This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/enhanced-screening-sri-lanka-claims

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Enhanced screening' is jeopardising Sri Lankan asylum claims 'Enhanced screening' is jeopardising Sri Lankan asylum claims
(4 months later)
At the end of last week the Australian Government flew another group of Sri Lankan boat arrivals back to Colombo, claiming that they failed to engage Australia's international legal obligations. Australia has now sent back 1,035 Sri Lankans against their will since August 2012, including over 200 Tamils.At the end of last week the Australian Government flew another group of Sri Lankan boat arrivals back to Colombo, claiming that they failed to engage Australia's international legal obligations. Australia has now sent back 1,035 Sri Lankans against their will since August 2012, including over 200 Tamils.
Australia's practice of returning Sri Lankans is reckless. Not only does the country turn a blind eye to the harm that the they may face on return, it does so on the basis of a diminished understanding of individuals' claims for asylum and without adequate monitoring back in Sri Lanka.Australia's practice of returning Sri Lankans is reckless. Not only does the country turn a blind eye to the harm that the they may face on return, it does so on the basis of a diminished understanding of individuals' claims for asylum and without adequate monitoring back in Sri Lanka.
Recent reports from journalists and leading international organisations such as Human Rights Watch, the International Bar Association and Amnesty International have documented the many serious ongoing human rights problems in Sri Lanka.Recent reports from journalists and leading international organisations such as Human Rights Watch, the International Bar Association and Amnesty International have documented the many serious ongoing human rights problems in Sri Lanka.
Yet, from our understanding, Australia uses a deeply flawed "enhanced screening" process to assess potential asylum claims by Sri Lankans who arrive by boat. Many asylum seekers are interviewed with no legal advice, little information about their rights, no transparency and no independent review. This truncated and secret screening process is being used to bypass proper and fairer assessment procedures under Australian law. Even when due process is followed, decision-makers in the immigration department often get it wrong. Last year, the Refugee Review Tribunal upheld 82% of appeals against negative decisions by the immigration department in respect of Sri Lankans who arrived by boat. The only thing "enhanced" about the truncated screening process is the likelihood of irreversible mistakes being made, resulting in people who fear persecution being forcibly returned to their persecutors.Yet, from our understanding, Australia uses a deeply flawed "enhanced screening" process to assess potential asylum claims by Sri Lankans who arrive by boat. Many asylum seekers are interviewed with no legal advice, little information about their rights, no transparency and no independent review. This truncated and secret screening process is being used to bypass proper and fairer assessment procedures under Australian law. Even when due process is followed, decision-makers in the immigration department often get it wrong. Last year, the Refugee Review Tribunal upheld 82% of appeals against negative decisions by the immigration department in respect of Sri Lankans who arrived by boat. The only thing "enhanced" about the truncated screening process is the likelihood of irreversible mistakes being made, resulting in people who fear persecution being forcibly returned to their persecutors.
There is growing evidence of the dangers faced specifically by people who are sent back to Sri Lanka after claiming asylum overseas – including harassment, rape, torture and other ill-treatment by government forces. The evidence suggests that going abroad and making an asylum claim can itself put some Sri Lankans at risk of mistreatment.There is growing evidence of the dangers faced specifically by people who are sent back to Sri Lanka after claiming asylum overseas – including harassment, rape, torture and other ill-treatment by government forces. The evidence suggests that going abroad and making an asylum claim can itself put some Sri Lankans at risk of mistreatment.
UK courts took this evidence seriously enough to suspend forced returns of Sri Lankans in February 2013. A UK immigration tribunal is currently charged with reviewing the risk of torture and mistreatment of returnees to inform the UK Border Agency's country guidance for Sri Lanka.UK courts took this evidence seriously enough to suspend forced returns of Sri Lankans in February 2013. A UK immigration tribunal is currently charged with reviewing the risk of torture and mistreatment of returnees to inform the UK Border Agency's country guidance for Sri Lanka.
The United Nations also recognises that Sri Lankan returnees face a real risk of harm. In May, the UN's expert committee on torture expressed its concern that the UK government had not already amended its asylum policy to reflect the evidence of torture and ill-treatment of Sri Lankan returnees.The United Nations also recognises that Sri Lankan returnees face a real risk of harm. In May, the UN's expert committee on torture expressed its concern that the UK government had not already amended its asylum policy to reflect the evidence of torture and ill-treatment of Sri Lankan returnees.
The Australian government, on the other hand, provides scant comfort that it takes the evidence of the risks to returnees seriously. Forced returnees are given just 400 Sri Lankan rupees (AUD$3.25) at Colombo airport, where they are taken into the custody of Sri Lankan authorities and face domestic prosecution for illegal migration. These people fall into a black hole where neither Australia nor any international organisation actively monitors their progress.The Australian government, on the other hand, provides scant comfort that it takes the evidence of the risks to returnees seriously. Forced returnees are given just 400 Sri Lankan rupees (AUD$3.25) at Colombo airport, where they are taken into the custody of Sri Lankan authorities and face domestic prosecution for illegal migration. These people fall into a black hole where neither Australia nor any international organisation actively monitors their progress.
Australian foreign minister Bob Carr insists that there is no evidence that returnees are in danger, pointing to the fact that there have been only four complaints of mistreatment out of the 1,000 people returned.Australian foreign minister Bob Carr insists that there is no evidence that returnees are in danger, pointing to the fact that there have been only four complaints of mistreatment out of the 1,000 people returned.
However, Carr's statistic suggests that a complaints process exists. But in Senate Estimates hearings in May, department of foreign affairs and trade officials revealed that the Australian High Commission in Colombo has no formal complaints process for returnees. Staff at the High Commission can follow up complaints, as they have where they become aware of allegations of mistreatment made publicly or, in two cases, directly from returnees.However, Carr's statistic suggests that a complaints process exists. But in Senate Estimates hearings in May, department of foreign affairs and trade officials revealed that the Australian High Commission in Colombo has no formal complaints process for returnees. Staff at the High Commission can follow up complaints, as they have where they become aware of allegations of mistreatment made publicly or, in two cases, directly from returnees.
Aside from the opacity of the process, there are obvious barriers to returnees making complaints to the High Commission. Returnees may lack trust in it given that it is run by the very government that deported them, collaborating with Sri Lankan authorities to do so. Further, visiting Australia's High Commission in Colombo is likely to generate legitimate fears about monitoring and reprisal for being seen to make complaints.Aside from the opacity of the process, there are obvious barriers to returnees making complaints to the High Commission. Returnees may lack trust in it given that it is run by the very government that deported them, collaborating with Sri Lankan authorities to do so. Further, visiting Australia's High Commission in Colombo is likely to generate legitimate fears about monitoring and reprisal for being seen to make complaints.
Australia has clear domestic and international human rights law obligations not to return people in our custody to a place where they are at risk of persecution, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. But rather than responding with caution to the mounting evidence of risk to Sri Lankan returnees, Australia's practices are wilfully blind to the dangers they face. We owe more to the people in our custody and care, both as a matter of law and of conscience.Australia has clear domestic and international human rights law obligations not to return people in our custody to a place where they are at risk of persecution, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. But rather than responding with caution to the mounting evidence of risk to Sri Lankan returnees, Australia's practices are wilfully blind to the dangers they face. We owe more to the people in our custody and care, both as a matter of law and of conscience.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.