DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Transcription

1 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO BULLETIN: STATISTICS AND INFORMATION ON THE TREATMENT OF RETURNS (TO KINSHASA) Country of Origin Information Service February 2013

2 COUNTRY DATE Contents Preface Paragraphs 1. STATISTICS FOR RETURNS TO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC) FROM COUNTRIES OF ASYLUM Returns from the United Kingdom (UK) Returns from European Union states plus Canada and Australia ENQUIRIES ABOUT RETURNS MADE BY THE UK BORDER AGENCY POSITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (JUNE 2012) POSITION OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (JUNE 2012) UNITED NATIONS SUPPORT TO RETURNS TO THE DRC Annexes Annex A - Inter Governmental Consultation, Migrations, Asylum and Refugees survey: Rejected Asylum Seekers Returned to Democratic Republic of Congo Request from the United Kingdom Annex B - Note of a meeting with Human Rights Watch (UK), June 2012 Annex C - Note of a meeting with Amnesty International (UK), June 2012 Annex D - Letter from the British Embassy, Kinshasa, dated 12 November 2012 Annex E - List of sources ii

3 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Preface i) This Country of Origin Information (COI) bulletin has been produced by COI Service, UK Border Agency for use by officials involved in asylum and human rights decision making process. The bulletin contains information available up to 1 February 2013 and was released on 8 February ii) The bulletin provides information on the numbers and treatment of Congolese nationals who voluntarily and by force returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), predominantly those returned from Western Europe to Kinshasa. The bulletin does not contain UK Border Agency opinion or policy. iii) The bulletin should be read in the context of the general socio-economic, political and human rights situation in the DRC, covered in more detail in the DRC COI report, 9 March Officials are also advised to the Report of a fact finding mission to Kinshasa conducted between 18 and 28 June 2012 which provides information on the procedure for and treatment of Congolese nationals who have returned voluntarily and by force to the DRC and an information response by the Irish Refugee Documentation Centre, Democratic Republic of Congo: Information on the treatment of failed asylum seekers, including children, by the Congolese authorities on their return to Democratic Republic of Congo? dated 15 February 2012, which collates information on the treatment of returns published between 2005 and February Both the DRC COI report and the Irish Refugee Documentation Centre response refer to the report Unsafe Return released by Justice First in November 2011 which documents the treatment of 15 returned failed asylum seekers from the United Kingdom (UK). iv) The bulletin is a compilation of extracts produced by a range of external information sources and the approved notes of interviews with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty international undertaken by COI Service. All information is attributed throughout the text to the original source material. Where the source documents identified are available in electronic form, the relevant weblink has been included together with the date that the link was accessed. Where the documents referred are not in the public domain, these have been attached to the bulletin as annexes. Officials are advised to examine the original source documents directly. v) In compiling the bulletin no attempt has been made to resolve discrepancies between information provided in different source documents, though where discrepancies exist these have been brought together wherever possible. If the term sic has been used in this document to denote incorrect spellings or typographical errors in quoted text; its use is not intended to imply any comment on the content of the material. vi) The bulletin is largely based upon source documents issued during the previous 12 months. However, reference is made to older source documents because these contain relevant information not available in more recent documents. All sources contain information considered relevant at the time this bulletin was issued. vii) In producing this bulletin COI Service has sought to provide an accurate, up-to-date, balanced and impartial compilation of extracts of relevant source material on the themes outlined in paragraph (ii) above. Any comments regarding this bulletin or suggestions for additional source material are very welcome and should be submitted to COI Service as below: Country of Origin Information Service UK Border Agency Lunar House 3

4 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY Wellesley Road Croydon, CR9 2BY United Kingdom Website: Independent Advisory Group on Country Information viii) The Independent Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI) was set up in March 2009 by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to make recommendations to him about the content of the UK Border Agency s COI material. The IAGCI welcomes feedback on UK Border Agency s COI products. Information about the IAGCI s work can be found on the Independent Chief Inspector s website at ix) In the course of its work, the IAGCI reviews the content of selected UK Border Agency COI documents and makes recommendations specific to those documents and of a more general nature. A list of the COI reports and other documents which have been reviewed by the IAGCI or the Advisory Panel on Country Information (the independent organisation which monitored UK Border Agency s COI material from September 2003 to October 2008) is available at x) Please note: it is not the function of the IAGCI to endorse any UKBA material or procedures. Some of the material examined by the Group relates to countries designated or proposed for designation to the Non-Suspensive Appeals (NSA) list. In such cases, the Group s work should not be taken to imply any endorsement of the decision or proposal to designate a particular country for NSA, nor of the NSA process itself. The IAGCI can be contacted at: Independent Advisory Group on Country Information Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency 5th Floor, Globe House 89 Eccleston Square London, SW1V 1PN chiefinspectorukba@icinspector.gsi.gov.uk Website: Return to contents 4

5 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 1. STATISTICS FOR RETURNS TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC) FROM COUNTRIES OF ASYLUM RETURNS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) 1.01 Figures published by the Home Office, Migration and Asylum research statistics tables, Removals and Voluntary Departures data tables Immigration Statistics July - September 2012, section titled Removals and voluntary departures, Volume 3 in tables rv0.6 and rv.06.q, published 29 November 2012, provided a breakdown of asylum and non-asylum returns by country of destination between 2004 and up to and including the third quarter in The data below for returns to the DRC has been filtered from tables rv0.6 and rv.06q. Table rv.06: Removals and voluntary departures by country of destination and type (2004 to 2011) enforced removals Refused entry at port and subsequently departed voluntary departur es nonasylum enforced removals Non-asylum cases: Refused entry at port and subsequently departed nonasylum voluntary departures asylum enforced removals asylum voluntary departur es Year Table rv.06.q: Removals and voluntary departures by country of destination and type January to September 2012 enforced removals Refused entry at port and subsequently departed voluntary departures nonasylum enforced removals Non-asylum cases: Refused entry at port and subsequently departed nonasylum voluntary departures asylum enforced removals asylum voluntary departures Quarter 2012 Q Q Q s [1a] 5

6 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 RETURNS FROM EUROPEAN UNION STATES PLUS CANADA AND AUSTRALIA 1.02 On 4 April 2012 Country of Origin Information Service sent a survey on returns to the DRC to the Intergovernmental Consultations on migration, asylum and refugees (IGC). The IGC s website states that it is: an informal, non-decision making forum for intergovernmental information exchange and policy debate on issues of relevance to the management of international migratory flows. The IGC brings together 17 Participating States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and the European Commission. The Participating States are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America The IGC secretariat forwarded the survey to its participating states and collated the responses, including that of the UK in a document titled, Rejected Asylum Seekers Returned to Democratic Republic of Congo, Request from the United Kingdom, dated 20 April 2012, (IGC survey 2012). The survey provided the following information in regard to returns: Do you enforce returns of rejected (failed) asylum seekers (FAS) to Kinshasa (N djili Airport), DRC? If you enforce returns of FAS to Kinshasa, how many were returned in 2009, 2010, 2011 and in 2012 to date? collated the following response, dated April 2012: Of the 11 Participating States that provided answers (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom), 9 have forcedly returned nationals from DRC in the period In 2009: at least 214 forced returns (both failed asylum seekers and irregular migrants) to DR Congo took place. The actual number is probably higher as 1 country only provides number of Former Asylum Seekers (FAS), another country only provided the number of non-fas (other categories of irregular migrants); one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. In 2010: 2 out of the 9 countries previously mentioned did not forcibly return to DR Congo in number of forced returns by the 7 remaining countries: at least 95. The actual number is probably higher as one country only provides number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas; one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. In 2011: all 9 countries previously mentioned returned. of forced returns: at least 83. The actual number is probably higher as one country only provides the number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas; one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. In 2012 (until early May [sic, April]): at least 4 countries forcedly returned a number of at least 32 nationals of DRC. The actual number is probably higher as for one country information is not yet available, one country only provides the 6

7 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas, and one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. One country has updated its numbers to include the entire month of May. [2] Return to contents Go to sources 2. ENQUIRIES ABOUT RETURNS MADE BY THE UK BORDER AGENCY (APRIL 2012) 2.01 Officials are advised to read this section alongside the section on Exit and return in the DRC COI report, March 2012, and the Report of a Fact Finding Mission to Kinshasa conducted between 18 and 28 June 2012, released on 30 November 2012, which sets out the findings of a UK Border Agency mission to Kinshasa to obtain information about the procedure for and treatment of Congolese nationals returning to the DRC. Additionally, officials are recommended to read an information response by the Irish Refugee Documentation Centre, Democratic Republic of Congo: Information on the treatment of failed asylum seekers, including children, by the Congolese authorities on their return to Democratic Republic of Congo? dated 15 February 2012, which collates information on the treatment of returns published between 2005 and February Both the DRC COI report and the Irish Refugee Documentation Centre response refer to the report Unsafe Return released by Justice First in November 2011 which documents the treatment of 15 returned failed asylum seekers from the UK The IGC survey 2012 noted in relation to the question: Are you aware of any reports or allegations that voluntary or forced returnees have faced difficulties and/or been mistreated on return to Kinshasa? If so, what were these difficulties and/or mistreatment? : None of the 11 Participating States that provided answers to the questionnaire (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) are aware of any returnees facing mistreatment upon return to the DR Congo. [2] 2.03 In relation to the question: Are you aware that returnees have been subject to bribes and if so at what cost? the IGC survey 2012 response stated: According to one state it can happen that (forced) returnees are held for a short period of time for questioning. [2] 2.04 In relation to the question: Are you aware that returnees have been detained/imprisoned, if so why and where? the IGC survey 2012 stated: According to three states, returnees may be subject to bribes or other forms of corruption, just like any other traveller between Europe and DR Congo. [2] 2.05 A letter from the British Embassy in Kinshasa to the UK Border Agency, dated 12 November 2012, described the return of three Congolese nationals from the UK to Kinshasa on 5/6 July 2012 and subsequent events: A flight chartered by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) for the return of nationals from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who did not qualify for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom left London on 5 July The flight was part of multi-country return, also stopping in Nigeria and Ghana. Flight AEY83 arrived at N djili International Airport, Kinshasa at approximately 17:00 on 6th July 2012 with 3 enforced returnees. All returnees were in possession of an Emergency Travel Document issued by DRC Immigration officials under a targeted re- 7

8 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 documentation programme Op Orbit. Prior negotiations had taken place in both London and Kinshasa between the UK and DRC governments for re-documentation, to ensure the necessary authorisations for the aircraft and the smooth arrival and processing of the returnees on arrival in Kinshasa. It had been agreed by the government of the DRC that UKBA could return up to 10 returnees on the flight. In all negotiations, we referred to those returning as returnees and gave no indication of whether they were failed asylum seekers (FAS) or foreign national offenders (FNO). On arrival the aircraft was met by officials from the DRC Immigration service, Direction, Generale de la Migration (DGM) and two officials from the British Embassy - the Locally Engaged Migrations Officer and myself. UKBA representatives, the returnees and escorts disembarked and were then escorted a short distance to the airport arrivals terminal. The returnees luggage was also brought to the arrivals terminal. A UKBA Chief Immigration Officer handed copies of the final manifest listing the names of the 3 returnees and travel and identity documents to the DGM officials. All of the returnees were escorted to the regular immigration booths, in the same was as any other passenger arriving at N djili airport. While waiting in the arrival area, the returnees had access to toilet facilities and water. One of the DGM officials allowed one of the returnees to borrow his phone to call a waiting relative. None of the returnees appeared ill or distressed in any way. Unfortunately, the Emergency Travel Documents did not have any photographic ID attached and so the immigration officials were unable to confirm the identity of the returnees. As a result, the 3 returnees were taken (with their luggage) to the fraud office within N djili airport and then to the Head quarters of National Intelligence Agency, L Agence nationale de Renseignement (ANR) in Kinshasa to check their identity. The returnees left the airport for the ANR HQ at approximately 19:00. Embassy staff had free access to the returnees from the moment they disembarked until they were taken to the fraud office at N djili airport. We were informed that they had been taken to ANR HQ for further identity checks, as they were unable to complete this within the airport. Our LE Migrations Officer then contacted the ANR HQ and was told none of the returnees would be held overnight. She contacted them again on 7 July and was informed that the identities of all the returnees had been confirmed and they had all been released the previous evening. The Embassy has not been contacted by any of the returnees or their families to report any allegations of mistreatment either on arrival at Kinshasa or in the four months since their return to the DRC. The Embassy received one allegation of mistreatment by a returnee on a previous charter, arriving in June Despite investigating this allegation, including meeting with the DGM and the ANR; contacting the main prisons in Kinshasa and liaising closely with the human rights department of a large international organisation in the DRC which regularly monitors allegations of human rights abuses, we have been unable to substantial [sic] any claims of mistreatment in this case. [6] 3. POSITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (JUNE 2012) Return to contents Go to sources 3.01 A researcher in Human Rights Watch (HRW), UK, stated in a telephone interview with COI Service on 1 June 2012, on the subject of returns: 8

9 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Returns is not an issue we have looked into. This is in part due to HRW being overwhelmed by other issues in Congo. HRW does document abuses on particular groups - for example: political groups - repression/activists/attacks on opposition members; journalists; HR defenders. Some of these abuses appear to be timely - for example there was an increase in attacks on opposition political groups in the run up to the November '11 [2011] elections. Attacks also increase around particularly important political issues. HRW is aware of some issues of concern relating to the Special Services of the police - which can be particularly abusive to opposition political members. In conclusion HRW stated that they have not had cause to look at the issue of returnees because they have been focussed on other issues. HRW recommended a number of other interlocutors who might be worth interviewing. [3] (Annex B) 4. POSITION OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (JUNE 2012) 4.01 A researcher in Amnesty International (UK) stated in an interview with COI Service on 13 June 2012, on the subject of returns: The organisation [Amnesty International] does not have an office in DRC. On the issue of possible ill-treatment of returnees (FAS) with respect to the information contained in the Justice First (JF) in their report Unsafe Return: The organisation had not been in a position to collect specific information into the issue due to a lack of resources. AI Researcher however stressed that this did not mean that there was not concern about this issue but simply that AI did not have the resources to research about this issue. Moreover, AI documented cases of ill-treatment of Congolese political opponents and human rights defenders residing in DRC by the national security forces. To investigate whether the specific category of failed asylum seekers (FAS) were subject to ill-treatment and persecution simply because their claims for asylum had failed would require additional resources. The AI researcher also highlighted that there was an increasing risk of possible ill-treatment of FAS who were associated with particular previous political activities or facts in DRC as those represent a different category due to their political profile. It was aware of allegations of ill-treatment via JF - this included allegations that returnees on the UKBA charter flight carrying returnees on 7 June 2012 were detained. They were also aware of reports in the media concerning the ill-treatment of returnees from Belgium in March The organisation documented the November '11 election noting an increase in human rights violations - not only to high level members of opposition parties. It is aware that two women who were not members of opposition groups are still in hiding in Kinshasa following an incident at an opposition rally. 9

10 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 The two women had been part of the rally, but had no other peripheral opposition background. They lost their bags at the rally and went into hiding but their families were then threatened by the PNC [the police], this happened on several occasions over several months. Plain clothed police have patrolled the place where the women live. The organisation commented that people who had been involved with opposition groups in the 2006 election could still be targeted now. There is some evidence that FAS may be perceived to favour the opposition because they claimed asylum and because the diaspora abroad is very strongly against the current regime. Because the organisation has not documented the detention of FAS it does not mean that detention has not taken place and that there is no concern about their treatment. It is aware through a Lubumbashi NGO of FAS returned from South Africa who were detained in Lubumbashi prison last year whilst administrative matters could be looked into. The organisation advised following up a statement by the new DRC Minister of Transport announcing (although such statement has been made in the past with no consequences) that all unnecessary security forces, such as the ANR, the Republican Guard and other intelligence services should leave the airport. Only the DGM and the PNC should remain. The mandate of the Republican Guard is by law to protect the President (secure presidential buildings and attend to other related security matters) so unless the President is actually taking a flight should not be present at the airport. AI said that the more security services are present at the airport, the more risk there is of abuse happening. Sometimes the security services act without the authority of the Ministry taking matters into their own hands. There has been very little progress in the investigations into the human rights violations carried out during the electoral period. Not all offences have been investigated despite the official opening of judicial inquiries in December 2011 and January The organisation documented the case of the Secretary General of the UDPS [Union for Democracy and Social Progress]: In February 2012 he was interrogated (when asked if that meant interviewed, AI said that the incident was more than just an interview) at the aiport where he was about to take a flight to Europe. He had all his papers, passport, laptop and mobile confiscated and was then handed over to the ANR. He has since filed an official complaint against the ANR for torture. He had been accused of an offence in retaliation which means he was unable to retrieve his papers, passport etc for fear of being detained. The torture included having water poured over his t shirt which was over his face to make him feel as though he were drowning. The Congolese abroad are perceived as having money whether they are FAS or not. The Provincial February-March 2013 elections are likely to give rise to more human rights violations. The organisation also noted that there are no armed groups active in Kinshasa, but there is a high level of urban crime. The PNC and other security services such as the Republican Guard and the ANR in Kinshasa. Members of the ANR are known to sometimes wear PNC uniforms. [4] (Annex C) 10

11 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 5. UNITED NATIONS SUPPORT TO RETURNS TO THE DRC Officials should note that the UNHCR supports the repatriation of refugees to the DRC predominantly from neighbouring African countries, not western Europe The 2013 UNHCR country operations profile - Democratic Republic of the Congo, undated, accessed on 1 February 2013, provided the following information in its Statistical snaphot : [Number of persons] Originating from Democratic Republic of the Congo [1 [residing in other countries]] Refugees [2] 491,481 Asylum Seekers [3] 52,119 Returned Refugees [4] 21,081 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPS) [5] 1,709,278 Returned IDPs [6] 822,688 Various [8] 334 Population of Concern 3,096,981 [5b] 5.02 The same source provided a definition of categories 1 to 8 referred above: 1.Country or territory of asylum or residence. In the absence of Government estimates, UNHCR has estimated the refugee population in most industrialized countries based on 10 years of asylum-seekers recognition. 2.Persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection. It also includes persons in a refugee-like situation whose status has not yet been verified. 3.Persons whose application for asylum or refugee status is pending at any stage in the procedure. 4.Refugees who have returned to their place of origin during the calendar year. Source: Country of origin and asylum. 5.Persons who are displaced within their country and to whom UNHCR extends protection and/or assistance. It also includes persons who are in an IDP-like situation. 6.IDPs protected/assisted by UNHCR who have returned to their place of origin during the calendar year. 7.Refers to persons who are not considered nationals by any country under the operation of its laws. 8.Persons of concern to UNHCR not included in the previous columns but to whom UNHCR extends protection and/or assistance The data are generally provided by 11

12 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 Governments, based on their own definitions and methods of data collection. A dash (-) indicates that the value is zero, not available or not applicable. [5b] 5.03 The UNHCR profile 2013 observed that: Since the beginning of 2012, ethnic tensions and inequitable access to land have led to renewed violence in the east and north-east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), resulting in the displacement of more than 2.2 million people inside the country. In addition, almost 70,000 people have crossed the border into neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda. At the same time, in the first half of 2012, some 15,000 refugees from the DRC returned home, mainly to Equateur Province. Their reintegration will be supported by UNHCR through community-based projects and targeted assistance to individuals to enhance their livelihoods. More than 400,000 Congolese refugees currently remain outside the DRC. [ 5.04 UN High Commissioner for Refugees noted in the article More than 25,000 refugees return home from Republic of Congo since May [2012], dated 2 October 2012: The UN refugee agency has helped more than 25,000 Congolese return to their homes in northern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from neighbouring Republic of Congo under a voluntary repatriation programme launched in May this year. The 25,000 mark was passed last Friday and the current total of those helped back by UNHCR is 25,696, or more than 6,600 families. UNHCR plans to repatriate a further 24,000 refugees, mostly from Equateur province, across the Oubangui River to the DRC by year's end, plus a futher 32,000 next year. There are currently more than 100,000 Congolese refugees still in Republic of Congo. They have been living in isolated areas along the river since fleeing inter-ethnic clashes in Equateur in A the height of the crisis, about 143,000 Congolese fled their villages for safety in neighbouring countries 123,000 in Republic of Congo and 20,000 in the Central African Republic when the clashes erupted between the Munzaya and Enyele groups over traditional fishing and farming rights. An additional 100,000 Congolese were displaced inside Equateur province but most returned home when conditions improved. A few thousand refugees also returned on their own from the Republic of Congo and from Central African Republic. UNHCR has picked up the pace of returns since July [2012], adding a second weekly convoy to take people across the river and home. This has enabled the refugee agency to take back a weekly average of 1,300 people. The returnees tell UNHCR staff that they believe the security situation has improved while parents say they want to go back to enrol their young children in primary schools. Stefano Severe, UNHCR's Kinshasa-based regional representative, hailed the 25,000 milestone. These results are very encouraging, he said, adding: It is necessary to maintain this momentum by continuing to help the refugees living in the Republic Of Congo to come back home. 12

13 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO In addition to the aid package provided to each family on arrival, UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations have initiated reintegration activities, especially in the Libenge and Kungu territories, to help ensure a sustainable return. So far, and with a limited budget, UNHCR and its partners have distributed 700 shelter kits for spontaneous returnees and have also built primary schools as well as 350 shelters and 12 wells for the most vulnerable households. Awareness campaigns aimed at ensuring peaceful co-existence between the various communities have been conducted. Equateur is one of the most remote provinces in the country, lacking basic socioeconomic structures and infrastructure. UNHCR has appealed for development actors to help strengthen the reintegration activities. [5a] Return to contents Go to sources 13

14 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 Annex A: Intergovernmental Consultations, Migrations, Asylum and Refugees survey: Rejected Asylum Seekers Returned to Democratic Republic of Congo Request from the United Kingdom Request for Information Rejected Asylum Seekers Returned to Democratic Republic of Congo Request from the United Kingdom April 2012 Request Date of request: 4 April 2012 Deadline for answers: 20 April 2012 Focal point: (Mr/Ms, name, job title, institution, and ) [redacted] 14

15 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Background information Questions A UK based NGO, Justice First (JF) has published a report called Unsafe Return which documents the ill-treatment of 15 rejected asylum seekers (JF were aware of 17 who were returned, but were only able to gather information concerning 15 of that number) who returned to DRC between 2006 and Of those 17, three returned voluntarily, and 14 were forcibly returned. The UK would like to receive information from Participating States regarding the return of failed asylum seekers (and others) to the DRC, and their awareness of any difficulties and/or allegations of ill-treatment faced by returnees. The information obtained will be used as part of a country of origin information project to investigate what happens to returnees that the UK is working on, the results of which it will make available to Participating States. 1) Do you enforce returns of rejected (failed) asylum seekers (FAS) to Kinshasa (N djili Airport), DRC? If you enforce returns of FAS to Kinshasa, how many were returned in 2009, 2010, 2011 and in 2012 to date? 2) Are you aware of any reports or allegations that voluntary or forced returnees have faced difficulties and/or been mistreated on return to Kinshasa? If so, what were these difficulties and/or mistreatment? 3) Are you aware that returnees have been subject to bribes and if so at what cost? 4) Are you aware that returnees have been detained/imprisoned, if so why and where? Answers to question 1 Of the 11 Participating States that provided answers (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom), 9 have forcedly returned nationals from DRC in the period In 2009: at least 214 forced returns (both failed asylum seekers and irregular migrants) to DR Congo took place. The actual number is probably higher as 1 country only provides number of Former Asylum Seekers (FAS), another country only provided the number of non-fas (other categories of irregular migrants); one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. In 2010: 2 out of the 9 countries previously mentioned did not forcibly return to DR Congo in number of forced returns by the 7 remaining countries: at least 95. The actual number is probably higher as one country only provides number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas; one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. In 2011: all 9 countries previously mentioned returned. of forced returns: at least 83. The actual number is probably higher as one country only provides the number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas; one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. 15

16 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 In 2012 (until early May): at least 4 countries forcedly returned a number of at least 32 nationals of DRC. The actual number is probably higher as for one country information is not yet available, one country only provides the number of FAS, another country only the number of non-fas, and one country provided the value <5, which is for the purpose of this query equalled to 0. One country has updated its numbers to include the entire month of May. Answers to question 2-4 None of the 11 Participating States that provided answers to the questionnaire (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) are aware of any returnees facing mistreatment upon return to the DR Congo. According to one state it can happen that (forced) returnees are held for a short period of time for questioning. According to three states, returnees may be subject to bribes or other forms of corruption, just like any other traveller between Europe and DR Congo. Return to contents 16

17 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Annex B: Note of meeting with Human Rights Watch (UK), 1 June 2012 Note of telephone interview by COI Service with a researcher from Human Rights Watch (HRW), 1st June 2012.The notes of the interview were approved with the HRW researcher before publication. When asked about the issue of returnees and particularly about allegations of illtreatment as highlighted in the Justice First report HRW stated: Returns is not an issue we have looked into. This is in part due to HRW being overwhelmed by other issues in Congo. HRW does document abuses on particular groups - for example: political groups - repression/activists/attacks on opposition members; journalists; HR defenders. Some of these abuses appear to be timely - for example there was an increase in attacks on opposition political groups in the run up to the November '11 elections. Attacks also increase around particularly important political issues. HRW is aware of some issues of concern relating to the Special Services of the police - which can be particularly abusive to opposition political members. In conclusion HRW stated that they have not had cause to look at the issue of returnees because they have been focussed on other issues. HRW recommended a number of other interlocutors who might be worth interviewing. Return to contents 17

18 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 Annex C: Note of meeting with Amnesty International (UK), 1 June 2012 Note of a meeting between a researcher from Amnesty International (AI) and a researcher from Country of Origin Information Service, UK Border Agency, 1st June The notes of the interview were agreed with the AI researcher before publication. When asked about the issue of returnees and particularly about allegations of ill-treatment as highlighted in the Justice First report. AI stated: The organisation does not have an office in DRC. On the issue of possible ill-treatment of returnees (FAS) with respect to the information contained in the Justice First (JF) in their report Unsafe Return: The organisation had not been in a position to collect specific information into the issue due to a lack of resources. AI Researcher however stressed that this did not mean that there was not concern about this issue but simply that AI did not have the resources to research about this issue. Moreover, AI documented cases of ill-treatment of Congolese political opponents and human rights defenders residing in DRC by the national security forces. To investigate whether the specific category of failed asylum seekers (FAS) were subject to ill-treatment and persecution simply because their claims for asylum had failed would require additional resources. The AI researcher also highlighted that there was an increasing risk of possible illtreatment of FAS who were associated with particular previous political activities or facts in DRC as those represent a different category due to their political profile. It was aware of allegations of ill-treatment via JF - this included allegations that returnees on the UKBA charter flight carrying returnees on 7 June 2012 were detained. They were also aware of reports in the media concerning the ill-treatment of returnees from Belgium in March The organisation documented the November '11 election noting an increase in human rights violations - not only to high level members of opposition parties. It is aware that two women who were not members of opposition groups are still in hiding in Kinshasa following an incident at an opposition rally. The two women had been part of the rally, but had no other peripheral opposition background. They lost their bags at the rally and went into hiding but their families were then threatened by the PNC, this happened on several occasions over several months. Plain clothed police have patrolled the place where the women live. The organisation commented that people who had been involved with opposition groups in the 2006 election could still be targeted now. There is some evidence that FAS may be perceived to favour the opposition because they claimed asylum and because the diaspora abroad is very strongly against the current regime. Because the organisation has not documented the detention of FAS it does not mean that detention has not taken place and that there is no concern about their treatment. It is aware 18

19 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO through a Lubumbashi NGO of FAS returned from South Africa who were detained in Lubumbashi prison last year whilst administrative matters could be looked into. The organisation advised following up a statement by the new DRC Minister of Transport announcing (although such statement has been made in the past with no consequences) that all unnecessary security forces, such as the ANR, the Republican Guard and other intelligence services should leave the airport. Only the DGM and the PNC should remain. The mandate of the Republican Guard is by law to protect the President (secure presidential buildings and attend to other related security matters) so unless the President is actually taking a flight should not be present at the airport. AI said that the more security services are present at the airport, the more risk there is of abuse happening. Sometimes the security services act without the authority of the Ministry taking matters into their own hands. There has been very little progress in the investigations into the human rights violations carried out during the electoral period. Not all offences have been investigated despite the official opening of judicial inquiries in December 2011 and January The organisation documented the case of the Secretary General of the UDPS: In February 2012 he was interrogated (when asked if that meant interviewed, AI said that the incident was more than just an interview) at the aiport where he was about to take a flight to Europe. He had all his papers, passport, laptop and mobile confiscated and was then handed over to the ANR. He has since filed an official complaint against the ANR for torture. He had been accused of an offence in retaliation which means he was unable to retrieve his papers, passport etc for fear of being detained. The torture included having water poured over his t shirt which was over his face to make him feel as though he were drowning. The Congolese abroad are perceived as having money whether they are FAS or not. The Provincial February-March 2013 elections are likely to give rise to more human rights violations. The organisation also noted that there are no armed groups active in Kinshasa, but there is a high level of urban crime. The PNC and other security services such as the Republican Guard and the ANR in Kinshasa. Members of the ANR are known to sometimes wear PNC uniforms. Return to contents 19

20 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 Annex D- Letter from the British Embassy, Kinshasa, dated 12 November 2012 British Embassy Kinshasa 83, Avenue Roi Baudoin Kinshasa-Gombe Celtel: (243) Facsimile: (243) (88) November 2012 Country of Origin Information Service UK Border Agency Dear Colleague, Re: UKBA Charter Flight of Returnees 5/6 July A flight chartered by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) for the return of nationals from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who did not qualify for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom left London on 5 July The flight was part of multi-country return, also stopping in Nigeria and Ghana. Flight AEY83 arrived at N djili International Airport, Kinshasa at approximately 17:00 on 6th July 2012 with 3 enforced returnees. All returnees were in possession of an Emergency Travel Document issued by DRC Immigration officials under a targeted redocumentation programme Op Orbit. Prior negotiations had taken place in both London and Kinshasa between the UK and DRC governments for re-documentation, to ensure the necessary authorisations for the aircraft and the smooth arrival and processing of the returnees on arrival in Kinshasa. It had been agreed by the government of the DRC that UKBA could return up to 10 returnees on the flight. In all negotiations, we referred to those returning as returnees and gave no indication of whether they were failed asylum seekers (FAS) or foreign national offenders (FNO). On arrival the aircraft was met by officials from the DRC Immigration service, Direction, Generale de la Migration (DGM) and two officials from the British Embassy - the Locally Engaged Migrations Officer and myself. UKBA representatives, the returnees and

21 FEBRUARY 2013 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO escorts disembarked and were then escorted a short distance to the airport arrivals terminal. The returnees luggage was also brought to the arrivals terminal. A UKBA Chief Immigration Officer handed copies of the final manifest listing the names of the 3 returnees and travel and identity documents to the DGM officials. All of the returnees were escorted to the regular immigration booths, in the same was as any other passenger arriving at N djili airport. While waiting in the arrival area, the returnees had access to toilet facilities and water. One of the DGM officials allowed one of the returnees to borrow his phone to call a waiting relative. None of the returnees appeared ill or distressed in any way. Unfortunately, the Emergency Travel Documents did not have any photographic ID attached and so the immigration officials were unable to confirm the identity of the returnees. As a result, the 3 returnees were taken (with their luggage) to the fraud office within N djili airport and then to the Head quarters of National Intelligence Agency, L Agence nationale de Renseignement (ANR) in Kinshasa to check their identity. The returnees left the airport for the ANR HQ at approximately 19:00. Embassy staff had free access to the returnees from the moment they disembarked until they were taken to the fraud office at N djili airport. We were informed that they had been taken to ANR HQ for further identity checks, as they were unable to complete this within the airport. Our LE Migrations Officer then contacted the ANR HQ and was told none of the returnees would be held overnight. She contacted them again on 7 July and was informed that the identities of all the returnees had been confirmed and they had all been released the previous evening. The Embassy has not been contacted by any of the returnees or their families to report any allegations of mistreatment either on arrival at Kinshasa or in the four months since their return to the DRC. The Embassy received one allegation of mistreatment by a returnee on a previous charter, arriving in June Despite investigating this allegation, including meeting with the DGM and the ANR; contacting the main prisons in Kinshasa and liaising closely with the human rights department of a large international organisation in the DRC which regularly monitors allegations of human rights abuses, we have been unable to substantial any claims of mistreatment in this case. [Name redacted] Consul British Embassy Kinshasa Return to contents 21

22 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO FEBRUARY 2013 Annex E: list of sources 1 UK Border Agency a Immigration Statistics July to September 2012 Removals and voluntary departures data tables Immigration Statistics July - September 2012, Volume 3, tables rv.06 and rv.06.q, 29 November 2012 Removals and voluntary departures data tables Immigration Statistics July - September 2012 Volume 3 (Microsoft Excel file - 4mb - Warning: large file) Date accessed 1 February Inter Governmental Consultations on migration, asylum and refugees, a Rejected Asylum Seekers Returned to Democratic Republic of Congo, Request from the United Kingdom, Annex A b IGC website home page, Date accessed 12 October Human Rights Watch (HRW) Note of telephone interview, 2 June 2012, Annex B 4 Amnesty International (AI) Note of meeting, 13 June 2012, Annex C 5 United Nations (UN) Commissioner for Refugees a More than 25,000 refugees return home from Republic of Congo since May, 2 October uery=democraticrepubliccongo&querysi=return&searchin=title&display=1 0&sort=relevance Date accessed 16 October 2012 b 2013 UNHCR country operations profile - Democratic Republic of the Congo, undated Date accessed 1 February The British Embassy, Kinshasa Letter to the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA), dated 12 November 2012, Annex E Return to contents 22