Asylum seekers fleeing their countries don’t pack a suitcase with evidence, board a flight, and arrive at their asylum interview with a membership card of a political opposition party.
Recent tragic refugee deaths in the Mediterranean have proven how difficult it can be to reach Europe to claim asylum. But getting to Europe is just the first step. In many cases, receiving asylum requires evidence of persecution that can be difficult to produce.
European governments have signed international treaties that require them to offer protection to those who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted in their home countries for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular group. But if you are a refugee, how can you prove that? Asylum seekers fleeing their countries don’t pack a suitcase with evidence, board a flight, and arrive at their asylum interview with a membership card of a political opposition party.
When asylum seekers file a claim, the first thing that happens is an interview with a government official who decides whether their story is plausible. This is where things can start to get messy. How many people’s lives fit a simple, linear narrative? If you look at your own family photographs, many of them documenting the most important events of your life, can you truly vouch for exactly when and how the milestones they show occurred?
Even if the asylum seeker can produce evidence, the people evaluating their claim may have their own biases. One interviewer at the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless People noted in her denial of an asylum seeker’s claim that the woman didn’t show any emotion when describing how she was raped. In another case, a man fleeing persecution in Afghanistan told his interviewer he was a driver, but had his claim rejected when he was unable to produce a driver’s license.
The French asylum court routinely rejects official identity documents from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as fake, despite evidence from asylum lawyers that the DRC’s low-grade printing presses are the reason for variations in print quality. An example of just how ridiculous things can get can be found in the phallometric tests used by the Czech authorities until 2011, which, by measuring blood circulation in a man’s penis when he was shown pornographic material, could supposedly ascertain whether an asylum seeker was gay.
How can such dubious decision making still be used in today’s data-obsessed world? Today, no business would be launched without a thorough analysis of the market, no matter how small. You wouldn’t buy a house without first conducting careful research to make sure the price was fair. Why are decisions about people’s lives and security made without proper evidence?
Access is one problem. Evaluating evidence for specific aspects of a claim requires knowledge of the region and its language, and ideally a network in the field to access and verify information or documents.
Financial resources are also a problem. Asylum lawyers in France receive about 370 euros from the government for each claim they work on. Reading up on the political situation in the claimant’s country of origin or checking even very basic facts must be done in these lawyers’ spare time. The financial crisis has made things even worse—in the UK, spending cuts have severely impacted lawyers’ abilities to research evidence for claims, while in financially reeling Greece, very limited legal aid is available to a few asylum NGOs only.
Governments and courts conduct their own research on asylum seekers’ countries of origin, but in only a few European countries is this data publicly available and accessible to asylum activists and lawyers.
Even when evidence is available, it is often used improperly. Amnesty International analyzed a sample of asylum claims [PDF] in the UK that were overturned on appeal. It found that in most cases, judges did not make proper use of the evidence available, erroneous assessments of the applicants’ credibility were made, and even tiny inconsistencies were enough to dismiss applications.
Asylum and migration are two of today’s most contentious issues. They lie at the heart of the question of what kind of Europe we want to live in. In these times of economic hardship, who is in and who is out?
If empathy and a moral obligation aren’t enough, at the very least, we should worry about asylum for selfish reasons. If the legal system does not even make an effort to thoroughly examine the cases of people potentially fearing for their lives, how can we be sure it will treat us fairly when we need it? Only when we can ensure that our legal system works for the most vulnerable can we trust that it will work for all of us.
Source: OSF New York, by Sebastian Kraus & Ellen Riotte
28.07.2015
Development Finance Institutions and Human Rights Due Diligence
Bank on Human Rights is a newly formedglobal coalition of social movements, civil society organizations, and grassroots groups working to ensure that all development finance institutions require respect for human rights in the operations they finance.
Development activities can have a profound impact on the realization of human rights within borrower countries. This impact can be positive, such as improved access and quality of health care, increased protection of indigenous peoples' land rights, and education that reaches the most marginalized populations. Impacts can also be negative, as in the case of forced evictions, imposed solutions that undermine the livelihoods of never-consulted communities, or reforms that further entrench discrimination. In many instances, however, the human rights implications of development activities are not obvious or immediately apparent. Standard development planning, screening, assessment and monitoring tools are not designed to fully capture human rights impacts. Because of this, opportunities to contribute to the realization of human rights through development finance, or to mitigate negative human rights impacts associated with development initiatives, are frequently missed.
Despite recognition of the connection between human rights and development by many governments, international organizations and the donor community, as well as by civil society organizations and national human rights institutions, there remains a need to further clarify the content and components of human rights due diligence in the context of development finance institutions, including methodologies, tools and best practices for risk and impact assessment. There is also a need for greater understanding of how to best work with, and support, borrower countries in pursuing responsible, sustainable and human rights-reinforcing development.
While some development finance institutions have made significant strides in developing policies and mechanisms to protect individuals and communities, there is still much work to be done to ensure that the poor and vulnerable have voice and power in development processes, and to ensure that development activities meet their needs and respect their rights.
Bank on Human Rights aims to constructively and proactively contribute to fill this gap by developing a best practice toolkit for incorporating human rights risk and impact assessment within the standard social and environmental assessment frameworks of development finance institutions. The toolkit will be designed to fit within the policy framework and systems of the World Bank. The World Bank is viewed as a leader and standard-setter globally, and as such is a critical player in the development finance arena. The basic methodologies that underlay the toolkit, however, will be applicable to development finance institutions generally, including national development banks and bilateral development agencies. As such, the toolkit will help to advance efforts to increase the use of human rights due diligence within development finance more broadly.
The development of the toolkit will be shaped by the inputs of an Expert Advisory Group consisting of human rights and development experts and practitioners.
Bank on Human Rights is a global coalition of social movements, civil society organizations, and grassroots groups working to ensure that all development finance institutions respect human rights. Bank on Human Rights works to support members’ advocacy at the local, national, and international level.
Source: WUNRN
29.07.2015
"This year’s Report places a special emphasis on human trafficking in the global marketplace. It highlights the hidden risks that workers may encounter when seeking employment and the steps that governments and businesses can take to prevent trafficking, including a demand for transparency in global supply chains.
"The bottom line is that this is no time for complacency. Right now, across the globe, victims of human trafficking are daring to imagine the possibility of escape, the chance for a life without fear, and the opportunity to earn a living wage. I echo the words of President Obama and say to them: We hear you, and we will do all we can to make that dream come true. In recent decades, we have learned a great deal about how to break up human trafficking networks and help victims recover in safety and dignity. In years to come, we will apply those lessons relentlessly, and we will not rest until modern slavery is ended." – John F. Kerry, Secretary of State
The Report
The 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report is available in PDF and HTML formats. The PDF is available as a complete one-piece file and as individual sections for easier download. To view the PDF files, you will need to download, at no cost, the Adobe Acrobat Reader.
FULL 384-Page 2015 REPORT: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245365.pdf
PDF FORMAT
-Trafficking in Persons Report 2015 -- Complete Report (PDF)
-Introductory Material (PDF)
-Country Narratives: A-C (PDF)
-Country Narratives: D-I (PDF)
-Country Narratives: J-M (PDF)
-Country Narratives: N-S (PDF)
-Country Narratives: T-Z and Special Case (PDF)
-Relevant International Conventions/Closing Material (PDF)
HTML FORMAT
-Letter From Secretary Kerry
-What is Trafficking in Persons?
-Victims' Stories
-Preventing Human Trafficking in Global Supply Chains
-Topics of Special Interest
-Countries That Are Not States Parties to the Protocol
-Child Soldiers Prevention Act List
-2015 TIP Report Heroes
-Methodology
-Global Law Enforcement Data
-Trafficking Victims Protection Act: Minimum Standards for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons
-Tier Placements
-Country Narratives
-Special Case
-Relevant International Conventions
-Stopping Human Trafficking, Sexual Exploitation, and Abuse by International Peacekeepers & Civilian Personnel
-International, Regional, and Sub-Regional Organizations Combating Trafficking in Persons
-Glossary of Acronyms and Notes
-Photo Credits
-A Closing Note: Migrants at Risk
Source: WUNRN
28.07.2015
This infographic aims to present the current state of affairs of maternity and paternity leave in EU Member States. Most EU countries also have an additional period of parental leave, but parental leave is not covered in this infographic.
With recent news of Jean-Claude Juncker giving six more months to the Council and the Parliament to reach agreement on the maternity leave proposal, the issue of the Maternity Leave Directive has yet again come into focus. Proposed by the EC in 2008 and accepted by the Parliament (with some amendments) in 2010, the directive reached an impasse in the Council more than four years ago and there have been few developments since. The new directive should replace the current 1992 Directive, which sets the minimum period for maternity leave at 14 weeks, with 2 weeks compulsory leave before and/or after confinement and an adequate allowance subject to national legislation. The 2008 proposal set the maternity leave period at 18 weeks with at least 6 weeks compulsory leave after confinement and an allowance amounting to full salary. The Parliament proposed prolonging the maternity leave period to 20 weeks and added 2 weeks of paternity leave under the same conditions as maternity leave.
WIDOWS and WIDOWHOOD get no mention in the 1995 BEIJING DECLARATION AND PLATFORM FOR ACTION (BPFA) although each of the twelve action areas has clear relevance to the low status of widows and their children.
The Declaration and the BPFA recognise age discrimination as one of the factors contributing to barriers to women’s advancement, and specifically mentions older women with regard to their poverty, health, violence against them, and obstacles they face in entering the labour market, and as a civilian group particularly affected by armed conflict. Yet, regrettably, even scandalously, it ignores completely the problematic status of widows, widowhood-related discrimination and abuse which makes them so poor.
In 1995 there seems to have been a complete disregard of three crucial facts. First, that in many countries, developed and developing, widows of all ages experience multiple forms of discrimination and lack of rights that causes their poverty and vulnerability to violence; secondly, that in most countries the majority of older women are in fact widows; third, that widows generally have no collective voice; few organisations exist to represent them; and governments often have little knowledge of their life styles, needs or roles.
Widows also, especially the elderly, may experience what Professor Amartya Sen defines as “non-income poverty”: The poverty of isolation, exclusion and lack of dignity and respect. This aspect of poverty exposes them to violence, in the home, in the community, and, as has been revealed in the United Kingdom, ill-treatment and abuse in care and retirement homes.
The omission to address widows’ basic needs, reduce their poverty, and recognise and support their key important social and economic roles in their families and communities must be remedied in this review of the BPFA at the 59th CSW. Governments everywhere need to address this neglected gender and human rights issue.
For never before has the world witnessed such a huge increase in the numbers of widows of all ages, and wives of the “missing”, due to armed conflict, revolutions, sectarian violence, lawlessness and criminality, natural disasters, HIV and AIDS and harmful traditional practices such as child marriage that create further child widows.
The longer life expectancy of women over men, and the often great age differences in partners to the marriage has always been a contributory factor to the escalation in the figures for this category of women. Widows are less likely to remarry, especially if they have children, whereas widowers even in their later years, often find new partners, who will care for them in their old age. But the increase in the size of this category of women in recent years is unprecedented.
