|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure
Doc. 9990
31 October 2003
Forced returns of Roma from the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, to Serbia and Montenegro from Council of Europe member states
Report
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population
Rapporteur: Mr Mats Einarsson, Sweden, Group of the Unified European Left
Summary
Forced returns of Roma have been carried out on the basis of bilateral readmission agreements concluded between Serbia and Montenegro on the one hand and different European countries on the other. They started shortly after the democratic changes following the presidential elections in Yugoslavia in September 2000. So far, approximately 1000 Roma have been forcibly returned, mainly from Germany. According to estimations, a further 50 000 to 100 000 Roma staying in different Council of Europe member states fall into the category foreseen for readmission.
Although this question cannot be considered in abstraction from the general issue of forced returns of rejected asylum seekers and migrants without legal status originating from the Balkans, Roma population constitute a particularly vulnerable and exposed group requiring effective policy measures in many areas.
According to the reports received from several Roma NGOs, the main concerns relating to forced returns of Roma can be divided into three areas. The first group of issues puts into question the legitimacy of certain decisions on expulsion taken by the host countries. The second group of complaints relates to the conditions in which forced returns take place. The third one refers to the situation in which forcibly returned Roma find themselves upon their return to Serbia and Montenegro.
The Rapporteur proposes a number of measures to be taken by both the sending and receiving countries aimed at improving the situation.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Recommendation 1569 (2002) on the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; Recommendation 1588 (2003) on population displacement in South-Eastern Europe: trends, problems, solutions; Recommendation 1348 (1997) on the temporary protection of persons forced to flee their countries; Recommendation 1547 (2002) on expulsion procedures in conformity with human rights and enforced with respect for safety and dignity; and Recommendation 1504 (2001) on non-expulsion of long-term immigrants.
2. The Assembly notes with concern that the problem of displacement in the Balkans still remains unresolved. To date, the number of displaced persons still seeking durable solutions in the region exceeds 1 million. Out of this figure, half a million people stay in Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo. This general context of displacement should be taken into account when examining any specific questions concerning returns.
3. Roma constitute a particularly vulnerable group of the displaced population. In Kosovo, their security cannot be guaranteed. In Serbia and Montenegro, their economic and social situation, as well as living conditions, are very precarious. Everywhere in the region they are confronted with a pattern of subtle discrimination on the part of both the local population and the local authorities, which are often reluctant to accept them.
4. According to estimates, between 50 000 and 100 000 Roma from Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo, who had fled the conflict in the Balkans at different stages and left the region, still stay in different European countries with no permanent status. The majority live in Germany (25-30 000), the Netherlands (12 000), Belgium (3 000), Switzerland (3 000) and Luxembourg (2-3 000). They fall into the category foreseen for readmission.
5. Forced returns are carried out on the basis of bilateral readmission agreements concluded between Serbia and Montenegro on the one hand, and different sending European countries on the other. They started shortly after the democratic changes following the presidential elections in Yugoslavia in September 2000. So far, approximately 1 000 Roma have been forcibly returned, mainly from Germany.
6. The main concerns relating to forced returns of Roma can be divided into three areas. The first group of issues puts into question the legitimacy of certain decisions on expulsion taken by the host countries. The second group relates to the conditions in which forced returns take place, and the third one to the situation in which forcibly returned Roma find themselves upon their return to Serbia and Montenegro.
7. It is particularly worrying that readmission agreements do not clearly define the conditions for the reception of returned persons and do not put any responsibility on the receiving state in regard to reintegration of returnees.
8. The Assembly is also concerned by so-called “voluntary returns” which in some cases are so strongly induced that they may amount to disguised forced returns.
9. Therefore, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. urge the members states of the Council of Europe hosting Roma from Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo, to ensure that:
a. any decision on a forced return of Roma to Serbia and Montenegro is taken on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant circumstances; in particular, humanitarian grounds should be considered as a sufficient justification for granting a residence permit;
b. every Roma who seeks international protection is given access to fair and effective asylum procedure;
c. there are no forced returns of Roma originating from Kosovo neither to Kosovo, nor to Serbia and Montenegro, as long as the security situation in Kosovo does not allow for returns of Roma;
d. Roma representatives are given an opportunity to be involved, with an advisory voice, at an early stage of a preparation for a possible forced return of Roma;
e. forcibly returned Roma have got appropriate documents which will enable them to be recognized as full-fledged citizens upon their return;
f. the procedures of deportation comply with international law and take into account recommendations included in Recommendation 1547 (2002);
g. they contribute financially to the elaboration and implementation of effective reintegration programmes for returning Roma. These programmes should be complemented by funding for the new wider Roma strategy;
ii. urge the Serb and Montenegrin authorities to:
a. elaborate and actively seek support and international funding for the concrete reintegration programmes for returning Roma, including financing from the Council of Europe Development Bank;
b. ensure that Roma representatives are consulted and involved in the elaboration of any reintegration programme concerning the Roma population;
c. give particular attention to Roma, who constitute the poorest category in the vulnerable groups of the population, in the forthcoming governmental Poverty Reduction Strategy that the World Bank is assisting;
d. ensure that relevant ministries in charge of education, housing, employment, social and health care, and most particularly the local and municipal authorities, are properly informed about the re-admission process; relevant authorities should provide targeted plans to ensure that Roma are able to exercise fundamental rights in these sectoral fields, starting with access to appropriate registration and personal documentation;
e. adopt, in co-operation with Romani non-governmental organizations, a comprehensive policy to address all aspects of the human rights situation of Roma returned to Serbia and Montenegro and provide funding to ensure full implementation of the strategy;
f. adopt and implement, as a matter of priority, binding legal measures with the aim of preventing statelessness of Roma returnees, in particular to ensure that local authorities carry out the procedures necessary to provide Roma returnees with identity documents. Urgent measures should be taken to improve the access of returned Roma to public services necessary for the exercise of their human rights;
g. facilitate the speedy provision of school enrolment certificates to Romani children educated abroad so that they continue their education in Serbia and Montenegro;
h. stop the practice of returning Romani children to attend classes they had already successfully completed abroad;
i. provide supplementary classes for Romani children to learn the Serbian language;
j. ensure that no ethnic segregation arises in schooling provisions of returnee children.
10. The Assembly further recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. strengthen its programmes involving Roma returning population in Serbia and Montenegro;
ii. promote and support activities of Roma civil society;
iii. continue its work on the elaboration of the Code of good conduct for expulsion procedures.
11. The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe Development Bank to step up its co-operation with the Serb and Montenegrin authorities, with a view to financing projects for returning Roma population.
12. The Assembly invites the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe to step up its programme for the twinning of the municipalities in the regions which are hosting Roma with municipalities in other Council of Europe member states.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Mats Einarsson
1. Introduction
1. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography has been following the situation of displaced populations in the Balkans from the very beginning of the conflict. A number of reports and recommendations have been presented at different stages. The most recent ones are the report on the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia1 and the report on the population displacement in South-Eastern Europe: trends, problems, solutions2. Furthermore, the Committee has been concerned with different aspects of the protection of persons from the Balkans seeking refuge outside the region. In this context, the most relevant reports prepared by the Committee are the report on the temporary protection of persons forced to flee their country3, the report on the expulsion procedures in conformity with human rights and enforced with respect for safety and dignity4, and the report on non-expulsion of long-term immigrants5.
2. The question of the specific situation of the Roma displaced population within and outside the Balkans has been systematically acknowledged in the above-mentioned texts, and on several occasions recommendations referring to this category of displaced persons were made. Indeed, Roma displaced population constitute a particularly vulnerable and exposed group requiring effective policy measures in many areas.
3. The present report stems from the motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Zwerver and others in March 2003 following the fact-finding visit to Serbia and Montenegro on the situation of Roma returnees organised by the Directorate General on Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe on 16-20 February 2003, in which two representatives of the Committee, Mrs Zwerver and Mr Cilevičs took part. The findings of this visit as well as the report presented to the Committee of Ministers was used by the Rapporteur for the preparation of his own report. Moreover, this report takes into account updated information provided by the international and national organisations and associations, as well as the relevant authorities of the countries concerned. In particular, the Rapporteur used the information gathered during an exchange of views on the subject held by the Committee with representatives of the German and Swiss Ministries of the Interior which took place on 26 September 2003. The source of the information is indicated throughout the report.
4. The main aim of this report is to examine the procedures and conditions in which the Roma displaced persons are returned to Serbia and Montenegro (as their country of origin) after having enjoyed temporary humanitarian leave to remain in some western European countries during the conflict in the Balkans, and to assess their compliance with international law, in particular with the principles of respect for human rights, family life and property rights. Moreover, the Rapporteur examines the question of re-integration policies of Roma returnees.
2. General context of displaced population from the Balkans seeking to stay in western Europe
5. The break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991 opened a decade of massive forced population movements within and outside the region. It is roughly estimated that a total of three million people have been uprooted from their homes.
6. Between 700 000 and 1 million people were seeking refuge outside the region, mainly in the western European countries. Following the appeal launched by UNHCR in 1992, an international consensus developed to the effect that people who were compelled to flee the area of conflicts should receive temporary international protection until the solution to the crisis was found. Thus between
1992-1995, Germany received some 350 000 persons, Sweden 130 000, Austria 80 000. Out of these figures, the numbers of people originating from Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo, according to rough estimates, amounted to 250–300 000 people.
7. The European countries have made various arrangements for dealing with these persons and granting them temporary protection in one form or another, be it called "temporary admission" as in France, "exceptional leave to remain" as in the United Kingdom, "collective protection" as in Norway etc. These arrangements were based on specific legislation or on various combinations of existing laws and administrative decisions. As a result, the scope of the rights granted to the beneficiaries and the measures taken in the event of extension or termination of this protection differ substantially from one country to another. Most European countries suspended the examination of applications for asylum made by refugees from the former Yugoslavia, considering that they would not be in need of international protection for long and that, given the sheer number of arrivals at the time, it was therefore unnecessary to overwhelm national asylum procedures by processing claims on an individual basis. UNHCR concurred with this approach provided that persons wishing to submit a valid application for refugee status should not be prevented from doing so once the situation of mass influx stabilised. After 1995, certain European states started to process applications for asylum from people from the former Yugoslavia, but they stopped to do it again during and after the Kosovo crisis. In all, 217 000 persons including 111 300 from Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo have applied for asylum.
8. Although the governments made it clear from the very beginning that return to the country of origin when conditions allow is a key element of the concept of temporary protection, they recognized however that in some cases there might exist compelling reasons for not to be returned. They also acknowledged that vulnerable groups needed special attention and treatment.6
9. The return process has been going on since the security situation on the spot only allowed for returns in safety starting as early as in 1995 after the conclusion of the Dayton Agreement. Voluntary return programmes have been implemented. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) manage an "Assisted Voluntary Returns Programme (GARP and REAG)" returning people from Germany to Montenegro. In 2002 alone, some 6200 people returned voluntarily under these two programmes (including approximately 30 % to Kosovo). The returnees have their fares paid and receive a lump sum payment on arrival (between 250 and 500 Euros for each adult and 125-250 for a child). As far as Switzerland is concerned, under different voluntary return programmes, over 40 000 people have returned to Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo since 1999.
10. Now that the conflict is over, there is still a large number of people originating from the former Yugoslavia whose legal status does not allow for a permanent settlement in the host countries. During the last two years, forcible return programmes have been elaborated and readmission agreements have been concluded on a bilateral basis between Serbia and Montenegro on one side, and the western countries concerned on the other (see below).
11. There is a certain ambiguity in the distinction between voluntary and forced returns. It is a matter of concern how some of allegedly "voluntary returns" are encouraged. The margin between incentives/induced returns and fear of forced return is often somewhat problematic.
12. It is difficult to obtain reliable statistics on forced returns. The Serbian and Montenegrin authorities have only estimates. For example, the Deputy Commissioner for Refugees estimates that some 1000 persons have been forcibly returned to Yugoslavia under readmission agreements7.
13. This figure does not correspond to the figures provided by Switzerland and Germany alone. According to the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees, 218 persons in 2002, and 121 persons in 2003 were returned by force from Switzerland to Serbia and Montenegro. Forced returns to Kosovo are carried out on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding between UNMIK and Switzerland. In 2002 and 2003, as many as 829 rejected asylum seekers were deported from Switzerland to Kosovo. Furthermore, according to the German Federal Ministry of the Interior under the old 1996 readmission agreement between Germany and Yugoslavia and under the new one signed in September 2002, Germany returned some 4,500 persons, who were under an obligation to leave the country, to Serbia and Montenegro (excluding Kosovo) between 2001 and 2003.
14. In Germany, up to 50 000 are expected to be returned.
15. It is important to note that the general question of refugees and internally displaced persons has by no means been resolved in Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo. As of 1 March 2003, the total amount of IDPs and refugees in Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo amounted to 579 200 persons which makes up approximately 7% of the population as a whole.
3. Overview and scope of the problem of forced returns of Roma from the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
16. As the statistics concerning refugees and asylum seekers do not include the information on ethnicity, it is difficult to determine exactly the proportion of Roma among different categories of displaced people from the former Yugoslavia, still staying in the western European countries. Similarly, the Government of Serbia and Montenegro has no information on the number of its citizens who left the country during the conflict, let alone the proportion of Roma. It is estimated, however, that between 50 000 and 100 000 Roma with no permanent status still stay in different European countries, and fall into the category foreseen for readmission.
17. The majority of the Roma refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe currently live in Germany. It is estimated that 25-30 000 Roma from Serbia and Montenegro and a similar number of Roma who fled from Kosovo live in Germany under temporary protection status.8 Lower numbers are registered for other western European countries: 3 000 in Belgium, 2-3 000 in Luxembourg, 12 000 in the Netherlands, 3-7 000 in Sweden, and 3 000 in Switzerland.
18. According to the report presented to the Committee of Ministers by the Council of Europe delegation (written by Alan Philips), the numbers of Roma who have unclear status in Western Europe could be in excess of 50 000 people and at the upper end, if illegal immigrants were also included, might exceed 100 000.
19. According to the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees, 44 Roma were deported from Switzerland to Serbia and Montenegro, and 7 to Kosovo in 2002-2003. So far according to the report by Alan Philips, approximately 1 000 forced returns of Roma have been executed from Germany. However, the German Ministry of the Interior has confirmed that so far no Roma has been forcibly returned to Kosovo.
20. Since summer 2002, as many as 620 Roma have returned on a voluntary basis from Germany to Serbia and Montenegro under the REAG and GARP programmes. Out of this figure, some 60 have gone to Kosovo. Switzerland does not keep records on ethnicity of voluntary returnees.
21. Under specific programmes addressed to minorities, approximately 200 Roma have returned to Serbia and Montenegro from Switzerland since 2001.
4. Legal framework applying to forced returns
a. International instruments
22. The concept of forced returns or expulsion covers the cases in which domestic law provides for the removal of foreigners. The concept of expulsion procedure covers all the acts which stem from the expulsion order and, if applicable, up to the return of the foreigner to another country.
23. A number of international instruments can be applied directly or indirectly when assessing the conformity of a decision on expulsion and expulsion procedures with international law. For example, the respect of the dignity and safety of the persons concerned is guaranteed by the preamble and
Art.1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; preamble of the International Pact of Civil and Political Rights; preamble of the Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the preamble of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination towards Women.
24. As concerns the decision itself, it is essential that in consequence it does not deprive foreigners of their rights as guaranteed by several Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment); Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
25. Provisions related to (the need for) international protection, and particularly the non-refoulement principle, are contained in the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees which is applicable to all Council of Europe member states as signatories of this instrument. Therefore it is essential to provide every asylum seeker with access to fair and efficient status determination procedures. Article 31 (illegal entry/presence), 32 (expulsion) and 33 (non-refoulement) of the Convention further define the international principles under which return/expulsion of asylum seekers/refugees is permissible. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights9 indicates that a state is to all extents and purposes responsible for the situation of a foreigner on his return to another state. Authorities have a real responsibility to ensure that a person they expel are treated with respect and dignity in the country of destination.
26. It is worth noting that in January 2003, the UNHCR published a Position Paper on the Continued International Protection Needs of Individuals from Kosovo in which it concludes that Roma from Kosovo still have a well founded fear of persecution and therefore should not be forcibly returned to Kosovo.
b. Bilateral agreements
27. During the last few years bilateral agreements, so called readmission agreements have been concluded between Serbia and Montenegro on one side, and different European countries on the other.
28. The readmission agreement between Germany and the (then) FRY concluded in September 2002, refers to 50 000 persons from Yugoslavia. According to the assessment of humanitarian organisations and organisations for the protection of the human rights at least one third of those are Roma, although there are no official statistics. The agreement is already being implemented.
29. Readmission agreements were concluded with the following countries: Switzerland (1997, implemented since 2002), Benelux (2002), Slovakia (2001, implemented since 2002), Denmark (2002), Sweden (2002). Similar readmission agreements are currently negotiated with France, Norway, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland.
30. It is worth noting that about 6 000 Roma originating from Montenegro and currently living in Bosnia are awaiting deportation to Serbia and Montenegro. The Bosnian government had agreed, following the request from Serbia and Montenegro, to delay the return until after June 2003.
31. Readmission agreements do not clearly define the conditions for the reception of returned persons and do not put any responsibility on the receiving state in regard to reintegration of returnees nor do they systematically mention that the sending state should support that re-integration process through the allocation of appropriate assistance to the individual and/or to the receiving state.
c. National legislation in expulsing and receiving countries
32. As a rule, issuing and enforcing expulsion orders is the task of the national or federal authorities responsible for aliens, such as the Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees, the Ministry of the Interior (Belgium, United Kingdom), the Ministry of Public Order (Greece), the Ministry of Justice (Netherlands), the Préfecture in France, and cantons in Switzerland.
33. In concrete terms, the preparation and enforcement of expulsion orders are the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies, ie the police (including the border authorities) or the gendarmerie. However, in all Council of Europe member states expulsion procedures lack transparency. For that reason, the Parliamentary Assembly recommended to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to set up a joint working party at a European level with a view to drawing up, in a pragmatic and human spirit, a code of good conduct at different stages of expulsion procedure10. The Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that the Committee of Ministers is working on that issue.
34. In another recommendation on the non-expulsion of long-term immigrants, the Parliamentary Assembly invites the member states to ensure that long-term migrants (category under which fall many potential forced returnees), in particular those who were born or brought up in a host country should not be expelled. Furthermore, the humanitarian situation of the persons facing expulsion as well as possible consequences of the expulsion should systematically be taken into account when deciding on an expulsion.
35. The system of government in Serbia and Montenegro is undergoing considerable transformation with a significant change of ministers and ministerial responsibilities following the establishment of the new State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Some tension continues over the competences at a republic and federal level in particular in the area of internal affairs. The question of elaborating, funding and implementation of different laws and policies need detailed clarification. In that provisional situation it is difficult to expect that priority be given to the appropriate re-integration of forcibly returned Roma population. Although a draft strategy on the integration and empowerment of Roma has been elaborated in the Serbian government in December 2002, it will probably take a long time before it is transformed into laws and policies at both federal and republic levels, let alone funded and implemented. The draft calls on the Serb and Montenegrin authorities to develop a "Reintegration Programme for Romani Returnees". For the time being, the work on this programme has not started.
5. Main concerns relating to forced returns of Roma
36. Main concerns relating to forced returns of Roma can be divided into three main areas: the first group of issues puts into question the legitimacy of certain decisions on expulsion taken by the host countries. This also applies to so called "voluntary returns" which in some cases are so strongly induced (eg. through the suspension of socio-economic rights, the provision of financial incentives, etc) that they may amount to disguised forced returns. The second group of complaints relates to the conditions in which forced returns take place. Finally, the third group refers to the situation in which forcibly returned Roma find themselves upon their return to Serbia and Montenegro. Concrete questions need closer examination.
37. Legitimacy of the decision on deportation
a. The Roma organisations report that there have been cases of members of Roma families being deported while undergoing specialized medical treatment. This treatment allegedly could not be continued upon their return either due to the lack of adequate medical services or because the lack of identity documents which prevented them from access to public health care.
b. According to the reports some families who have been deported or are foreseen for deportation seem to have well-founded basis for permission to stay on humanitarian grounds. This concerns particularly families with little children who have been either born or spent the majority of their lives in Germany, speak fluent German, are well integrated into the German educational system, and may not even speak Serbian.
38. Conditions in which deportation takes place
a. Separation of families: the Roma organisations report on cases where families have been separated during forced returns. Allegedly this may happen for example if one member of the family is absent during the deportation or too ill to be transported.
b. Loss of private possessions: in some cases, allegedly, the deportation takes place so quickly, and the persons undergoing the procedure have no time to sell or otherwise take care of their belongings so that they may be compound to leave them behind. Furthermore, there are reports of confiscating cash and/or valuable items for which import taxes have not been paid. Returnees also encounter bureaucratic difficulties in withdrawing money from the European banks located in Serbia if the account has been opened abroad.
c. No support on arrival: there are reports on families arriving in Belgrade on charter flights with no money and no place to go. There are no reception arrangements whatsoever at Belgrade airport once they had passed through immigration procedure.
39. Situation upon return
a. Economic conditions: although the political situation in Serbia and Montenegro is relatively stable, the social and economic situation of the country is extremely difficult. The conditions of living for many categories of the population in general are dramatically low, with inadequate housing, huge unemployment, and collapse of social services. The authorities experience real difficulties in meeting the basic needs of vulnerable and marginalized populations among which the Roma are some of the worst affected. Both Serbia and Montenegro have their own important Roma populations. The care and maintenance of internally displaced persons from Kosovo, as well as the integration of refugees formerly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia have added to the problem. The undergoing and planned forced returns of important numbers of Roma from the western European countries may severely affect the socio-economic situation of the country since Serbian and Montenegrin authorities are faced with a burden which certainly exceeds their possibilities. Even if Serbia and Montenegro is under the obligation to re-admit its own citizens (and is also strongly encouraged to do so for political reasons these authorities are not able to assure proper conditions for the reintegration of these forcibly returned Roma. As mentioned above, a draft strategy for the integration and empowerment of the Roma has been elaborated but it is at a very early stage of discussion and anyway, will require substantial funding/international support. The Federal and Republic governments make it clear that there are no programmes aimed at helping the resettlement of Roma returning from Western European countries.
b. Citizenship and identity documents: according to the UNHCR and to Roma organisations a large number of Roma population in Serbia and Montenegro have no basic documents such as birth certificates and identity cards. Lack of these documents not only prevents them from access to many services but also places them in a situation of de facto statelessness. There are already reported cases of the statelessness situation of some returnees who face even more difficult bureaucratic obstacles for all Roma in Serbia and Montenegro to obtain identity documents.
c. Personal security: Roma still have a well-founded fear of persecution in Kosovo11. Although there are so far reportedly no forced returns to Kosovo proper Roma from Kosovo are returned to other parts of Serbia and Montenegro thus increasing the number of internally displaced Roma and further fragilising a delicate situation for the country. It should be pointed out that the situation in South Serbia continues to be unstable and there are some tensions in Montenegro on its position in the States Union.
d. Access to support: although they return to a situation of internal displacement, most returnees are not registered a IDPs by the authorities upon their return to Serbia and Montenegro, and are therefore unable to access a certain number of social support – they become even more vulnerable than IDPs who came directly from Kosovo to Serbia and Montenegro.
e. Discrimination: there has been a subtle pattern of discrimination against Roma in many areas of everyday life in Serbia and Montenegro on the part of local authorities and population. Some municipalities are reluctant to accept Roma IDPs. There are numerous reports of denied access to state facilities including education, housing, or health care.
f. Education: the lack of personal documents, common among Roma, has also a negative effect on access to the education system by Roma children, in particular those who are internally displaced. Another problem experienced by IDP Roma children or those returned from western Europe is the language barrier: many of them do not speak Serbian.
g. Lack of information: Roma IDPs in general are further disadvantaged because of lack of sufficient information on their rights and services available to them from governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental sectors. Of particular concern are the Albanian-speaking Ashkali and Egyptians, who are further excluded because they do not speak Serbian.
h. Living conditions for the Roma population of Serbia and Montenegro are in general extremely poor and they are even more difficult for the IDPs whose numerous presence compounds existing problems. The majority of Roma live in unrecognised collective centres and illegal settlements often without access to electricity, drinking water and sewage system. Lack of legal place of residence creates problems when Roma want to register themselves. Many returnees have nowhere to go.
6. Conclusions
40. Before presenting his conclusions, the Rapporteur would like to point out that his report does not deal with the general question of returns to Serbia and Montenegro, be they voluntary or forced. It is focused on a specific issue of forced returns of Roma. In absolute figures this question does not appear to be of big scope and does not have important economic impact. However, in the Rapporteur’s opinion it should be given special attention because of a specific situation of Roma population in our societies. Consequently, the question of forced returns of Roma cannot be considered in abstraction of their specific situation in the countries concerned which distinguishes this question from the general question of forced returns.
41. The concerns raised in the report have been expressed by the Roma non-governmental organizations, in particular the European Roma Right Centre. It is difficult to verify the accuracy of the reports by non-governmental organizations, and it cannot be excluded that some of them are subjective, emotional and exaggerated. The representatives of the German and Swiss authorities insisted on the full compliance of forced returns with the international and domestic laws. However, for example, the German immigration law which lays down in detail the conditions under which a right of residence may be granted on humanitarian grounds, does not include some situations reported by the Roma NGOs (medical treatment started in Germany, children born and educated in German educational system etc). Thus problem undoubtedly exists, particularly as far as the reintegration of forcibly returned Roma is considered, and it should be brought to the public attention.
42. It should be a general rule, strictly applied to Roma, that any decision on a forced return should be taken on a case-by-case basis. According to the information provided by the relevant authorities, it is always the case in Germany and Switzerland, and this approach should be continued.
43. Furthermore, every Roma who seeks international protection should be given access to fair and effective asylum procedure. Statistics seem to confirm the respect of this rule in both above mentioned countries.
44. As long as security for Roma in Kosovo cannot be guaranteed, there should be no expulsions of Roma from Kosovo, whether to Kosovo proper or to the rest of the territory of Serbia and Montenegro where internal displacement does not offer an adequate or reasonable alternative to international protection.
45. Humanitarian grounds should be sufficient justification for granting residence permit. In particular the families with the children who have been staying for many years in the host country should be given particular consideration. Persons undergoing specialized medical treatment which might prove impossible to be continued after return, should be allowed to stay until it is completed. Members of one family should not be separated. Obviously this rule cannot be subject to any strict interpretation and certain arbitrary interpretation is unavoidable.
46. In the Rapporteur’s opinion, Roma representatives should be given an opportunity to be involved – as an advisory voice- at the early stage of preparation for a possible forced return. Thanks to their experience their advice might be very helpful, both for the authorities and for the potential returnees.
47. The sending authorities should make sure that forcibly returned Roma have got appropriate identification papers tat will enable them to be recognised as full-fledged citizens upon return.
48. The procedures of deportation should comply with the international law and take into account recommendations included in Recommendation 1547 (2002). The Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is elaborating the Code of good conduct for expulsion procedures.
49. The sending countries should contribute financially to the elaboration and implementation of effective reintegration programmes for returning Roma. These programmes should be complemented by funding for the new wider Roma strategy.
50. The Serbian and Montenegrin authorities should elaborate and actively seek support and international funding for the concrete reintegration programmes for returning Roma, including financing from the Council of Europe Development Bank.
51. Any reintegration programme should be elaborated in full consultation with representatives of the civil society (particularly with the Romas) and have funding from the western countries.
52. The Roma population, being the poorest category in the vulnerable groups of population, should be given particular attention in the forthcoming governmental Poverty Reduction Strategy that the World Bank is assisting.
53. Relevant ministries in charge of education, housing, employment, social care and health care, and most particularly the local and municipal authorities, should be properly informed about the re-admission process; relevant authorities should provide targeted plans to ensure that Roma are able to exercise fundamental rights in these sectoral fields, starting with access to appropriate registration and personal documentation.
54. In co-operation with Romani non-governmental organisations, the Serb and Montenegrin authorities should adopt a comprehensive policy to address all aspects of the human rights situation of Roma returned to Serbia and Montenegro; provide funding to ensure full implementation of the strategy.
55. The federal and republic authorities should adopt binding legal measures placing an obligation on local authorities to end statelessness in their area. Urgent measures should be taken to address the problem of lack of personal documents among returned Roma, with a view, inter alia to improving access to public services necessary for the implementation of their basic human rights.
56. Facilitate the speedy provision of school enrolment certificates to Romani children educated in Germany so that they can continue their education in Serbia and Montenegro; stop the practice of returning Romani children to attend classes they had already successfully completed in Germany; provide supplementary classes for Romani children to learn the Serbian language, in order to assist in their integration into the educational system of Serbia and Montenegro; ensure that no racial segregation arises in schooling provisions of returnee children.
57. Ensure inclusion of Roma in any decisions of relevance to the Romani community.
58. In conclusion, your Rapporteur wishes to stress that any forced returns should be managed with dignity and should ensure that all human rights are protected. They should be supported by a well-founded reintegration programme, designed to promote the successful reintegration of returnees. The international financial community and development agencies have a particular role to play.
Reporting Committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.
Reference to committee: Doc. 9727, Ref. No. 2818 on 31.03.2003
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the Committee on 21 October 2003
Members of the Committee: Iwiński (Chairperson), Einarsson (1st Vice-Chairperson), Bušić (2nd Vice-Chairperson), de Zulueta (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Akgün, Akhvlediani, Alibeyli, Arabadjiev, de Arístegui (alternate: Fernández-Aguilar), Arzilli (alternate: Riccardi), Bernik, Bousakla, Branger, Braun, Brinkel (alternate: Duivesteijn), Brînzan, Brunhart, Cabrnoch, Çavusoğlu, Christodoulides, Cilevičs, Dačič, Danieli, Debarge, Debono Grech, Dmitrijevas, Dokle, Donabauer, Err, Filipiová, Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, Frimannsdóttir, Grzesik, Grzyb, Gülçiçek, Hagberg, Hancock, Higgins, Hoffmann, Ilaşcu, Jovašević, Lord Judd, Karpov, Kósá-Kovács, Kulikov, Kvakkestad, Lambert, Le Guen, Liapis, Loutfi, Matviychuk, Nabholz-Haidegger, Naro, Nasufi, Nessa, Olin, Popa, Prijmireanu, Puche, Raguž, Rakhansky, Reymann, Saks, Shakhtakhtinskaya, Slutsky (alternate: Fedorov), Soendergaard, Stoisits, Stübgen, Szabo, Tekelioğlu, Tkáč, Torosyan, Vera Jardim, Verivakis, Vermot-Mangold, Vieira, Wilkinson, Wray (alternate: Etherington), Yáńez-Barnuevo (alternate: Agramunt), Zavgayev (alternate: Tulaev), Zhirinovsky (alternate: Gamzatova).
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Lervik, Mrs Nachilo, Mrs Sirtori-Milner, Mrs Entzminger
1 See Recommendation 1569 (2002) and Doc. 9479, Rapporteur Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Latvia, Socialist Group.
2 See Recommendation 1588 (2003) and Doc. 9519 revised, Rapporteur: Mrs Ans Zwerver, Netherlands, Socialist Group.
3 See Recommendation 1348 (1997) and Doc. 7889, Rapporteur: Mrs Elisabeth Arnold, Denmark, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group.
4 See Recommendation 1547 (2002), Order No. 579 (2002) and Doc. 9196, Rapporteur: Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Switzerland, Socialist Group.
5 See Recommendation 1504 (2001), Order No. 570 (2001) and Doc. 8986, Rapporteur: Mrs Manuela Aguiar, Portugal, Group of the European People's Party.
6 See Doc. 8427: Reply from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Recommendation 1348 (1997) on the temporary protection of persons forced to flee their country, adopted at the 670th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 18 May 1999.
7 See Memorandum prepared by DG III – Social Cohesion from 10.02.2002 on the CE fact-finding mission to Serbia and Montenegro
8 Draft strategy for the integration and empowerment of the Roma: Federal Ministry for national and ethnic communities, 2002.
9 Rulings: Cruz Varas against Sweden, 20 March 1991; Chahal against United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, and H.L.R. against France, 29 April 1997.
10 See Recommendation 1547 (2002).
11 See UNHCR’s Position Paper on the Continued International Protection Needs of Individuals from Kosovo, January 2003.