|
|
Doc. 7683
7 October 1996
REPORT1 on the training of officials receiving asylum-seekers at border points
(Rapporteur: Mr AKSELSEN, Norway, Socialist Group)
Summary
Decisions taken by border police or immigration officers can have crucial consequences for asylum-seekers. If officials have not been sufficiently trained to deal with the situation that arises when asylum-seekers first present themselves, their decisions may be taken too hastily and result in the asylum-seekers' unjustified return, in breach of international and domestic law.
On the basis of information supplied by the authorities of most of the Council of Europe member states and of certain countries whose parliaments enjoy special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly, this report assesses the provision of training for officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers. It then makes proposals for Council of Europe guidelines in this field.
I. Draft recommendation
1. Access to a country's procedures for the granting of refugee status is essential to the very concept of international protection for those claiming a well-founded fear of persecution, a concept to which all Council of Europe member states signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol are committed. These texts also commit them to the fundamental principle of non-refoulement.
2. The decision whether or not to refer asylum-seekers to the authorities responsible for determining refugee status is usually made by an immigration or border police official. However, such decisions may be difficult in the case of asylum-seekers who are not in a position to state their claim formally or intelligibly or to enter the state territory legally, since they may have been persecuted by the very authorities to whom they must apply for travel documents in their country of origin. Consequently, there may be occasions when border officials violate the rights of asylum-seekers, resulting in denial of access to the proper authorities, unjustified return and persecution.
3. It is therefore essential that those officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers should be fully cognizant not only of international and domestic legal instruments and regulations governing the reception of asylum-seekers but also acutely aware of their responsibility for treating asylum-seekers with humanity, sensitivity and discernment, not least at a time when the governments of member states have taken steps to reduce the numbers of asylum-seekers arriving on their territory.
4. Some Council of Europe member states provide special training for the officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers, others do not, despite Recommendation No. R (94) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states which enjoins them to do so. The Assembly considers it important that officials receiving asylum-seekers at border points should be properly trained so that they possess adequate knowledge of the applicable international and domestic legal instruments and regulations, are kept informed of the human rights situation in asylum-seekers' countries of origin, and acquire the intercultural and personal skills to allow them to deal with asylum-seekers in a sensitive way.
5. The Assembly recalls that, in accordance with Recommendation No. R (81) 16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states, the role of border officials must be strictly confined to understanding and recording the request for asylum and should on no account include responsibility for pronouncing on the merits of such a request, this being a function of the central authority competent to recognise refugee status.
6. Moreover, carriers' personnel at the point of embarkation should not be put in a position where, through the effects of carrier liability legislation, they perform the functions of border police or immigration officers. Where nevertheless they are required to do so, they should be given appropriate training in accordance with the guidelines below.
7. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. organise exchanges of experience and information between the member states, with the participation of the appropriate international governmental and non-governmental organisations, on the training of officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers, as well as those involved in refugee status determination;
ii. instruct the appropriate committee to develop, in consultation with the relevant international governmental and non-governmental organisations, guidelines to be addressed to the member states for the training and guidance of officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers, with a view to developing the officials' knowledge and skills in the following areas in particular:
a. the basics of asylum law, especially the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, incorporating the principle of non-refoulement, its 1967 Protocol, and the European Convention on Human Rights, notably with regard to the application of Article 3;
b. the limitations under national and international law on the use of detention, and UNHCR guidelines on this subject;
c. the asylum procedures in the member state concerned — in particular to whom asylum applications should be referred and whom the asylum-seeker can call for assistance;
d. procedures to ensure that, if asylum-seekers are sent to a "safe third country", that state will guarantee that they will actually enter fair asylum procedures there;
e. what constitutes a request for asylum as opposed to the entry requests of other non-nationals;
f. the types of pressure that refugees are under;
g. the human rights situation in the countries which generate the greatest numbers of asylum-seekers;
h. the relevant databases providing country of origin information;
i. special needs, such as those of women and unaccompanied minors;
j. the correct choice and use of interpreters;
k. interview techniques;
l. intercultural awareness;
m. interpersonal relations;
iii. promote the implementation of initial and in-service training programmes for these officials at the national level;
iv. contribute to the training of officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers and those involved in refugee status determination by providing expertise and materials on the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the protection of refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced persons;
v. draw the attention of the governments of the member states to the adverse effects of carrier liability legislation for the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers and to the need to institute training for any carrier personnel required to perform, at the point of embarkation, functions normally carried out by border police or immigration officers at the point of entry.
II. Explanatory memorandum2
by Mr AKSELSEN
Contents Page
I. Introduction 7
II. Analysis of the replies to the questionnaire addressed to member states in March 1995 7
1. Overview 7
2. Objectives of training 8
3. Structures 9
4. Personnel 9
a. Border officials 9
b. Other officials 10
c. Trainers 10
5. Content 10
6. Organisation 11
7. Methodology 11
8. Budgets 12
9. Co-operation 13
a. With other countries 13
b. With intergovernmental organisations 14
c. With non-governmental organisations 14
10. Problems 14
a. Connected with the training of border officials 14
b. Connected with the training of officials dealing with asylum applications 15
11. Other points 15
III. Assessment of the replies 16
12. Preliminary comments 16
13. The need for training 16
14. Content of the training 18
IV. Conclusion 19
I. Introduction
1. In the first instance asylum-seekers present their request to an official, usually a border guard or immigration officer. The competences and training of these officials vary from country to country and differences exist even between regions.
2. Some countries provide special training for the officials responsible for dealing with asylum-seekers and keep them informed about the human rights situation in the asylum-seekers' countries of origin. Officials are also made aware of the obligations arising from international and domestic legal instruments designed for the protection of refugees.
3. Other countries, however, provide no special training for officials working at border points. Consequently, there may be occasions when officials take decisions that violate the rights of refugees set out in international and domestic legal instruments.
4. In order to gather information for this report, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography approved a questionnaire which was sent in March 1995 to the competent authorities in the member states and in countries whose parliaments enjoy special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as to the international organisations concerned. The rapporteur would like to thank all those who replied to the questionnaire. All those to whom a questionnaire was sent were given the opportunity to comment on the draft of the report. The report begins with an analysis of the replies received, and goes on to assess them.
II. Analysis of the replies to the questionnaire
addressed to member states in March 1995
1. Overview
5. By 30 September 1996 replies (and, in nine cases, supplementary replies) had been received from thirty member states and two special guest countries and comments had been received from one national and two international organisations. Of the thirty replies from member states, seven (Andorra, Cyprus, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta and San Marino) explained that their countries have still to adopt laws on refugees. Latvia, Liechtenstein and Malta offered some information which has been incorporated below. Andorra pointed out that its borders are open and that in the past it has, without formality, sheltered refugees from Spain and France. Two countries ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Turkey) did not specifically address the question of the training of border officials, although they provided information about the training of officials dealing with asylum requests. The Czech Republic and Denmark stated that they do not consider that border guards need any specific training in asylum matters, in both cases because of their limited authority with respect to asylum-seekers. This leaves nineteen replies from countries within the borders of which live some 62% of the population of the member states of the Council of Europe and which receive about 85%3 of the people seeking asylum in Europe. These countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
6. Many replies also contained information about the training of officials who consider asylum applications with a view to determining refugee status. In Portugal and Slovakia the two groups receive the same basic training. Some of the material on the training of such asylum officials has been included in this report as it may be of interest.
7. There are some noticeable absences from the list of countries replying. France and Spain each received more than 10 000 asylum applications in 1994 and together they received almost 38 000.
8. Replies were also received from Belarus (with the information that the State Migration Service is still being established) and Croatia (full reply). Finally a reply was received from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies expressing interest but regretting that it had no information to offer. Comments were received from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which concurs with the main findings of this report, and from Caritas Catholica (French Community of Belgium), the latter through the intermediary of the Special Envoy of the Holy See to the Council of Europe. No information was received from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), although it is mentioned in some countries' replies.
2. Objectives of training
9. Border officials receive training on the treatment of asylum applications as part of their routine general training in Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic (where they also have access to written instructions on the procedure to be followed), Hungary (where they also receive training from UNHCR), Norway, Portugal (where seminars are also used), Switzerland (at least in the case of guards on land frontiers) and Sweden. In Germany, Ireland, Italy, Romania and, prospectively, Russia, the objective of the training of border officials is to convey the relevant legal and procedural provisions so as to enable the officials to apply them correctly. Greece gave a similar objective and stressed the need for officials to be aware of the principle of non-refoulement in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees (also mentioned by Romania), of Article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom gave similar aims and added the need to maintain consistently high standards of professionalism and courtesy when dealing with asylum-seekers, as with any other category of traveller. Slovakia mentioned the theory and practice of asylum cases and the acquisition of language skills. Luxembourg mentioned the strict observance of the provisions of the 1951 Convention as the objective of the training. Romania also mentioned the detection of false documents and the countering of trafficking in drugs, arms and persons.
10. None of the replies cited specific legal or administrative requirements for training in this area. Only Belgium specifically mentioned that there is no relevant regulation.
11. Most of the replies also contained information about the training of other officials — particularly the officials who are responsible for the consideration of an asylum application. The objective here is the same as for border guards, though, by implication, the level is different and information about countries of origin of asylum-seekers is relevant. Latvia mentioned that some senior border guard officers had attended an introductory course on asylum issues and in-service language training.
3. Structures
12. In Greece, Hungary, Italy and Norway the training of border officials is undertaken by general police or civil service colleges. In Greece this involves special seminars and in Norway external trainers are also used. In Belgium this training is conducted by a section of police headquarters with assistance from UNHCR. In Ireland training is jointly organised by the Ministry of Justice, the police and UNHCR. In Croatia and Slovenia the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for training border officials. In Germany there is a specialised Border Guard College and in the United Kingdom immigration officers are trained by the Immigration and Nationality Department Training Section. In Romania, training is provided by specialised institutions of the Ministry of the Interior (Police Academy, etc.) or civilian institutions, including law faculties, foundations and non-governmental organisations.
13. The training of the officials who consider asylum applications is almost universally an internal matter. In Belgium and Luxembourg, UNHCR was mentioned as assisting with this.
4. Personnel
a. Border officials
14. Asylum-seekers arriving at frontier posts by air, land or sea, will normally explain that they are seeking refugee status to a border guard or immigration officer. These officials are normally recruited, through civil service examinations, amongst people who have successfully completed either compulsory or upper-secondary education (Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands and Norway) or university entrance requirements (Germany, Hungary, Portugal and the United Kingdom). Certain countries mention that such officials are generally graduates of the national Police Academy. In most cases their role is to refer asylum-seekers to another administration designated to consider the merits of a case.
15. In Belgium, asylum-seekers may be held at the frontier for an initial consideration of whether to admit them. This procedure is carried out by officials of the aliens office of the Ministry of the Interior. These officials are educated to university entrance level and decisions are taken only by officials who have completed tertiary education.
16. In Denmark, decisions about whether to admit asylum-seekers are made by the Immigration Service on the basis of information supplied by the police at the border. The authority of the Danish border police with respect to asylum-seekers is limited to ascertaining identity and travel route. For this purpose asylum-seekers may be detained at the border for a few days before they are either taken to a national registration centre or returned to a safe country by decision of the Immigration Service. The officials who consider asylum applications are graduates in law.
17. In Germany, five major airports are equipped to hold certain asylum-seekers until the asylum procedure has been completed. The officials who conduct the procedure are educated at least to university entrance level.
b. Other officials
18. Countries fall into two categories for the recruitment of the people who consider asylum applications:
i. countries that require a university degree — usually in law — for the officials who conduct this procedure (Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Norway, Portugal (where assistance is also provided by people who have completed secondary education), Russia, Slovakia and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"), and
ii. countries that rely more on the experience of the officers concerned (Luxembourg, Slovenia and the United Kingdom).
c. Trainers
19. The replies provide little specific information about the training personnel. Most countries seem to use a combination of experienced officers and outside experts, including staff from UNHCR and, in the case of Ireland and Romania, non-governmental organisations. Romania reported that the Frontier Police Directorate (Ministry of the Interior) was constituting its own body of trainers.
5. Content
20. In Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Romania, the United Kingdom and Croatia, border officials receive general training in refugee and asylum law and regulations. In Greece this is based on the UNHCR Handbook. In Ireland the work includes a study of real cases.
21. In Germany, the United Kingdom and (in general terms) Belgium the training includes asylum procedures.
22. In Germany and Greece the officials receive specific training on the prohibition of refoulement.
23. In Germany they are trained in the implications of the Schengen Agreement. In Germany and Greece the training covers the consequences of the Dublin Convention.
24. In Ireland, Norway and Croatia the training covers interview techniques. In the United Kingdom it includes standards of courtesy in dealing with passengers. In Belgium it will shortly include a module on conflict management.
25. In Italy and Norway the training includes an English course. In Portugal and Slovakia it includes unspecified foreign languages. In the United Kingdom it includes the use of interpreters.
26. In the Netherlands, officials in charge of border control receive no specific training in asylum procedure at the border. However, they are taught about the asylum procedure in general, about the Dutch Aliens Act and about secondary legislation based on that act. Training concentrates primarily on handling practical situations such as detecting false or forged documents.
27. In Romania training also covers the identification of false documents and methods used in the trafficking of drugs, arms and persons.
28. The Slovak Ministry of the Interior organises training and seminars on the implementation of domestic and international legal provisions.
29. In Russia there has been one seminar for immigration officers. This covered the work of the Federal Migration Service, the prevention of illegal immigration, asylum procedures, and organisational questions.
6. Organisation
30. Border officials receive their training in asylum matters during their induction training in Belgium, Croatia (with in-service courses), Germany (where additional one week in-service courses are now provided), Greece (combined with seminars), Hungary, Norway (with in-service courses), Romania (with in-service training) and Sweden (with in-service seminars).
31. In the Czech Republic and Turkey, border guards are supplied with the relevant regulations and legislation.
32. In the United Kingdom, training is a continuing programme which involves induction training, refresher courses and special seminars. In Ireland, immigration officers receive training in the form of two day seminars and on-the-job training. In Italy in-service courses are provided.
7. Methodology
33. In Germany border guards are trained by direct teaching, discussions, talks with subsequent discussion as well as through the study of relevant literature and court rulings and group work seeking solutions for particular situations. The college is equipped with a wide range of training materials, NGO documents and videos. The teaching is evaluated in the course of follow-up telephone conversations.
34. In Hungary, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Croatia use is made of lectures with audiovisual support, films and written notes. In Ireland, the United Kingdom and Croatia role-plays and other group work are used. In Hungary and Croatia trainees have to take a test and Croatia also has a system of continuous evaluation. In Ireland participants are asked to evaluate the course at the end. In Romania staff are given an annual test on the basis of which qualifications are awarded.
35. Similar methods are envisaged in Russia which intends to carry out some of the practical exercises at real immigration control points.
36. Other countries did not supply precise information about the methods used to train border officials, though Greece mentioned the value of the UNHCR Handbook and Italy listed the texts used4 and mentioned that the course is evaluated by a test. Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway specifically indicated that there is no evaluation.
37. Of the countries which supplied information about the training of officials handling asylum applications, most use similar methods to those listed above. Belgium mentioned the UNHCR Handbook and, alone among the respondents, the use of training materials prepared by UNHCR. The Netherlands referred to a handbook containing instructions for all border guard officials: the 1995 Border Control Circular. This contains a special chapter on asylum-seekers, up-dated following the opening of the asylum-application centre at Schiphol airport. Portugal mentioned the use of case studies and of videos for training in interview techniques. Romania mentioned training manuals (including theoretical and case-study material) and audio-visual support. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" mentioned visits to agencies in the European Union countries.
8. Budgets
38. Member states were asked "If possible, please state what financial resources are currently devoted to training (in absolute terms for 1994 — or nearest accounting year — and as a percentage of the responsible authority's budget)."
39. Slovakia stated that in 1995 the training budget of the Migration Office was 4 000 USD (about 3 300 ecus). Italy gave the answer as 29 500 000 lira (about 23 000 ecus), with no further explanation. No other country was able to identify the costs of training border officials in asylum matters.
40. In Germany the training of officials considering asylum cases cost 2 000 000 DM (about 1 047 120 ecus) in 1995 — representing 0,46% of the budget of the relevant agency.
41. According the the Netherlands Ministry of Defence it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the financial resources currently devoted to internal training, because the figures include extraneous elements. However, the total budget for external training of the Royal Military Police (responsible for most border control duties) was DFL 925 000 (432 303 ecus) in 1994, DFL 1 000 025 (467 366 ecus) in 1995 and DFL 1 175 000 (549 142 ecus) for 1996.
42. Slovenia and Croatia gave figures for all Ministry of the Interior training (2 million SIT) and all police training in migration (93 905 HRK) respectively.
9. Co-operation
a. With other countries
43. Answers to this question were very dependent on what was felt to be a training matter to the extent that the replies were highly inconsistent.5 In fact the only two cases where both sides mentioned co-operation concerned Slovakia and Slovenia. They both mentioned work with Switzerland and Switzerland mentioned work with the former socialist countries in general.
44. Denmark reported that it had a joint programme with Sweden, Finland, Norway and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) for the countries around the Baltic Sea. This programme, which is designed to strengthen the border control of the Baltic countries, includes the education and training of officials.
45. Germany reported that the training of border guards had included lecturers from the Netherlands, France and Luxembourg.
46. Latvia mentioned that the French Immigration Service organised a course for the staff of the Immigration Police Department.
47. Romania mentioned a cooperation programme with the Swiss Refugee Office for the improvement of asylum procedures.
48. Russia mentioned some seminars organised with Finland and noted that the TACIS programme of the European Union and work with Canada were potential opportunities which had failed to materialise yet.
49. Slovakia organised a seminar on "interviewing techniques" in co-operation with the Swiss authorities and co-operated with Germany as part of the latter's TRANSFORM programme.
50. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" mentioned the value of contact with asylum services in European Union countries.
51. UNHCR in its reply welcomed the initiative of western European countries in designing and developing training curricula aimed at improving the knowledge and awareness of border officials in central and eastern European countries, which are in the forefront of extending protection to potential refugees and asylum-seekers. UNHCR sees cross-fertilisation among adjacent countries as one of the most important benefits of this form of training.
b. With intergovernmental organisations
52. Most countries (but not Italy) mentioned that UNHCR contributed to training. Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" mentioned contact with the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Croatia, Slovenia and Turkey mentioned contact with the Red Cross movement, specifically the International Committee of the Red Cross in the case of Croatia. Slovenia, uniquely, mentioned cooperation with the Council of Europe. Apart from contact with UNHCR, it is not normally clear how closely these contacts are linked to training matters.
53. UNHCR referred to its significant experience in the training of officials at border crossing points. In 1995, eighteen training activities involving 312 border guards were conducted. In 1996, twenty-one training activities were organised, mainly in central and eastern European countries, for about 350 participants.
c. With non-governmental organisations
54. Belgium, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Romania, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Croatia co-operate with national non-governmental organisations. In the case of Germany, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom this is directly related to training.
55. Slovenia has contacts with Caritas, Amnesty International and the Helsinki movement.
10. Problems
a. Connected with the training of border officials
56. Germany and Croatia mentioned the frequent changes in legislation and regulations that have to be covered.
57. UNHCR mentioned frequent turnover in border guard staff, necessitating frequent repetition of training.
58. Hungary mentioned the limited attention given to refugee questions in the training of officials and language problems.
59. Luxembourg mentioned the problem of motivation in officials who were not primarily concerned with refugee issues.
60. Italy mentioned problems in connection with the length of time the courses take.
61. Romania referred to interview techniques, use of interpreters, how to assess the credibility of asylum-seekers, and the need to establish a centre for documentation on the situation in asylum-seekers' countries of origin.
62. Latvia reported that the results of in-service language courses were disappointing.
63. Russia mentioned resource problems and the relatively recent establishment of the Federal Migration Service.
b. Connected with the training of officials dealing with asylum applications
64. The problems raised included:
—ti me problems, connected with the use of officials as trainers (Belgium);—
—la ck of suitable trainers (Luxembourg and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") and other resources ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia");—
—th e unsuitability of UNHCR and Red Cross training, because the viewpoint of these agencies may not be compatible with the need to be objective and to suppress emotional considerations (Luxembourg); 6
—ch anging situations in countries of origin (Germany and Portugal);—
—th e need for exchanges of experience (Germany).11
11. Other points
65. The Czech Republic stated that border officials are not authorised to make asylum decisions and therefore do not need training in this respect. The training that they have described in their reply concerned only the small number of interviewers in one reception camp.
66. Germany is willing to offer training on the German arrangements to people from other countries. They have already carried out this kind of activity with Polish border officials. This has raised the need for international exchanges of information and experience.
67. Ireland is considering the possibility of further training.
68. Latvia reported that its border guard contingent was under-funded, resulting in illegal entries to the country by transit migrants planning to seek asylum in other European countries.
69. Liechtenstein is preparing an asylum law in cooperation with UNHCR and the Swiss authorities.
70. Croatia mentions the very large number of refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina which it has accepted. It also expressed its desire for advice and help from other states and institutions.
71. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" suggests that international organisations concerned with illegal immigration should also be involved in the training of asylum officials.
III. Assessment of the replies
12. Preliminary comments
72. It would be wrong to draw firm conclusions from the questionnaire replies alone. Over three-quarters of the member states replied and there is a reasonable geographical spread among the responding countries as well as a wide range in terms of numbers of asylum applications from the largest (Germany) to some of the smallest. However, several respondents (Czech Republic, Denmark, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Turkey) did not address the training of border officials. In the case of Turkey, where few asylum-seekers make themselves known at border points, the replies deal with the training of the officials who have the first contact with asylum-seekers within the country. This raises some of the same questions as for border guards. The other replies dealt only with the training of the people who conduct the preliminary stages of the asylum procedure. This is unsatisfactory: border guards need to have a good knowledge of the rights of refugees and an understanding of the pressures they are under if asylum-seekers are to enter the asylum procedures without further harassment — or at all.
73. Even among the nineteen member states that do cover the training of border officials, there are wide differences in the detail supplied in the replies. Switzerland for instance provides thirty-three pages of information, Germany twelve pages and Belgium eight while most respondents needed only three or four and Italy supplied largely one line answers. It is hard to judge the extent to which this reflects the attention paid to asylum matters in the training of border officials.
13. The need for training
74. In 1991, Lord Mackie of Benshie (United Kingdom) reported to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
"The decision on the admissibility of the request for asylum as well as repatriation are in many cases made hastily and by officers who have little or no adequate training and are not kept up-to-date with the situation in the refugees' country of origin. The rights of refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention are not clear to the officials and they are not applied in practice in every case. In some airports the border police or local authority regard it as their first duty to return the refugees".7
75. On 21 June 1994 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation No. R (94) 5 on guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum-seekers at European airports. This recommendation stated, among other things, that "the authorities entrusted with the receipt of applications at the border shall receive training adapted to the specific situation of people seeking asylum. Such authorities should, moreover, have precise instructions on the procedures to be followed." Furthermore, "the persons in charge of the reception of asylum-seekers shall receive appropriate training to fulfil this task."
76. Nevertheless, little has happened since 1991 to fundamentally improve the situation described by Lord Mackie. Furthermore many countries have put new difficulties in the way of asylum-seekers, increasing numbers of asylum-seekers are being detained in airport "international zones" and the widespread use of the concept of "safe third country" has added to the influence that border officials have on the fate of refugees. A recent study8 has shown that asylum-seekers returned to a "safe third country" are frequently not admitted to asylum procedures there but refouled directly or sent on to another country where they will be at increased risk of refoulement.
77. Border officials find themselves in a difficult position in connection with asylum applications, which by their nature constitute a request for normal rules to be ignored. In addition both they and asylum-seekers are under considerable pressure. They have an increasing need for training to help them to deal correctly with asylum applications.
78. One further related point needs to be made. In its Recommendation 1163 (1991) on the arrival of asylum-seekers at European airports, the Parliamentary Assembly points out that "Some countries have imposed airline sanctions which undermine the basic principles of refugee protection and the right of refugees to claim asylum while placing a considerable legal, administrative and financial burden upon carriers and moving the responsibility away from the immigration officers." It is a fact that carriers' personnel increasingly perform, at the point of embarkation, the functions of border police or immigration officers. This practice should be discouraged, and the Committee of Ministers should draw the attention of the governments of the member States to the adverse effects of this practice for the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, to the extent that such personnel are required to carry out these tasks through the effects of carrier liability legislation, they should at least be given adequate training along the same lines as that which border guards should receive.
14. Content of the training
79. Border officials need training in:
a. the basics of asylum law, especially the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, incorporating the principle of non-refoulement, its 1967 Protocol, and the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular regard to the application of Article 3;
b. the limitations under national and international law to the use of detention and UNHCR guidelines on this subject;
c. the asylum procedures in their member state — in particular to whom asylum applications should be referred and whom the asylum-seeker can call for assistance;
d. procedures to ensure that, if asylum-seekers are sent to a "safe third country", that state will guarantee that they will actually enter fair asylum procedures there;
e. what constitutes a request for asylum. In some cases refugees believe they have requested asylum while the border official concerned has not recorded this. While it is not reasonable for border officials to ask everyone they reject whether they wish to apply for asylum, it is also not reasonable for asylum-seekers to be expected to use a particular form of words before they are considered to have made an application. Border officials need guidance, training and support if they are to carry out the intentions of the member state in this area;
f. the sort of pressures that refugees are under. An intolerant attitude to people with no or forged travel documents is not appropriate when applying for valid documents would expose the refugee to persecution;
g. the human rights situation in the countries which generate the greatest numbers of asylum-seekers;
h. the relevant databases providing country of origin information;
i. special needs, such as those of women and unaccompanied minors;
j. the correct choice and use of interpreters. In particular, the casual use of passers-by is an unacceptable breach of privacy and the use of airline or embassy officials can put the refugees at further risk. However it is a requirement that asylum-seekers can explain their position in a language in which they can express themselves;
k. interview techniques;
l. intercultural awareness;
m. interpersonal relations.
80. The evidence of the replies to the questionnaire is that member states, even those that accept the need for training border officials in asylum matters, restricted this to a and parts of c. The United Kingdom also includes the use of interpreters and those member states which include role-playing in the training are likely to be covering some aspects of f.
IV. Conclusion
81. The widespread lack of clear and complete training objectives, the failure to evaluate the training and the common identification of resource problems in many of the replies and the inability to identify how much the training costs all indicate that most member states have yet to take seriously the need for training border officials so that international obligations for the protection of refugees are observed.
82. The Assembly should recommend that guidelines be addressed by the Committee of Ministers to the member states based on the above considerations with a view to ensuring that border officials are properly trained in asylum matters. In developing such guidelines, the Committee of Ministers should organise exchanges of experience and information between the member states, with the participation of the appropriate governmental and non-governmental organisations, including representatives of the border officials concerned. These exchanges could also usefully cover the training of officials responsible for the determination of refugee status.
83. The Council of Europe should promote such training and itself contribute to it by providing expertise and materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, covering in particular the articles relevant to refugees and asylum-seekers.
Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Origin: Doc. 6711 and Reference No. 1826 of 5 November 1992.
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 29 August 1996.
Members of the committee: Mrs Aguiar (Chairperson), MM. Iwiński, Junghanns (Vice-Chairmen), Mr Açba, Mrs Aguilar (Alternate: Ms Guirado), MM. Akselsen, Andres, Árnason, Mrs Arnold, MM. Attard Montalto, Beaufays, Billing, Bogomolov, van den Bos (Alternate: Jürgens), Branger (Alternate: Jacquat), Mrs Brasseur, MM. Brennan, Caceres, Chyzh, Clerfayt (Alternate: Ghesquière), Dinçer, Ehrmann, Mrs Fehr (Alternate: Mrs Vermot-Mangold), MM. Feric, Filimonov, Fuhrmann, Mrs Garajová, MM. Golu, Gotzev, Gross, Sir John Hunt (Alternate: Mr Atkinson), Mrs Johansson, MM. Kalus, Karaś Roman, Lord Kirkhill, Mr Kukk, Mrs Kušnere, MM. Kyprianou, Laakso, Lauricella, Leitner, Liapis, Loutfi, Luís, Makariadhi, Mészáros, Micheloyiannis, Rakhansky (Alternate: Mrs Karpachova), Raškinis, Školč (Alternate: Pahor), Solonari, Mrs Soutendijk van Appeldoorn, MM. Trojan, Vangelov, N... (Alternate: Arata).
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Newman, Mr Sich and Mrs Nachilo.
1 1By the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.
2 1The rapporteur is grateful for the assistance of Mr Bill Seary, Consultant.
3 1 Based on figures for the numbers of asylum applications in 1994. The figures were drawn in the main from the 1995 "World Refugee Survey", published by the United States Committee for Refugees, supplemented by the "Minutes and Conference Papers from the ECRE Biannual General Meeting: Florence, May 1995", published by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles. These figures include neither Russia nor Turkey. It has not been possible to obtain satisfactory statistics for these countries. It should be noted that comparative asylum statistics are generally unreliable and this figure should only be taken as a general indication.
4 1Leggi di P.S. ed Laurus; Il Nuovo codice della strada: ed Sapignoli; Calendario Atlante: De Agostini; Polizia di fronteria, ed Mininterno; Il dritto costituzionale italiano, ed europeo, ed Laurus; Schengen, l'avvio di un'Europa senza frontiere, ed Laurus; English for the Italian police, ed Berlitz; A Basic English Grammar, ed Nuova Italia.
5 1For instance: Belgium and Denmark mentioned work within European Union (EU) structures (though Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and United Kingdom did not). Germany mentioned co-operation with Luxembourg (though Luxembourg did not mention Germany). Denmark mentioned Nordic Council co-operation (though Norway and Sweden did not). Slovenia mentioned co-operation with Hungary, Croatia and Italy (none of whom recorded co-operation with Slovenia). Switzerland mentioned co-operation with Norway (though Norway did not mention co-operation with Switzerland). Croatia mentioned co-operation with Hungary (though Hungary stated that it had no contacts with other governments in this field).
6 1UNHCR commented in response that the majority of European states assert exactly the opposite view and in fact seek UNHCR support and involvement to ensure maximum neutrality and objectivity.
7 1Report on the arrival of asylum-seekers at European airports, Parliamentary Assembly (Doc. 6490, 12 September 1991), paragraph 61.
8 2"Safe Third Country: myths and realities", European Council on Refugees and Exiles, February 1995.