Anikó Bakonyi, projekt menadžer u mađarskom Helsinškom odboru: MAĐARSKI HELSINŠKI ODBOR SE OŠTRO PROTIVI PODIZANJU ZIDA

Posted: 18. Septembar 2015. in Intervjui

aniko

U sadašnjoj kriznoj situaciji u kojoj je rekordan broj tražitelja azila došao u Mađarsku smo također davali informacije i obuku za volontere za pomoć azilantima, pored naše osnovne aktivnosti praćenja, pravnog savjetovanja i pravnog zastupanja. Azilanti koji dolaze u Mađarsku i morali su da putuju od granice do izbjegličkih kampova bez ikakve pomoći države…..Gotovo 200 000 ljudi je ušlo Mađarsku tijekom2015. godine i Ured za azil registrirao je više od 170 000 zahtjeva za azil, zaključno sa 13. septembrom…..Kao rezultat toga, azilanati s izvornim potrebama za zaštitom dolaze uglavnom iz Sirije, Afganistana i Iraka i prelaskom srpsko-mađarske granice imaju vrlo ograničen pristup na teritoriju Mađarske, pa samim tim i do procedure postupka azila u Mađarskoj, kako bi se na taj na taj način zaštitili. Po dolasku oni su se suočili sa metalnom barijerom, bezinformacija, hrane i skloništa. Jasno je da je ovo protiv međunarodnih obaveza  Mađarske…..
Na koji način je  vaš Odbor do sada bili uključen u rješavanje trenutne krize izbjeglica?

hungarien committteBakonyi: Mađarski Helsinški odbor je organizacija za ljudska prava koja je bila aktivna u zaštiti izbjeglica od 1998. godine. Između ostalog, pružamo pravne savjete i pravno zastupanje azilanata i prisutni smo kroz mrežu naših advokata u svim mjestima gdje su azilanati smješteni ili zadržani.

U sadašnjoj kriznoj situaciji u kojoj je rekordan broj tražitelja azila došao u Mađarsku smo također davali informacije i obuku za volontere za pomoć azilantima, pored naše osnovne aktivnosti praćenja, pravnog savjetovanja i pravnog zastupanja. Azilanti koji dolaze u Mađarsku i morali su da putuju od granice do izbjegličkih kampova bez ikakve pomoći države. Volonterske grupe su se pojavile duž njihove rute putovanja, uglavnom oko željezničke stanice i ovi sjajni dobrovoljci su bili oni koji su davali azilanata hranu, vodu, odjeću i direkcije o daljnjim pravcima kretanja. Mi smo ove grupe opskrbili sa informativnim materijalima o postupku azila i bili spremni odgovoriti na postavljena pitanja.

Da li ste zadovoljni sa svojim učešćem u rješavanju problema izbjeglica iz Bliskog istoka?

Bakonyi:Kao NVO mislim da smo uradili sve što smo mogli odgovarajući u slučaju povećanog opterećenja. Osim pomoći azilantima, mi smo – kao i obično – dali svoje mišljenje na Nacrtu Zakona o azilu, koji je u međuvremenu stupio na snagu. Naši napori zastupanja su i povećani. Svi ovi napori ipak nisu doveli do promjene politike, naša vlada je odlučna u svom pristupu azilanatima. Molim pogledajte našu web stranicu za više informacija o ovom:

http://helsinki.hu/en/new-asylum-rules-endanger-access-to-protection

http://helsinki.hu/en/tightening-criminal-rules-targeting-refugees

Ko su bili vaši značajni partneri koji su se do sada učestvovali sa vama u rješavanju problema izbjeglica?

Bakonyi: Kao što je već rečeno, s nama blisko surađuju  dobrovoljačke grupe, drugi NVO koje pomažu azilantima i UNHCR.

Da li su neki od izbjeglica do sada podnijeli zahtjev za azil u Mađarskoj?

Bakonyi: Gotovo 200 000 ljudi je ušlo Mađarsku tijekom2015. godine i Ured za azil registrirao je više od 170 000 zahtjeva za azil, zaključno sa 13. septembrom.
Da li ste imali direktan kontakt s mađarskom vlade ili premijerom Orban, osobno, vezano za pitanje izbjeglica sa Bliskog istoka i da li je bilo pozitivnih rezultata od mogućih kontakata?

Bakonyi: Kao što je već rečeno, pružamo stručno mišljenje o nacrtima zakona, pisali smo otvoreno pismo ministru unutarnjih poslova o pitanjima koja se odnose na izgradnju ograde, što  prilažem u verziji na engleskom.

Ima li, zapravo, u Mađarskoj ksenofobije?

Bakonyi: Ovo nije naša struka, ali pogledajte anketu o tome:

http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2014/kitekint/20140716_idegen.html

Stavovi prema strancima su i  dalje relativno stabilni. Iako je članak u mađarskom grafikonu, daje ideju. Ako pogledate grafikon, crvena kolona pokazuje neprijateljski stav, zelena znači da se ljudi  opredjeljuju pod kojim okolnostima bi pustitli migranate da u uđu,  a žuta proazilantski stav.

Za više informacija, molim nazovite gospodina Endre Sik ili gospođu Bori Simonovits u TARKI na telefon: +36 1 309 7676.

I konačno, kako gledate na zid kojeg mađarska vojska podiže na granici sa Srbijom? Je li bila nužna ova odluka Vlade Mađarske  u ovoj situaciji i koje će efekte postići?

zid

Bakonyi:Kao što se može vidjeti iz  priloženog pisma, gdje smo naveli argumente protiv zida,  Mađarski Helsinški odbor se oštro protivi podizanju zida.

Kao rezultat toga, azilanati s izvornim potrebama za zaštitom dolaze uglavnom iz Sirije, Afganistana i Iraka i prelaskom srpsko-mađarske granice imaju vrlo ograničen pristup na teritoriju Mađarske, pa samim tim i do procedure postupka azila u Mađarskoj, kako bi se na taj na taj način zaštitili. Po dolasku oni su se suočili sa metalnom barijerom, bezinformacija, hrane i skloništa. Jasno je da je ovo protiv međunarodnih obaveza  Mađarske.

RAZGOVARAO: Bedrudin GUŠIĆ (706)

vrbas-miso

 

 

 

 

 

PRILOG:

HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE

1054 Budapest, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky út 36-38. I/12.

Tel/fax: + 36 1 321 4323, 321 4141, 321 4327

1242 Budapest, Pf. 317.

helsinki@helsinki.hu

http://www.helsinki.hu

Dr. Sándor Pintér

Ministry of Interior

Subject: Open letter regarding the planned Iron Curtain

Dear Minister,

Yesterday, the public was informed about the Government's plan to build a technical blockade along

the entire Serbian-Hungarian border.

We all know, the number of asylum applications have multiplied in the past two years compared to

previous measures, and the management of irregular migration is indeed a great challenge to the

border police and the asylum authorities facing capacity shortage. The Government itself recognizes

that the vast majority of asylum-seekers do not remain in Hungary, they continue their journey to the

West as soon as possible. The Government, however, fears that those foreigners, who apply for

asylum first in Hungary and then move on, will be sent back by Western states by tens of thousands

referring to the Dublin Regulation, and our country will become one big refugee camp.

On the 18th of May in Debrecen, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán made the Government's goal clear: “We

don't want any more to come, and those who are already here shall go home.” Now we are told, the

planned metal fence and tightened border security system is the Government's last resort.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee does not agree with the Government's declared aim and the

planned actions. The new iron curtain will not solve the current problems, but it will create several

new ones. It doesn't matter what physical barrier we place in front of potential asylum-seekers, we

cannot hinder them from entering the country and asking for asylum.

Our arguments against the iron curtain are the following:

1) The Helsinki Committee also finds that the multiplication of asylum applications, and in

particular the fact that since March 2015 60-80 percent of asylum-seekers come from classic

crisis-regions (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.), creates increasing and new types of burdens for

public authorities dealing with capacity issues. These problems will not be solved by a fence,

because the object itself – for conditions specified later – will not be able to restrain migration,

and will not change our country's geographical position. According to Government party

politicians Hungary's biggest concern today is “illegal immigration”, nonetheless, authorities

working with asylum-seekers do not receive sufficient support from the Government, and

border management- asylum- and social care employees’ high responsibility and hard work is

not recognized, neither financially nor morally. Resource requirements of Hungarian asylum

matters have indeed increased compared to the less significant expenditures of the previous

years, but they did not become intolerable. A fraction of the new iron curtain development

plan's wasted resources could significantly alleviate the asylum capacity shortage.

2) Costs of the construction, expenses of maintenance and operation are so far unknown. It

is clear though, it won't be cheap, and it is highly doubtful that the European Union will

support these endeavours. If we take the HUF 22 billion calculations circulating in the press,

that would be 846% of the total 2014 asylum costs. The amount needlessly wasted on

construction and operations could be spent more effectively. The reason why we are sure

about this, Mr. Secretary, is because two weeks ago during the police commission meeting

You stated that “97-98% of illegal border crossers” are caught by the Hungarian police.

3) Members of the Government also justify the fence by claiming that those foreigners, who

apply for asylum first in Hungary and then move on, will be sent back by Western states by

tens of thousands referring to the Dublin Regulation, and our country will become one big

refugee camp. We cannot predict the future, but the number of foreigners sent back by EU

states have not significantly increased: last year 827-, in the first four months of this year

522 returns occurred. Although, according to Germany 2952 asylum-seekers have applied for

asylum first in Hungary within the first quarter of 2015, they only sent back 42 people within

this period. It is unlikely, but let's assume that the number of returnees would go up to five

thousand, even then, they would only mean a short-term burden for the country as the

Government believes they are “economic migrants”. However if, miraculously, Hungary would

recognize many of them as refugees (in other EU countries the average recognition rate is 45

per cent), the country would still survive. Costs of their care, to which the EU also

contributes, would still be insignificant compared to the construction and operational costs of

the fence. Our country grants asylum since 1990, still, there are only around 3000 refugees

or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection living here. According to recent data, these numbers

amount to 56.000 in Austria, 29.000 in Belgium, and 16.000 in Poland.

4) Such constructions last long, sometimes taking years. It is a well-known correlation that a

predictable change (for instance a pre-announced price increase, or in this case the

scheduled obstruction of an irregular migration route) forces those affected to act sooner,

taking advantage of a favourable situation until it persists. In fact, this announcement

encourages even those to make a move, who otherwise wouldn't necessarily do so. The

Government's threat to build a fence is one of the best measures to encourage “illegal

migration”.

5) Indeed, we are not aware of any international legal provision that could prevent the

planned “physical barrier”. However, under international law, the fence needs to run on

Hungarian soil, even the side that is facing Serbia. Thus, a person arriving at or climbing on

the fence will be on Hungarian territory and under Hungarian jurisdiction. Therefore, legally

speaking, s/he won't be locked out, and technically won't be prevented from requesting

asylum.

6) Once the fence is built border crossing points will clearly not disappear, since the everyday

border traffic needs to be secured. Migrants arriving or being stopped at border crossings can

also not be prevented from applying for asylum, if they wish to do so.

7) The police must ensure access to the country's territory and its asylum procedure for

asylum-seekers, this is a clear international and national legal requirement. Police or other

authorized officers are not allowed to ignore or to pretend not to understand a request for

asylum, neither at the fence, nor at the border crossing. By doing so, they would commit

misconduct, since this is against Section 2 of the Law on Police providing for the protection of

human rights. Reasonably, application for asylum does not have any formal or linguistic

demands, and does not require valid travel documents, residence permit or visa.

8) In case an order or any other legal norm would prohibit official persons from acting in case

of asylum applications at the fence, Hungary would violate the Geneva Convention on the

Status of Refugees (Article 33), the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3), and

EU law (the Procedures Directive, recitals 25-26. Para. and Article 6). This kind of practice

HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE

1054 Budapest, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky út 36-38. I/12.

Tel/fax: + 36 1 321 4323, 321 4141, 321 4327

1242 Budapest, Pf. 317.

helsinki@helsinki.hu

http://www.helsinki.hu

would be contrary to the Fundamental Law XIV. Article (3), which states: “Hungary – if

neither their country of origin nor another country provides protection for them – will grant

asylum to those non-Hungarian citizens, who are persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or have a well-
founded fear of persecution in their homeland or country of habitual residence.

9) Contrary to the Government's statement, neither Serbia, nor Macedonia and Greece (being

on the route of irregular migrants coming from across Europe) are considered safe third

countries for asylum-seekers. In 2011, Greece's (even previously) dysfunctional asylum

system has collapsed, since then EU Member States have not sent back anyone there. In

Serbia, between 2008 and 2014 out of 29.000 applicants only 18 refugees have received

some sort of protection, furthermore the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also

confirmed that it is still not regarded as a safe third country. Thus, restraining refugees from

entering Hungary through countries considered dangerous from the asylum perspective,

would be inhumane and illegal practice.

10) A fence, which ends do not meet, can be bypassed. It is a mistake to refer to the African

Spanish enclaves (Ceuta and Melilla) as there small territories are encircled. In the present

case, the new Hungarian iron curtain could be passed by from Romania and Croatia.

However, this does not mean that migrants travelling through neighbouring countries will

avoid Hungary. It is possible that the point of entry will change, but the vast majority will still

pass through us while heading west.

11) If the presence of the fence will be accompanied by the ignorance of asylum claims –

unfortunately to which we see a great chance, otherwise what is the point of the blockade –

Hungary can expect condemning judgements from international courts (European Court of

Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg).

12) The iron curtain would indeed make irregular migration more difficult, but at the same

time it would benefit smugglers by increasing their prices. Closing the border would also

increase corruption risks. In addition, it would encourage exactly those migrants to take

desperate, border guardian- or self-endangering actions, who are most in need of protection.

13) It follows from the foregoing that the new iron curtain, in itself, cannot guarantee to

reach the objectives pursued by the Government (“more shall not come”). For this, we should

denounce the Geneva Convention on Refugees, declare the total termination of asylum rights

by modifying our Fundamental Law, exit the Council of Europe and the European Union, and

ultimately unsubscribe from the civilized world. It is also worth to consider the collateral costs

of this undesirable change of regime, if we are reckoning with the price of the fence

construction.

14) Our last argument is based on moral concerns. Last year we celebrated the 25th

anniversary of the iron curtain's abolition. A month ago the Prime Minister said: “Hungary has

always accepted refugees, there is mercy in our hearts, we belong to the civil, national and

Christian party, we know what commitment to our neighbour means. […] These people were

always warmly welcomed by Hungary with appropriate procedures and in fair manners.” And

now we are at a point where the Government of national affairs is planning to set up an iron

curtain without any good reason. With the planned project the Government takes on a moral

responsibility that it won't be able to comply with. Depriving protection from the persecuted

would not only be illegal but also inhumane.

Dear Mr. Minister,

Based on the above, we are asking You to submit a proposal to the Government, which will reject the

Serbian border blockade, and will give sufficient support to state institutions working with asylum-
seekers. We believe it is particularly important, to Hungary as well, to find a European solution as

soon as possible to tackle the growing challenges of the refugee crisis. This however, requires a

constructive Hungarian attitude and changes in the Government's policy.

Budapest, June 18, 2015

Yours sincerely,

dr. Márta Pardavi

Co-chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee

komentara
  1. Zdravko margic niodkud kaže:

    hitler ce vama ubrzo da se pojavi pace te vi madjaro bjezati kao i poljaci stosu visti pokazali daste one divlje zivotinje a naj vise se bojite istine,od koje nemozete pobjeci blizuvam je oplazak anto krista prvo dedzala kojicevas izluditi,stace te onda njegovim reci kadvas budu ganjali.

Komentariši

Upišite vaše podatke ispod ili kliknite na jednu od ikona da se prijavite:

WordPress.com logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Odjava / Promijeni )

Twitter slika

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Odjava / Promijeni )

Facebook fotografija

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Odjava / Promijeni )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Odjava / Promijeni )

Povezivanje na %s