tapti rėmėju gali būti Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo nustatyta tvarka skundžiamas apygardos administraciniam teismui.

33 straipsnis. Išbraukimas iš rėmėjų sąrašo ir sutarties su rėmėju nutraukimas

1. Rėmėjas Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado ar jo įgalioto asmens sprendimu išbraukiamas iš rėmėjų sąrašo ir su juo nutraukiama sutartis :

1) rėmėjo prašymu ;

2) dėl rėmėjo vardo diskreditavimo ;

3) jei rėmėjas nebeatitinka šio įstatymo 32 straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytų reikalavimų arba atsiranda, paaiškėja šio įstatymo 32 straipsnio 4 dalyje nustatytos aplinkybės ;

4) jei rėmėjas ilgiau negu 6 mėnesius iš eilės nedalyvauja rėmėjų veikloje.

2. Šio straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodytas Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado ar jo įgalioto asmens sprendimas gali būti Administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo nustatyta tvarka skundžiamas apygardos administraciniam teismui.

34 straipsnis. Rėmėjų funkcijos, teisės ir pareigos

1. Rėmėjai padeda Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybai vykdyti šio įstatymo 23 straipsnio 1 dalies 1–5 punktuose nustatytas funkcijas, kurias atlieka kartu su Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūnais.

2. Rėmėjai, atlikdami jiems pavestas funkcijas, turi teisę :

1) šio įstatymo nustatyta tvarka ir atvejais panaudoti prievartą bei specialiąsias priemones ;

2) nustatyti pažeidėjo asmens tapatybę ;

3) padėti sulaikyti asmenį, įtariamą padariusį pažeidimą ;

4) padėti stabdyti transporto priemones, kai įtariama, kad yra daroma ar padaryta nusikalstama veika ;

5) padėti atlikti asmens apžiūrą ir daiktų, krovinių, dokumentų, patalpų patikrinimą ;

6) siekiant užkirsti kelią daromiems nusikaltimams, persekiojant ir sulaikant teisės pažeidėjus, įeiti į fiziniams ir juridiniams asmenims, juridinių asmenų filialams, atstovybėms bei juridinio asmens statuso neturintiems asmenims priklausiančias gyvenamąsias ir negyvenamąsias patalpas, teritorijas ;

7) padėti pristatyti administracinėn atsakomybėn traukiamą asmenį šio sutikimu į Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos, policijos tarnybines patalpas ar seniūnijos patalpas kaimo gyvenamosiose vietovėse ;

8) reikalauti, kad asmenys vykdytų teisėtus reikalavimus ir nurodymus.

3. Rėmėjai, atlikdami jiems pavestas funkcijas, privalo :

1) gerbti ir ginti žmogaus orumą, užtikrinti ir saugoti žmogaus teises ir laisves ;

2) suteikti nukentėjusiems asmenims, taip pat į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją neįleidžiamiems užsieniečiams neatidėliotiną medicinos ar kitą būtinąją pagalbą ;

3) imtis priemonių asmenų, valstybės ir savivaldybės turtui gelbėti įvykių, ekstremaliųjų įvykių ar ekstremaliųjų situacijų atvejais ;

4) saugoti jiems patikėtas ar sužinotas valstybės, tarnybos ar komercines paslaptis ;

5) nešioti atpažinimo ženklą, liemenę su užrašu „Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos rėmėjas“, prisistatyti, parodyti rėmėjo pažymėjimą ;

6) gavę pranešimą apie rengiamą ar daromą teisės pažeidimą, pastebėję rengiamą ar daromą teisės pažeidimą, imtis neatidėliotinų priemonių užkirsti kelią rengiamam arba daromam teisės pažeidimui ;

7) gavę pranešimą apie padarytą teisės pažeidimą, nedelsdami pranešti apie tai policijai arba kitai kompetentingai institucijai ar įstaigai, imtis neatidėliotinų priemonių įvykio vietai apsaugoti, liudytojams nustatyti ;

8) vadovautis teisės aktais, pavestas užduotis atlikti laiku ir tiksliai.

35 straipsnis. Rėmėjų įgaliojimai

1. Rėmėjai, atlikdami jiems pavestas funkcijas, vadovaujasi Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija, šiuo ir kitais įstatymais.

2. Teisėti rėmėjų reikalavimai ir nurodymai yra privalomi asmenims.

3. Už rėmėjų teisėtų reikalavimų ir nurodymų nevykdymą asmenys atsako įstatymų, reglamentuojančių teisinę atsakomybę, nustatyta tvarka.

36 straipsnis. Rėmėjų socialinės ir kitos garantijos

1. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba išmoka vienkartinę išmoką rėmėjui, jeigu atliekant jam pavestas funkcijas rėmėjas buvo sužalotas ir dėl šio sužalojimo nustatytas :

1) sunkus sveikatos sutrikdymo mastas − 60 bazinių socialinių išmokų dydžio ;

2) nesunkus ar nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymo mastas − 40 bazinių socialinių išmokų dydžio.

2. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba 120 bazinių socialinių išmokų dydžio vienkartinę išmoką lygiomis dalimis išmoka :

1) rėmėjo, kuris žuvo atlikdamas jam pavestas funkcijas, šeimos nariams – vaikams (įvaikiams) (įskaitant vaikus, gimusius po rėmėjo mirties), ne vyresniems kaip 18 metų, taip pat vyresniems vaikams (įvaikiams), kurie mokosi įregistruotose bendrojo ugdymo mokyklose ir statutinėse profesinio mokymo įstaigose pagal bendrojo ugdymo ir profesinio mokymo programas grupinio mokymosi forma kasdieniu, neakivaizdiniu ir nuotoliniu mokymo proceso organizavimo būdais ar pavienio mokymosi forma savarankišku ir nuotoliniu mokymo proceso organizavimo būdais arba studijuoja Lietuvos aukštojoje mokykloje pagal nuolatinės formos studijų programas, ne vyresniems kaip 24 metai, sutuoktiniui, sugyventiniui (partneriui), tėvui (įtėviui), motinai (įmotei) ;

2) asmenims, kuriems nustatytas neįgalumo lygis, 0–25 procentų darbingumo lygis arba senatvės pensijos amžių sukakusiems asmenims, kuriems nustatytas didelių specialiųjų poreikių lygis, jeigu jie buvo rėmėjo, kuris žuvo atlikdamas jam pavestas funkcijas, išlaikomi ar jo žuvimo dieną turėjo teisę gauti jo išlaikymą.

3. Šiame straipsnyje nustatytos išmokos nemokamos, jeigu :

1) rėmėjas žuvo ar susižalojo darydamas tyčinę nusikalstamą veiką ;

2) rėmėjo žuvimo ar susižalojimo priežastis buvo apsvaigimas nuo alkoholio, narkotinių ir kitų psichiką veikiančių medžiagų ;

3) rėmėjas nusižudė, kėsinosi nusižudyti ar tyčia susižalojo ;

4) rėmėjo žuvimo ar susižalojimo priežastis buvo transporto priemonės vairavimas neturint teisės ją vairuoti arba perdavimas vairuoti transporto priemonę asmeniui, apsvaigusiam nuo alkoholio, narkotinių ir kitų psichiką veikiančių medžiagų arba neturinčiam teisės ją vairuoti ;

5) rėmėjo sveikata sutriko ar jis mirė dėl ligos ar karo veiksmų ir tai nesusiję su rėmėjų funkcijų atlikimu.

4. Šiame straipsnyje nustatytų išmokų mokėjimo rėmėjams tvarką nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.

5. Kai dėl teisės pažeidėjo veikos rėmėjas sužalojamas, Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso nustatyta tvarka jam atlyginama turtinė ir neturtinė žala.

6. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado nustatyta tvarka ir sąlygomis rėmėjams gali būti atlygintos transporto, ryšių ir kitos išlaidos, patirtos atliekant jiems pavestas funkcijas.

37 straipsnis. Prievartos naudojimo sąlygos

1. Rėmėjai, atlikdami jiems pavestas funkcijas, kartu su Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūnais turi teisę panaudoti prievartą šio įstatymo nustatytais atvejais ir tvarka. Rėmėjai turi teisę panaudoti prievartą tik tarnybinio būtinumo atveju ir tik tiek, kiek to reikia jiems pavestoms funkcijoms atlikti. Rėmėjai naudoti prievartą privalo adekvačiai esamoms aplinkybėms ir proporcingai esamam pavojui, atsižvelgdami į konkrečią situaciją, teisės pažeidimo pobūdį, intensyvumą ir individualias teisės pažeidėjo savybes. Fizinė prievarta naudojama tik tada, kai psichinė prievarta buvo neveiksminga arba kai bet koks delsimas kelia pavojų rėmėjo ar kito asmens gyvybei ar sveikatai.

2. Psichinę ar fizinę prievartą rėmėjas turi teisę panaudoti šiais atvejais :

1) apsisaugodamas ar apsaugodamas kitus asmenis nuo gresiančio pavojaus gyvybei ar sveikatai ;

2) asmenims vengiant vykdyti rėmėjo ar Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūno reikalavimus ir nurodymus (siekdamas priversti asmenis paklusti) ;

3) padėdamas sulaikyti asmenis (jeigu jie priešinasi) ;

4) atremdamas kėsinimąsi į Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūno šaunamąjį ginklą, sprogmenis, specialiąsias bei ryšio priemones ir siekiamas šiuos objektus susigrąžinti ;

5) atremdamas statinių (įskaitant patalpas), transporto priemonių ar kito turto, teritorijų užpuolimą ;

6) padėdamas stabdyti transporto priemonę ;

7) užkirsdamas kelią administraciniams nusižengimams ar nusikalstamoms veikoms.

3. Rėmėjas turi teisę naudoti antrankius ir surišimo priemones šio įstatymo 28 straipsnio 4 dalyje nustatytais atvejais.

4. Specialiąsias priemones (išskyrus antrankius ir surišimo priemones) naudoti draudžiama šio įstatymo 28 straipsnio 7 dalyje nustatytais atvejais.

5. Rėmėjas, panaudojęs psichinę ar fizinę prievartą ir taip sukėlęs pavojų asmens gyvybei ar sveikatai, turi suteikti asmeniui reikalingą neatidėliotiną medicinos ar kitą būtinąją pagalbą ir imtis kitų reikalingų priemonių pavojingiems savo veiksmų padariniams pašalinti. Apie rėmėjo panaudotą psichinę ar fizinę prievartą, jei tai lėmė asmens mirtį arba gyvybei pavojingą sveikatos sutrikdymą, nedelsiant pranešama prokurorui.

6. Rėmėjai turi būti specialiai parengti ir reguliariai tikrinami, ar jie geba veikti situacijomis, susijusiomis su psichinės ar fizinės prievartos panaudojimu. Specialiosios priemonės gali būti išduodamos rėmėjams atlikti jiems pavestas funkcijas tik kartu su Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos pareigūnais. Rėmėjų parengimo, tikrinimo bei specialiųjų priemonių išdavimo rėmėjams tvarką nustato Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vadas.

38 straipsnis. Rėmėjų skatinimas ir atsakomybė

1. Rėmėjai, pasižymėję saugant valstybės sieną, gali būti Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos vado ar kitų institucijų paskatinti (apdovanoti).

2. Rėmėjai gali būti teikiami valstybiniam apdovanojimui Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės apdovanojimų įstatymo nustatyta tvarka.

3. Rėmėjai už neteisėtas veikas atsako įstatymų, reglamentuojančių teisinę atsakomybę, nustatyta tvarka.“

14 straipsnis. Buvusio IX skyriaus ir 31 straipsnio pernumeravimas

1. Buvusį IX skyrių laikyti X skyriumi.

2. Buvusį 31 straipsnį laikyti 39 straipsniu.

15 straipsnis. Įstatymo įsigaliojimas, įgyvendinimas ir taikymas

1. Šis įstatymas, išskyrus šio straipsnio 2 dalį, įsigalioja 2023 m. gegužės 3 d.

2. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnybos prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos vadas ir Muitinės departamento prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos generalinis direktorius iki 2023 m. gegužės 2 d. priima šio įstatymo įgyvendinamuosius teisės aktus.

3. Šio įstatymo 8 straipsnio 2 dalyje išdėstyto Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės sienos ir jos apsaugos įstatymo 16 straipsnio 41 dalies nuostatos taikomos valstybės infrastruktūrai ar jos daliai, kuri toje dalyje nurodytiems juridiniams asmenims perduota patikėjimo teise valdyti, naudoti ir disponuoti pagal sutartis, sudarytas iki šio įstatymo įsigaliojimo dienos.

4. 2024 m. sausio 1 d. įsigalioja tokia šio įstatymo 13 straipsnyje išdėstyto Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės sienos ir jos apsaugos įstatymo 36 straipsnio 2 dalies 2 punkto redakcija :

„2) asmenims, kuriems nustatytas neįgalumo lygis, 0–25 procentų dalyvumo lygis arba senatvės pensijos amžių sukakusiems asmenims, kuriems nustatytas 15 procentų dalyvumo lygis, jeigu jie buvo rėmėjo, kuris žuvo atlikdamas jam pavestas funkcijas, išlaikomi ar jo žuvimo dieną turėjo teisę gauti jo išlaikymą.“

Skelbiu šį Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo priimtą įstatymą.

Respublikos Prezidentas

▻https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/69c45250dd1c11eda305cb3bdf2af4d8

Asylum seekers who claimed torture and abuse in Latvia are using the courts to fight back

Some of the people looking to take the Latvian state to court have alleged ill-treatment including beatings, electric shocks and cigarette burns.

Earlier this year, Sidya Sompare, 20, a Guinean man who had attempted to claim asylum in Latvia, tried to end his life in a Latvian detention centre by drinking shampoo in his toilet stall.

Having fled Guinea in the wake of threats against his safety due to his participation in anti-government protests, Sompare arrived in Belarus in September 2021 on a quest to find a secure life in Europe, before spending six months in the forested border zone between the country and Latvia.

There, in addition to being pushed back and forth across the border by authorities in both countries, he alleges he was severely beaten, verbally abused, and given barely any food for days on end by Latvian border guards. Sompare then spent eight months in the closed detention center after he lost his passport in the woods and his asylum efforts were denied.

When Sompare was found on the floor of his toilet stall after his suicide attempt, detention center authorities promptly took him to a hospital.

“I’m not sick, I’m alright,” he recalled saying to a doctor during an interview with Euronews. “Just I need to be free.”

He was finally released from detention in April with the help of Doctors Without Borders, an NGO, and a local Latvian human rights group. But Sompare didn’t stop there — having previously filed two unsuccessful complaints against the Latvian state last year for his detention and the dehumanizing treatment he experienced in the forest along the border, he has taken his fight to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where his case was formally registered on July 5.

Beatings and electric shocks

Sompare is not alone in turning to legal pathways to seek justice for ill-treatment by Latvian border authorities during the migrant crisis along the Belarusian border.

As allegations of torture and ill-treatment by Latvian authorities have continued to emerge since last year, an increasing number of migrants and refugees who say they have experienced life-altering trauma at the hands of Latvian security forces have been mounting court challenges against them over the last few months, aiming to hold their former tormentors and the Latvian state accountable.

These cases, which are mostly taking place at the national level with the exception of Sompare’s, represent some of the first legal efforts in Latvia since the start of the border crisis in 2021 that are specifically focused on the harrowing abuse that border authorities have allegedly inflicted on people crossing the border.

“All the Latvian institutions, even the ombudsperson of Latvia, they deny that Latvia did anything illegal with those migrants,” said Nikita Matyushchenkov, a human rights lawyer at Respect, Protect, Fulfill (RPF), the legal organisation that helped Sompare file his ECHR case. “So these will be very important judgements.”

In addition to challenging ongoing deportation procedures against him, Sompare’s ECHR case is focused on the ill-treatment he received in Latvian custody in the forests of the border area, which he and RPF claim was illegal. RPF has also filed three cases at the national level in Latvia, two in March and one in June of this year, on behalf of individuals who claim they were abused by Latvian border authorities between August 2021 and March 2022.

But these may not be the only cases that will be brought to bear against the Latvian state — Matyushchenkov said that RPF has identified up to 100 people who were abused in one way or another by Latvian border guards while in the forest in the border area.

Some of Matyushchenkov’s clients have told him that they were beaten with electric shock devices — claims that are consistent with findings documented in 2022 in an Amnesty International report on Latvia’s border. In another report published this month, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stated that it had received several claims of “severe ill-treatment” from people who were detained after crossing into Latvia, again recounting beatings and electric shocks to areas of the body “including the genitals.”

’I got sick physically and mentally’

The ongoing migrant border crisis has, according to European states, been manufactured by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has incentivised people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia to journey to Belarus before forcing them to cross the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia illegally as a means of putting pressure on the European Union.

After establishing a state of emergency along its border in August 2021, Latvia adopted new amendments to its border laws in June of this year that have been denounced by Amnesty International, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNHCR as legalising internationally-condemned pushbacks. Crucially, these amendments have also enshrined into law the State Border Guard’s broadly defined use of force to prevent illegal entry into Latvia.

Although Poland and Lithuania have both faced accusations of ill-treatment of migrants as well, Matyushchenkov said that Latvia has been much more extreme in its abuse of people crossing its border.

In one particularly gruesome case that has previously been reported in international media, Abdulrahman Kiwan, a humanitarian worker who fled Syria following pressure from the government of Bashar al-Assad, has alleged that he not only received electric shocks from Latvian guards, but that they extinguished cigarettes in the places where he had previously been injured.

Now, Kiwan said he is in touch with a Latvian human rights group about filing his own complaint against the Latvian state — and if it fails, he is also ready to escalate his efforts to the ECHR with the help of legal NGOs.

“I got sick physically and mentally because of them,” Kiwan, 28, who is now based in Germany, said of the Latvian border authorities. “I want my voice to reach the world and other migrants, that the Latvian Border Guards are liars and are extremely racist.”

A Latvian human rights group is currently working on preparing a complaint for another refugee based in Germany, Hadi, 26, from Yemen, who told Euronews that Latvian guards beat him, violently struck him in the head, and shocked him with an electric baton. In addition to seeking compensation for crimes committed against him, Hadi, who requested to use an alias due to his ongoing asylum case in Germany, also wants his experience to be a cautionary tale.

“Legally, I want this complaint [to ensure] that no human being will be harmed after me,” he told Euronews.

’The government is scared of me’

Although Matyushchenkov said the chances of success for migrant cases like these at the ECHR may be significant, the same cannot be said for complaints within the Latvian system.

“From the way it was investigated at the national level, it seems like the authorities are not willing to investigate such complaints properly,” he said, referencing Sompare’s initial complaint procedure. “In the response to his complaint, they identified a person who allegedly beat the complainant, and they interviewed that person. That security official said he didn’t beat this person, and this was basically the end of the investigation.”

The Latvian government, including the Latvian State Border Guard, have previously denied any claims of abuse and torture from migrants. As of the writing of this article however, the Latvian State Border Guard, together with the country’s Internal Security Bureau and Prosecution Office which handle legal complaints from people crossing the border, were unavailable for comment.

Sompare, who is currently living in Latvia’s capital Riga, has no plans to leave Latvia anytime soon. As he fights his still ongoing deportation procedure and the traumatic abuse he suffered in the country, he can feel he is already making an impact.

“Something is going to change in Latvia,” he said. “Right now for sure the government is scared of me.”

Despite being severely disappointed in Europe’s capacity to help desperate people like himself, Sompare said he wants to continue his university studies after he wins his case, and hopes to find work at a human rights organization for refugees in Latvia. Until then however, he understands that he is fighting an uphill battle not only to save himself, but also many other asylum seekers who are in the same situation.

“I want to be an example for the people [to whom] the Latvian government did something illegal,” Sompare said. “The things that I started, I will finish them in Latvia.

▻https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/08/01/asylum-seekers-who-claimed-torture-and-abuse-in-latvia-are-using-the-court

#justice #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme

il pense aussi dissoudre Amnesty international ou bien ?
▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-c

–-> c’est la question posée sur certains commentaires sur twitter, en effet...

#dissolution #Comité_Action_Palestine #France #Darmanin #Palestine #association #Collectif_Palestine_Vaincra #Macron

prochaine étape : dissoudre la #république (association de malfaiteurs) ?

ah mais carrément ▻https://twitter.com/attac_fr/status/1497226827441520642

Une double dose d’inégalité : Les laboratoires pharmaceutiques et la crise des vaccins contre le COVID-19 (Sommaire)
▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/4621/2021/fr

La mise au point rapide de vaccins efficaces contre le COVID-19 en 2020 a donné de l’espoir au monde aux heures les plus sombres de la pandémie mortelle qu’il traverse. Cependant, ce sont les pays riches qui ont massivement bénéficié de leur déploiement. Ce rapport se concentre sur six des plus grands laboratoires ayant mis au point des vaccins. Il évalue leurs politiques d’entreprise en matière de droits humains, leur structure tarifaire, leurs archives relatives à la propriété intellectuelle et au partage des savoir-faire et des technologies, leur politique de distribution des doses de vaccin disponibles et la transparence de leurs opérations.

lien vers le rapport en français (entre autres)

C’est ballot...
Vaccins contre le COVID-19. Un nouveau rapport montre que les laboratoires pharmaceutiques alimentent une crise des droits humains sans précédent | Amnesty International
▻https://www.amnesty.org/fr/latest/news/2021/09/new-report-shows-leading-covid-19-vaccine-pharma-companies-fuelling-unprece

https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2021/09/278794-scaled.jpg

#profits #l’important

MEPs slam Slovenian Presidency for their role in chain-pushbacks

In the first week of September (2. 8. 2021), MEPs in the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs confronted Slovenian Interior Minister Aleš Hojs as he presented the priorities for Slovenian presidency of the Council of the European Union in Brussels. With evidence provided by BVMN and network members InfoKolpa and Are You Syrious, representatives of The Left in the European Parliament took the Presidency to task for its systemic policy of chain-pushbacks and flagrant abuse of the rule of law. Members also shamed the Slovenian Ministry of Interior for continuing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling which established Slovenia had violated the rights of a Cameroonian plaintiff and are obligated to allow him access to the Slovenian asylum system and to stop returning people to Croatia as there is overwhelming evidence of chain-refoulement and degrading treatment often amounting to tortute.

Presenting the evidence

Malin Björk, whose fact-finding trip to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia was facilitated by Are You Syrious and Infokolpa, then handed over the Black Book of Pushbacks to Minister Hojs, a dossier of cases recorded by the Border Violence Monitoring Network which collates pushback violations from across the Balkans since 2017. The book has a concerningly large section on Slovenian chain pushbacks, sharing the voices of 1266 people documented by BVMN who had either been chain pushed back (via Croatia) to Bosnia-Herzegovina or Serbia. The cases speak of systemic gatekeeping of asylum, misuse of translation, the registering of minors as adults, and fast-tracked returns to Croatian police who would then carry out brutal pushbacks. All point to a high level of complicity by the Slovenian authorities in the brutalisation of people-on-the-move, a fact reinforced by the April ruling of the Slovenian Supreme Court.

Yet this first hand evidence is in reality just the tip of the iceberg, and a recent open letter on the matter revealed how according to officially available data, over 27,000 returns of potential asylum seekers were carried out by Slovenian authorities in the recent years, resulting in chain refoulement via Croatia to non-EU countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina.

“I expect you as a responsible Minister, not only for your country, but for the EU Presidency to take part of this document and tell us what you will do to stop the illegality, impunity and the brutality.”

More weak denials

Interior Minister Hojs doubled down on his stance that Slovenia was managing its borders according to the Rule of Law, even despite his own national court ruling the complete opposite. In an unsurprising move, reminiscent of many Interior Ministers across the EU, Hojs levied accusations of fake news and dismissed the Black Book set before him as a fabrication. Referring to his short attempt to actually look at the evidence presented in the book Hojs stated: “How many lies can be concentrated on one half page, I immediately closed the book and did not touch it again”. With the Minister unwilling to leaf through the 244 pages dedicated to crimes carried out by Slovenia, the network welcome him to view the visual reconstruction of a pushback published last year which vividly captured the experience of those denied asylum access in Slovenia and then brutalised while being collectively expelled from Croatia.

“I have read the Black Book already in parliament and have seen what they write about me and the Slovenian police. All lies.”

– Minister Hojs Speaking to Slovenian TV

The fact is that Minister Hojs is personally not mentioned in the Black Book, though his actions are documented on countless pages, implies that someone is indeed lying. Court judgements, the testimony of thousands of pushback victims, and hard video evidence all highlight the fragility of the Slovenian government’s “fake news” line. While already deeply concerning at a national level, the fact that this administration is also spearheading the EU Presidency shows the extent to which perpetrators of pushbacks have been enabled and empowered at the highest level in Brussels. As a recent webinar event hosted by InfoKolpa and BVMN asked: Can a country responsible for mass violations of Human Rights be an honest broker in the preparations of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum? Until the ruling by the Supreme Court is implemented and people-on-the-move have their mandated right to request asylum in Slovenia, this question will continue to be answered firmly with a “no”.

Today, our MEPs talked to @aleshojs 🇸🇮 Minister of Home Affairs about the thousands of men, women and children who have been denied over the past years the right to seek asylum in Slovenia, and forcefully handed over to Croatian. @Border_Violence #StopPushbacks pic.twitter.com/XvNLvoCLhY

— The Left in the European Parliament (@Left_EU) September 2, 2021

MEP statement

“I was in Velika Kladusa in Bosnia, I was astonished to meet many migrants and refugees that had been to Slovenia, but they had been told that the right to seek asylum did not exist in you country. One of the persons that I met there was from Cameroon and had escaped political persecution. Once he thought he was in safety in Slovenia he called the police himself to ask to be able to claim asylum. Instead he was as so many others, as thousand of others, handed over to the Croatian police who brutalised him and sent him back to Bosnia.

This case is a little bit special, compared to the many thousands of others, because on 9th April this year the Slovenian Supreme Court itself ruled that Slovenian police had violated the principle of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsion and denied the him the right to seek international protection.

You (Minister Hojs) have had meetings with Commissioner Johansson and you have said you will stand up for the right to seek asylum for asylum seekers. Now your own court has found that you fail in this case. So my questions are: Will you stand by your words and provide a humanitarian visa for this person so that he can come back to Slovenia to apply for asylum as he was supposed to have been granted two years ago? And the second is more structural of course, how will you ensure that people have the right to apply for asylum in Slovenia, that they are not brutally pushed back to Croatian police, who are then illegally pushing them back to Bosnia in a kind of chain pushback situation which is a shame, a shame, at European borders?”

– Malin Björk MEP

The case referred to is part of strategic litigation efforts led by network member InfoKolpa, which resulted in a landmark judgement issued on 16 July 2020 by the Slovenian Administrative Court. The findings prove that the Slovenian police force in August 2019 carried out an illegal collective expulsion of a member of a persecuted English-speaking minority from Cameroon who wanted to apply for asylum in the country. The verdict was confirmed on 9th April 2021 by the Slovenian Supreme Court, which ruled the following: the Slovenian police violated the principle of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsions and denied the asylum seeker access to the right to international protection. The state was ordered to ensure that the plaintiff is allowed to re-enter the country and ask for international protection, but no effort has been made by the authorities to respect the ruling of the court. The case is thus another confirmation of the Slovenian misconduct that persistently undermines the foundations of the rule of law, specifically international refugee law and international human rights law.

We fear for Slovenia.

▻https://www.borderviolence.eu/meps-slam-slovenian-presidency-for-their-role-in-chain-pushbacks

Briefly reviewing the topic of pushbacks at European borders, it is important to report on the case of a young refugee from Somalia who was prevented from seeking asylum in Austria and was expulsed, or more precisely, pushed back to Slovenia, contrary to international and European law. His case will soon be reviewed at the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria (▻https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/migrant-tuzio-austriju-slucaj-bi-mogao-imati-posljedice-i-za-hrvatsku-policiju/2302310.aspx), and if he wins the case, it will be the second verdict that indicates systematic and sometimes chained pushbacks of refugees through Austria, Slovenia, and thus Croatia all the way to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Reçu via la mailing-list Inicijativa Dobrodosli, du 16.09.2021

Map of chain-pushback testimony (Source : No Name Kitchen)

https://i.imgur.com/FQ4995s.png https://i.imgur.com/GIzstJR.png https://i.imgur.com/8XKMMX3.png

source : rapport du #Border_Violence_Monitoring_Network (September 2021) :

https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/cover-sept-21-424x600.jpg

#cartogrpahie

Violenze e respingimenti: la “stretta” della Slovenia sui migranti. Con l’aiuto dell’Italia

Solo a settembre oltre 100 persone in transito sono state respinte a catena in Bosnia ed Erzegovina. Molte di loro sono state fermate a pochi chilometri dal confine italiano. I pattugliamenti misti della polizia italiana e slovena potrebbero spiegare l’aumento delle persone rintracciate. La denuncia del Border violence monitoring network

Otto casi di respingimenti a catena dalla Slovenia alla Bosnia ed Erzegovina nel mese di settembre 2021. Più di cento persone coinvolte, in prevalenza cittadini afghani e pakistani, che denunciano violenze da parte della polizia slovena. Molte di loro (almeno 34) sono state fermate a “un passo” dal confine italiano: la “stretta” del governo di Lubiana sul controllo del territorio, in collaborazione con la polizia italiana, sembra dare i primi risultati.

La denuncia arriva dalla rete Border violence monitoring network (Bvmn) che monitora il rispetto dei diritti delle persone in transito nei Paesi balcanici: “Non si hanno testimonianze dirette di poliziotti italiani coinvolti ma si presume che l’aumento nella sorveglianza del territorio e l’alto numero di persone arrestate nel nord della Slovenia sia una conseguenza dell’accordo tra Roma e Lubiana” spiega Simon Campbell, coordinatore delle attività della rete. Il ruolo dell’Italia resta così di primo piano nonostante le riammissioni al confine siano formalmente interrotte dal gennaio 2021.

Nel report di Bvmn di settembre 2021 vengono ricostruite dettagliatamente numerose operazioni di respingimento che “partono” dal territorio sloveno. Intorno alle sette e trenta di sera del 7 settembre 2021 un gruppo di quattro cittadini afghani, tra cui un minore, viene fermato vicino alla città di Rodik, nel Nord-Ovest della Slovenia a circa cinque chilometri dal confine con l’Italia. Il gruppo di persone in transito viene bloccato da due agenti della polizia di frontiera slovena e trasferito in un centro per richiedenti asilo. Ma è solo un’illusione. Quarantotto ore dopo, il 9 settembre verso le 17, i quattro si ritroveranno a Gradina, nel Nord della Bosnia ed Erzegovina: nonostante abbiano espresso più volte la volontà di richiedere asilo le forze di polizia slovena le hanno consegnate a quelle croate che hanno provveduto a portarle nuovamente al di fuori dell’Ue. Una decina di giorni dopo, il 19 settembre, un gruppo di otto persone, di età compresa tra i 16 e i 21 anni, riesce a raggiungere la zona confinaria tra Slovenia e Italia ma durante l’attraversamento dell’autostrada A1, all’uscita di una zona boscosa, interviene la polizia. All’appello “mancano” due persone che camminavano più avanti e sono riuscite a raggiungere Trieste: le guardie di frontiera lo sanno. L’intervistato, un cittadino afghano di 21 anni, sospetta che “una sorta di videocamera con sensori li aveva ha individuati mentre camminavano nella foresta”. O forse uno dei 55 droni acquistati dal ministro dell’Interno sloveno per controllare il territorio di confine. A quel punto le forze speciali slovene chiedono rinforzi per rintracciare i “fuggitivi” e nel frattempo sequestrano scarpe, telefoni cellulari, power bank e soldi ai membri del gruppo identificati che dopo circa mezz’ora sono costretti a entrare nel retro di un furgone. “Non c’era ossigeno perché era sovraffollato e la polizia ha acceso l’aria condizionata a temperature elevate. Due persone sono svenute durante il viaggio” spiega il 21enne. Verso le 12 la polizia croata prende il controllo del furgone: il gruppo resta prigioniero nel veicolo, con le porte chiuse e senza cibo e acqua, per il resto della giornata. Alle due del mattino verranno rilasciati vicino a Bihać, nel cantone bosniaco di Una Sana.

Sono solo due esempi delle numerose testimonianze raccolte dal Border violence. I numeri dei respingimenti a catena sono in forte aumento: da gennaio a agosto 2021 in totale erano state 143 le persone coinvolte, solo nel mese di settembre 104. Un dato importante che coinvolge anche l’Italia. Le operazioni di riammissione dall’Italia alla Slovenia sono formalmente interrotte -anche se la rete segnala due casi, uno a marzo e uno a maggio, di persone che nonostante avessero già raggiunto il territorio italiano sono state respinte a catena fino in Bosnia- ma il governo italiano fornisce supporto tecnico e operativo al governo sloveno per il controllo del territorio grazie a un’intesa di polizia tra Roma e Lubiana di cui non si conoscono i contenuti.

Sono ripresi infatti nel mese di luglio 2021 i pattugliamenti misti al confine nelle zone di Gorizia e Trieste. “Al momento dobbiamo approfondire l’effettivo funzionamento dell’accordo: non abbiamo testimonianze dirette di poliziotti italiani coinvolti -continua Campbell-. Presumiamo però che l’alto livello di sorveglianza del territorio e il numero di persone che vengono catturate in quella zona dimostra che l’intesa sui pattugliamenti assume un ruolo importante nei respingimenti a catena verso la Bosnia”. Paese in cui la “malagestione” del fenomeno migratorio da parte del governo di Sarajevo si traduce in una sistematica violazione dei diritti delle persone in transito e in cui le forze di polizia sotto accusa del Consiglio d’Europa per i metodi violenti che utilizza. Elementi che il Viminale non può considerare solo come “collaterali” delle politiche con cui tenta di esternalizzare i confini.

https://i.imgur.com/t6LzTLR.png

La particolarità dei respingimenti da parte delle autorità slovene è che sono realizzati alla luce del sole. “La caratteristica di queste operazioni consiste nel fatto che i migranti vengono consegnati ‘ufficialmente’ alle autorità croate dagli ufficiali sloveni ai valichi di frontiera sia stradali che ferroviari -spiegano gli attivisti-. Prendendo come esempio la Croazia la maggior parte dei gruppi vengono allontanati da agenti che eseguono le operazioni con maschere, in zone di confine remote”. In Slovenia, invece, spesso vengono rilasciate tracce di documenti firmati per giustificare l’attività di riammissione. “Nonostante questa procedura sia la Corte amministrativa che la Corte suprema slovena hanno ritenuto che queste pratiche violano la legge sull’asilo perché espongono le persone al rischio di tortura in Croazia”.

Una violenza denunciata, a inizio ottobre 2021, da un’importate inchiesta giornalistica di cui abbiamo parlato anche su Altreconomia. I pushaback sloveni, a differenza di quelli “diretti” che si verificano in Croazia e in Bosnia ed Erzegovina, sono più elaborati perché “richiedono più passaggi e quindi possono durare più giorni”. “Siamo rimasti tre giorni in prigione. Non abbiamo potuto contattare nessun avvocato, non ci hanno fornito un traduttore. Ci hanno dato solo una bottiglia di acqua al giorno e del pane” racconta uno dei cittadini afghani intervistati. Oltre al cattivo trattamento in detenzione, diverse testimonianze parlano di “violenze e maltrattamenti anche all’interno delle stazioni di polizia slovene” e anche al di fuori, con perquisizioni violente: in una testimonianza raccolta dalla Ong No name kitchen, un cittadino afghano ha denunciato una “perquisizione intensiva dei genitali”. I maggiori controlli sul territorio sloveno, possibili anche grazie alla polizia italiana, rischiano così di far ricadere le persone in transito in una spirale di violenza e negazione dei diritti fondamentali.

▻https://altreconomia.it/violenze-e-respingimenti-la-stretta-della-slovenia-sui-migranti-con-lai