Svenska

1028 returned to an unknown fate

Finnish authorities knowingly return asylum seekers fleeing from conflict areas to other EU countries, where they receive no protection and reception conditions can be very poor.

In Finland, there are mainly two avenues for protection for people fleeing conflict: either asylum in accordance with the Refugee Convention or subsidiary status.

To be recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Refugee Convention in Finland, an asylum-seeker is in general asked to prove "concrete and individualised" persecution. In practice this criterion excludes people fleeing both indiscriminate and more targeted forms of violence. Only between one and two percent of all asylum-seekers is granted Convention recognition.

Alternatively, an asylum-seeker can be considered for subsidiary protection under the Finnish Aliens Act if he or she is: "under the threat of death penalty, torture or other inhuman treatment or treatment violating human dignity, or if they cannot return there because of an armed conflict or environmental disaster."

To be recognized according to this provision, an asylum-seeker fleeing generalised violence has to prove that he or she cannot return to the home country due to "armed conflict". The Aliens Act defines armed conflict as civil war or other internal instability, where people may face arbitrary armed violence.

Practise/interpretation

In practice, authorities have generally not considered armed conflict in the country of origin as sufficient grounds for subsidiary protection, but additionally required reasons of personalized persecution.

Also, the threshold for "armed conflict" has been very high, and the interpretation of the law in the Directorate of Immigration and Appeal Courts has been inconsistent in relation to certain groups of asylum seekers fleeing generalized violence.

Developments have, however, taken a positive turn in Finland in 2007. Decision makers have acknowledged the armed conflict in Somalia and South and Central Iraq and asylum-seekers from these countries are granted subsidiary protection.

The much dreaded and criticised temporary B-status residence permits devoid of rights, which was issued between 2004 and 2007 to rejected asylum-seekers from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia who could not be returned, have almost come to a halt.

Asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, however, continue to be rejected despite UNHCR recommendations. Notwithstanding widespread hostilities, insecurity and human rights violations, nearly all Sri Lankan asylum claims were thus rejected during the first half of 2007.

In addition, the strict application of the so-called Dublin regulation in Finland means that more than one out of three asylum seekers fleeing generalized violence have been sent back to the first European country of arrival.

While most cases disappear into the unknown, lack of care and protection, poor reception conditions as well as forcible returns have been reported. This is what is faced by people who would otherwise be granted refugee or subsidiary protection status in Finland if the authorities chose to process the asylum claim here - which they have a possibility to do for humanitarian reasons.

For Finland, a country at the fringe of Europe, the Dublin regulation has become a means of escaping its international protection duty.

Protection gap

People fleeing generalised violence and serious violations cannot rely on gaining protection in Finland. That is the consequence of having to first arrive in Finland and then either having to prove individualised persecution to be recognized as a refugee in relation to the Convention or the home country to be classified as in a state of "armed conflict" in order to gain subsidiary protection.

Much, too much, depends on what qualifies as armed conflict and who defines this.

Hence, there is a need for a change of both practice and legislation:

- The Dublin regulation should be applied in a spirit of protection,

- The interpretation of the existing Aliens Act has to change to also recognize as refugees persons exposed to targeted violence due to their membership of a persecuted group, and

- Legislation has to change to also include that persons fleeing indiscriminate violence and gross human rights violations more generally would be in need of international protection.

1028 return decisions

As a consequence in 2006, 817 out of 2341 asylum-seekers were given return decisions, majority of whom were returned to an unknown fate in the first country of arrival in Europe. In 2007, 211 have so far been given return decision based on Dublin. Almost nine out of then Sri Lankan asylum claims are rejected.

Main groups affected: Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Sri Lankan