The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants

Transcription

1 1 June 2011 The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Report 1 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Mr Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA, Spain, Socialist Group Summary As Europe struggles to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows by boat from Africa, arriving mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus, the surveillance of Europe s southern borders has become a regional priority. The passengers are often travelling in unseaworthy vessels, at the mercy of unscrupulous traffickers, and there have been many fatal incidents. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population once again expresses its deep concern at some of the measures taken to deal with these desperate people. Sometimes they are pushed back to their country of origin, which calls into question the well-established principle of non-refoulement, and there seem to be different ideas about what constitutes the place of safety where those who are rescued must be taken. Even joint operations run by the European Union s border agency Frontex do not have all the adequate guarantees that human rights will be fully respected. Finally, countries on the southern borders of the European Union are having to face a disproportionate burden in dealing with these flows, which is unfair. States have a clear moral and legal obligation to save persons in distress, but beyond this they should rigorously apply international law in dealing with these migratory flows. That means treating those intercepted humanely, giving them a fair chance to seek international protection when it is needed, and keeping detention to a minimum. Frontex staff need proper training in all these matters and the international community needs to spell out with greater consistency exactly how maritime law should be applied. 1 Reference to committee: Doc and Doc , Reference 3569 of 29 May F Strasbourg Cedex assembly@coe.int Tel: Fax:

2 A. Draft resolution 2 1. The surveillance of Europe's southern borders has become a regional priority. The European continent is having to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of migratory flows by boat from Africa, reaching Europe mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus. 2. Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other persons risk their lives to reach Europe's southern borders, mostly in unseaworthy vessels. These journeys, always undertaken illicitly, mostly on board flagless vessels, putting them at risk of falling into the hands of migrant smuggling and trafficking rings, reflect the desperation of the passengers, who have no legal and above all no safer means of reaching Europe. 3. Although the number of arrivals by sea has fallen drastically in recent years, resulting in a shift of migratory routes (particularly towards the land border between Turkey and Greece), the Parliamentary Assembly, recalling, inter alia, its Resolution 1637 (2008) "Europe's boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe", once again expresses its deep concern over the measures taken to deal with the arrival by sea of these mixed migratory flows. Many people in distress at sea have been rescued and many attempting to reach Europe have been pushed back, but the list of fatal incidents as predictable as they are tragic is a long one and it is currently getting longer on an almost daily basis. 4. Furthermore, recent arrivals in Italy and Malta following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must always be ready to face the possible large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on its southern shores. 5. The Assembly notes that measures to manage these maritime arrivals raise numerous problems, of which five are particularly worrying: 5.1. Despite several relevant international instruments satisfactorily setting out the rights and obligations of states and individuals applicable in this area, interpretations of their content appear to differ. Some states do not agree on the nature and extent of their responsibilities in specific situations and some states also call into question the application of the principle of non-refoulement on the high seas; 5.2. While the absolute priority in the event of interception at sea is the swift disembarkation of those rescued to a "place of safety", the notion of "place of safety" does not appear to be interpreted in the same way by all member states. Yet it is clear that the notion of "place of safety" should not be restricted solely to the physical protection of people, but necessarily also entails respect for their fundamental rights; 5.3. Divergences of this kind directly endanger the lives of the persons to be rescued, in particular by delaying or preventing rescue measures, and are likely to dissuade seafarers from rescuing people in distress at sea. Furthermore, they could result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement in respect of a number of persons, including some in need of international protection; 5.4. Although the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) plays an ever increasing role in interception at sea, the guarantees of respect for human rights and obligations arising under international and European Union law in the context of the joint operations it co-ordinates are inadequate; 5.5. Finally, these sea arrivals place a disproportionate burden on the states located on the southern borders of the European Union. The goal of responsibilities being shared more fairly and greater solidarity in the migration sphere between European states is far from being attained. 6. The situation is rendered more complex by the fact that these migratory flows are of a mixed nature and therefore call for specialised and tailored protection-sensitive responses in keeping with the status of those rescued. To respond to sea arrivals adequately and in line with the relevant international standards, the states must take account of this aspect in their migration management policies and activities. 7. The Assembly reminds the member states of their obligations under international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and 2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June

3 the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, and particularly of the principle of nonrefoulement and the right to seek asylum. The Assembly also reiterates the obligations of the States Parties to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue. 8. Finally and above all, the Assembly reminds the member states that they have both a moral and legal obligation to save persons in distress at sea without the slightest delay, and unequivocally reiterates the interpretation given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which states that the principle of non-refoulement is equally applicable on the high seas. The high seas are not an area where states are exempt from their legal obligations, including those emerging from international human rights law and international refugee law. 9. Accordingly, the Assembly calls on the member states, when conducting maritime border surveillance operations, whether in the context of preventing smuggling and trafficking in human beings or in connection with border management, be it in the exercise of de jure or de facto jurisdiction, to: 9.1. fulfill without exception and without delay their obligation to save people in distress at sea; 9.2. ensure that their border management policies and activities, including interception measures, recognise the mixed make-up of flows of individuals attempting to cross maritime borders; 9.3. guarantee for all intercepted persons humane treatment and systematic respect for their human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement, regardless of whether interception measures are implemented within their own territorial waters, those of another state on the basis of an ad hoc bilateral agreement, or on the high seas; 9.4. refrain from any practices that might be tantamount to direct or indirect refoulement, including on the high seas, in keeping with the UNHCR's interpretation of the extraterritorial application of that principle and with the relevant judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; 9.5. carry out as a priority action the swift disembarkation of rescued persons to a "place of safety" and interpret a "place of safety" as meaning a place which can meet the immediate needs of those disembarked and in no way jeopardises their fundamental rights, since the notion of "safety" extends beyond mere protection from physical danger and must also take into account the fundamental rights dimension of the proposed place of disembarkation; 9.6. guarantee access to a fair and effective asylum procedure for those intercepted who are in need of international protection; 9.7. guarantee access to protection and assistance, including to asylum procedures, for those intercepted who are victims of human trafficking or at risk of being trafficked; 9.8. ensure that the placement in a detention facility of those intercepted always excluding minors and vulnerable categories, regardless of their status, is authorised by the judicial authorities and occurs only where necessary and on grounds prescribed by law, that there is no other suitable alternative and that such placement conforms to the minimum standards and principles set forth in Assembly Resolution 1707 (2010) on the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe; 9.9. suspend any bilateral agreements they may have concluded with third states if the human rights of those intercepted are not appropriately guaranteed therein, particularly the right of access to an asylum procedure, and wherever these might be tantamount to a violation of the principle of nonrefoulement, and conclude new bilateral agreements specifically containing such human rights guarantees and measures for their regular and effective monitoring; sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the aforementioned relevant international instruments and take account of the Guidelines of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea; sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197) and the so-called "Palermo Protocols" to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000); 3

4 9.12. ensure that maritime border surveillance operations and border control measures do not affect the specific protection afforded under international law to vulnerable categories such as refugees, stateless persons, women and unaccompanied children, migrants, victims of trafficking or at risk of being trafficked, or victims of torture and trauma. 10. The Assembly is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the respective responsibilities of European Union states and Frontex and the absence of adequate guarantees for the respect of fundamental rights and international standards in the framework of joint operations co-ordinated by that agency. While the Assembly welcomes the proposals presented by the European Commission to amend the rules governing that agency, with a view to strengthening guarantees of full respect for fundamental rights, it considers them inadequate and would like the European Parliament to be entrusted with the democratic supervision of the agency's activities, particularly where respect for fundamental rights is concerned. 11. The Assembly also considers it essential that efforts be made to remedy the prime causes prompting desperate individuals to risk their lives by boarding boats bound for Europe. The Assembly calls on all the member states to step up their efforts to promote peace, the rule of law and prosperity in the countries of origin of potential immigrants and asylum seekers. 12. Finally, in view of the serious challenges posed to coastal states by the irregular arrival by sea of mixed flows of individuals, the Assembly calls on the international community, particularly the IMO, the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Council of Europe and the European Union (including Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office) to: provide any assistance required to those states in a spirit of solidarity and sharing of responsibilities; under the auspices of the IMO, make concerted efforts to ensure a consistent and harmonised approach to international maritime law through, inter alia, agreement on the definition and content of the key terms and norms; establish an inter-agency group with the aim of studying and resolving the main problems in the area of maritime interception, including the five problems identified in the present resolution, setting clear policy priorities, providing guidance to states and other relevant actors and monitoring and evaluating the use of maritime interception measures. The group should be made up of members of the IMO, the UNHCR, the IOM, the Council of Europe, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office. 4

5 B. Draft recommendation 3 1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution (2011) on the interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants. 2. The Assembly notes that, on its southern borders, Europe has to cope with a relatively large number of arrivals by boat of mixed migratory flows. Recent arrivals following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must be ready to face such arrivals on a relatively large scale. It is therefore a matter of urgency that the five main problems noted by the Assembly in its aforementioned resolution with respect to the existing measures to manage these maritime arrivals are speedily resolved. 3. The Assembly welcomes the Council of Europe Secretary General s initiative to call an extraordinary meeting of the Committee of Ministers to examine possible Council of Europe action in case of the massive arrival of asylum seekers and migrants from the southern Mediterranean. It further welcomes the support given by the Committee of Ministers to the Secretary General s proposals on the elaboration of emergency action plans, as well as regarding the training of officials dealing with asylum requests. 4. While widely supporting these decisions, the Assembly reminds the Committee of Ministers of its dual responsibility: to support those member states that are in need, but also to make sure that all human rights obligations are complied with in the context of the interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants, including by guaranteeing to those intercepted access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure. 5. The Assembly therefore calls on the Committee of Ministers to: 5.1. include in the training material all necessary elements to enable the trained persons to proceed to a screening assessment of the international protection needs of intercepted persons and to ensure that staff involved in the operations of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) are trained accordingly; 5.2. define, in close co-operation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), guidelines and standard operating procedures, when interception and rescue at sea takes place, determining minimum administrative procedures to guarantee that those persons with international protection needs are identified and provided with the appropriate protection; 5.3. continue monitoring the situation of large-scale arrivals of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, and in particular the issue of interception and rescue at sea, including by holding extraordinary meetings on the situation, where appropriate, and use the good offices of the UNHCR with its representative at the Council of Europe, where relevant. 3 Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June

6 C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Díaz Tejera, rapporteur Contents Page 1. Introduction General overview Mixed migration from Africa to Europe A working definition of "interception" Analysis UNCLOS and jurisdictional issues Disembarkation at a "place of safety" Establishing disembarkation responsibility Combating trafficking and smuggling The European Union Frontex Recommendations Introduction 4 1. The surveillance of Europe's southern borders has become a regional priority, as the southern European states feel overwhelmed by the arrival of large numbers of persons reaching their shores by sea in an irregular manner. Conducted individually, by a group of states or within the context of a joint operation coordinated by Frontex, 5 border management activities are generally legitimately based on considerations prioritising national or regional security and stability, and also on attempts to reduce the loss of lives at sea. The maritime interception of vessels and persons is one of the measures resorted to by states to achieve these aims. Yet several aspects of maritime interception measures raise a series of human rights concerns, centred around the individual circumstances of the intercepted persons. In order to present these human rights concerns and propose measures for their resolution, an analysis of the relevant norms of international maritime law and international human rights is required. 2. This report's 6 combined approach towards the two legal spheres is premised on a number of concrete queries, a process that facilitates an otherwise complex legal analysis. At a preliminary stage, a jurisdictional query is necessary, and the report needs to establish the extent to which, if at all, states are bound by their international human rights obligations when implementing interception measures at sea, particularly when such measures occur on the high seas. Having established this primary parameter, the degree of state responsibility for possible human rights violations as a consequence of maritime interception needs to be determined, either specifically or in relation to generic situational contexts. 3. It ought to be emphasised at the outset that it is not this report's intention or mandate to target and criticise specific countries for their past and/or present activities. Nonetheless, reference must inevitably be made to a number of maritime incidents and state policies insofar as they are the very core of the report's subject matter. The specific incidents and policies referred to are the situations off the West-African coast and in the central Mediterranean. 4 The rapporteur would like to thank Mr Neil Falzon, Human Rights Advocate and Academic, who acted as a consultant in the drafting process of the report. It should be noted that this report was prepared and drafted prior to the turmoils in North Africa, notably in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The report has been updated to reflect the new situation. 5 The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 December The preparation of the report also involved a conference organised by the Portuguese Parliament and the Service of Foreigners and Borders (SEF) of the Ministry of the Interior and the Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) of the Council of Europe, with the participation of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Lisbon on 31 May and 1 June 2010, on "Human rights and migration: Realising a human rights based approach to the protection of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers". An exchange of views was also organised by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in Strasbourg on 7 October 2010, on "Interception and Rescue at Sea of Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Irregular Migrants". Views expressed and information provided during these two activities have been incorporated into this report. 6

7 2. General overview 4. This introductory section seeks to provide a short overview of the migratory patterns affecting Europe's southern borders and involving a number of African states. Following this overview, a definition of the notion of "interception" is provided. This introductory description is by no means a detailed account of the migration and asylum scenarios played out in the Mediterranean and off Africa's west coast, yet has the purpose of laying out the scenarios' main features and modalities Mixed migration from Africa to Europe 5. In recent years the Mediterranean Sea has seen increasing numbers of persons leaving north African shores and travelling by sea in an attempt to reach Europe. Persons from various countries of origin board rickety vessels that are generally unfit for the dangerous journey, since they are usually unequipped to deal with the challenges presented by severe climatic conditions, over-crowdedness and the physical and mental state of the passengers. 6. For persons departing from North Africa, generally Libya but also Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, Italy is the primary destination. Malta, being mid-way between North Africa and Italy, is in most cases not the intended destination. A similar scenario is that seen off the West African coast, where boats departing from Senegal and Mauritania target the Canary Islands as the access point to European territory The journeys voyages are in all cases undertaken through irregular means. A vast majority of boats used in these situations are flagless, raising jurisdictional issues. This recourse to irregular means of travelling is primarily due to the fact that for most persons leaving Africa in this manner, regular and more importantly safer options are in fact not available. For many persons, especially refugees and persons in need of alternative forms of international protection, obtaining authentic and official personal documentation may be impossible due to governmental unwillingness to issue necessary documents, personal exposure and risks consequential to attempts at obtaining them or the sheer inexistence of the appropriate state entities. These limitations are further exacerbated by the stringent conditions imposed to be granted access to the European Union. 8. For these reasons, the only way for such persons to travel by sea across the Mediterranean or across the Atlantic stretch between West Africa and the Canary Islands, is to seek the assistance of smuggling networks or in some cases to fall prey to human traffickers. 9 Together with the high risks associated with such perilous journeys, the resort to irregular means to access European territory triggers a number of state responses based on the premises of combating the crimes of smuggling and trafficking, maintaining maritime safety and security and border management and protection. 9. Yet despite the apparent novelty of these situations and their widespread media coverage once again put in the spotlight following the ongoing events in the southern Mediterranean and the large scale of arrivals on the island of Lampedusa (Italy) it ought to be mentioned that the phenomenon of "boat people" is certainly not a new one, and not one that is particular or exclusive to Europe See Assembly Resolution 1637 (2008) and Recommendation 1850 (2008) "Europe's boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe". 8 According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the arrivals by sea from Africa are approximately as follows: Italy in 2006, in 2007, in 2008, in 2009 and 390 in 2010; Malta in 2006, in 2007, in 2008, in 2009 and 28 in The arrivals by sea from West Africa to Spain are approximately as follows: in 2006; in 2007; in 2008; in 2009 and in See 9 The distinction between human smuggling and human trafficking is an important one, especially in this context. "Smuggling" means the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person..., whereas "trafficking" means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the treat of use of force or other forms of coercion... for the purpose of exploitation. See United Nations General Assembly Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Smuggling Protocol), 15 November 2000, and Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Trafficking Protocol), 15 November The two Protocols are generally referred to as the "Palermo Protocols". 10 See for example: Mathew P., Refugee Protection in the Wake of the Tampa, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No.3 (July 2002), pp ; Hathaway J. C., Labelling the Boat People : The Failure of the Human Rights Mandate of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (November 1993), pp ; Stepick A., Haitian Boat People: A Study in the Conflicting Forces Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 45, No. 2, U.S. Immigration Policy (Spring, 1982), pp ; Willheim E., MV Tampa: The Australian Response, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2003, pp

8 10. Such boat arrivals are generally associated with a sudden influx of persons that places large burdens on the search and rescue capacities, reception modalities and asylum systems of the receiving state, also within the European context. Following a series of appeals for European solidarity by the southern European states, in January 2009 Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta detailed their concerns in a paper presented to the European Union institutions, in which they specified that the influx of illegal immigrants is clearly a cause for concern, as it results in considerable strain on these countries' admission resources and asylum systems. 11 The paper made a clear appeal to the European Union to assist the four states in coping with the challenges of being the region's southern border. The assistance requested by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta included, inter alia, the conclusion of European Union Readmission Agreements with African and Middle- Eastern countries of origin and transit, the strengthening of Frontex and the establishment of an intra- European Union relocation scheme for persons recognised as being in need of international protection. 11. Another common feature of boat arrivals is the mixed composition of the persons aboard the vessels, their migratory movements being characterised as mixed migratory flows including asylum seekers, refugees and persons eligible for subsidiary or complementary protection, economic migrants, victims of trafficking or persons at risk of being trafficked and others. The coming together of all these persons is what defines these migratory flows as mixed, and ought to be the basis of any comprehensive and protection-sensitive border management strategy developed and implemented by the states involved at the departure, transit and arrival stages. 12. In the specific context of the Mediterranean arrivals, statistics indicate a large presence of persons potentially eligible for international protection, linked primarily to the fact that the countries of origin of a substantial percentage of persons are refugee-producing countries or countries currently involved in armed conflict as well as source countries for human trafficking and smuggling. Official figures reveal that of the persons arriving in Malta by boat in 2009, persons applied for asylum (89% of arrivals). Of these, 852 persons were recognised as being in need of international protection, 13 notably 65% of all asylum seekers for that year and 58% of all arrivals by boat. In 2008, 14 approximately persons arrived in Italy by sea and 75% of these applied for asylum. Additionally, around 70% of all asylum applications received by Italy were presented by persons arriving by boat. Considering that, as in previous years, international protection needs were recognised in around half of all asylum cases processed in Italy, 15 it may be said that over 20% of all persons reaching Italy by boat were either refugees or persons otherwise in need of international protection Figures for the Canary Islands are somewhat different, revealing a smaller asylum component amongst the persons reaching the Island. In 2008, 356 asylum applications were presented in the Canary Islands, with the total number of arrivals being about Furthermore, a steady annual decrease in the number of arrivals is evident in relation to Spain, with the consequential reduction in the number of asylum applications received from persons leaving West Africa by boat. 18 In 2006, almost persons arrived by sea; there were only persons in In the aftermath of the still ongoing events in the southern Mediterranean, according to UNHCR between mid-january and 10 May 2011, nearly persons arrived by boat in Lampedusa, leading to massive overcrowding at the migrant reception centre. Among them, there were Tunisians (mainly 11 p The two largest population groups amongst the persons were Somalia, with 898 persons, and Eritrea with 156 persons. 13 Of these, seven persons were recognised as being refugees, whilst 845 were granted subsidiary protection. See Office of Prime Minister (Malta), Annual Reports of Government Departments 2009, July 2010: 14 Figures relative to 2009 for Italy are not given here due to the anomalous situation created by the implementation by the Italian government of the push-back policy. 15 The highest protection rates relate to Somali asylum-seekers: 352 recognised as refugees and granted subsidiary protection. 16 UNHCR, Refugee protection and international migration: a review of UNHCR s operational role in southern Italy Prepublication edition, September 2009, at p. 4: See also information from the Italian Ministry of the Interior: 17 It should be noted that of these 356 applications, 140 were presented at official border points. 18 This is primarily due to the HERA series of Frontex co-ordinated joint operations, the main aim of which is to tackle illegal migration flows coming from West Africa countries heading to Canary Islands. Taken from Frontex, HERA 2008 and NAUTILUS 2008 Statistics, News Releases, 17 February 2009, art40.html. The HERA projects are further examined below. 19 Refugee protection and international migration: a review of UNHCR s role in the Canary Islands, Spain, UNHCR, April 2009, 8

9 irregular migrants) and persons of other nationalities (mainly refugees and asylum seekers fleeing the conflicts in Libya). Malta has received asylum applications since the start of the North African uprisings. 15. Acknowledging the mixed composition of any group of persons reaching the shores of a European state is certainly the first step towards ensuring the most appropriate response to the various categories of persons. This is especially relevant in the context of the interception of boats and the actions taken thereafter A working definition of "interception" 16. As a corollary to the principle of state sovereignty, it is the legitimate interest of states to ensure their territorial integrity. It is therefore the sovereign right of all states to exercise control over their borders and to take measures deemed necessary to prevent unlawful entry into their territory. The interception of persons is one of these entry-management tools adopted by states. 17. Whilst international law does not provide a comprehensive definition of "interception", the UNHCR has sought to define the term as follows: one of the measures employed by states to: (i) prevent embarkation of persons on an international journey; (ii) prevent further onward international travel by persons who have commenced their journey; or (iii) assert control of vessels where there are reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is transporting persons contrary to international or national maritime law; where, in relation to the above, the person of persons do not have the required documentation or valid permission to enter; and that such measures also serve to protect the lives and security of the travelling public as well as persons being smuggled or transported in an irregular manner The above definition clearly includes within its scope measures and activities not related to interception at sea yet having the similar aim and effect of impeding irregular entries into the destination country. Such non-maritime measures include the extraterritorial out-posting of immigration officers and airline liaison officers at airports and other border points, and the provision of financial and technical capacity to countries of origin and transit countries. In relation to maritime interception measures, the interception of boatloads of persons leaving African shores attempting to reach European territory essentially involves a combination of the elements contained in the UNHCR definition, albeit to varying degrees depending on general and specific contextual features. 19. Many situations do in fact entail the assertion of control by a state over a vessel and many subsequently result in the prevention of the vessel's onward journey. Whilst the rescue by non-state actors of persons in distress at sea, such as by fishermen or cargo ships, does not necessarily include a state asserting or exercising control over the rescued persons, it could nonetheless result in the prevention of the rescued persons' onward journey. 3. Analysis 20. This section identifies the legal instruments applicable in the context of interception of irregular immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, with the aim of clarifying and emphasising states' legal obligations when undertaking maritime interception. It will be noted that the discussion necessarily entails an appreciation of the meeting points between international maritime law and international human rights law. Any recommendation or proposal for future action must consequently also rely on the principles enshrined in these fields. 21. The mixed flow of persons travelling by sea is not a straightforward situation. By its very nature, as a situation occurring at sea, it triggers the application of various aspects of international maritime law, such as jurisdiction, the right of innocent passage and smuggling and trafficking. International human rights and refugee law is also triggered since the interception of such persons has a definite effect on the level of enjoyment by the intercepted persons of their fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, to be free 20 Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, 2003, No. 97 (LIV), UNHCR Executive Committee, 9 June 2000, Also in UNHCR, Interception of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees: the International Framework and Recommendations for a Comprehensive Approach: 9

10 from torture, to access to an effective remedy, to seek and enjoy asylum, to be protected against refoulement to a place of persecution and ill-treatment and to be free from collective expulsions. Furthermore, this report's principal interest in interception also requires attention to be paid to relevant instruments in the Community acquis of the European Union UNCLOS and jurisdictional issues 22. From the international maritime law perspective, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 21 is the major international convention on maritime affairs insofar as it codifies states' rights and responsibilities at sea, whilst also providing for key concepts such as the territorial sea, exclusive economic zones, the right of innocent passage and the freedom of the high seas. 22 In delimiting the various stretches of water in terms of their distance from a coastal state, the UNCLOS provides details on the nature of a state's rights within these stretches, particularly by establishing the extent to which a state exercises jurisdiction over persons and vessels within these waters. These details provide the international maritime law contribution to the discussion below on the extent to which, if at all, a state's international human rights obligations, particularly the absolute prohibition of refoulement, are applicable within these waters. 23. The most straightforward concept in this regard, in Article 2 of the UNCLOS, is that a state's sovereignty extends into its territorial waters, although such waters are not technically a state's territory. This article is the basis for several subsequent UNCLOS provisions dealing with, inter alia, the manifestation by states of their sovereignty through the exercise of jurisdictional authority. Therefore, by virtue of these provisions, it is clear that a state enjoys full and extensive jurisdictional authority when acting in its own territorial waters a de jure jurisdiction. 24. The situation is somewhat different when a state acts within the territorial waters of another state, with the latter's express consent, as authorised by UNCLOS or through a bilateral treaty provision. This is in fact the scenario off the West African coast, with Spanish vessels patrolling the Senegalese and Mauritanian territorial waters. In such cases, the coastal state's authorisation effectively grants the patrolling state the right to exercise its own jurisdictional authority within the coastal state's territorial waters, conferring it with de jure jurisdiction. According to the agreement between Spain and Mauritania, for example, Spain is granted such jurisdictional authority and it is on this basis that, in the context of the Frontex joint operations conducted off the Mauritanian coast, Spanish vessels intercept flagless vessels and ensure their return to Mauritania. 23 It should be noted that Frontex s participation in joint operations in the framework of bilateral agreements with third countries is not foreseen in Frontex s founding regulation. Therefore, the regulation needs to be amended accordingly to define the role and competence of Frontex in this context In relation to the high seas, the UNCLOS establishes the principle of the freedom to navigate in Articles 89 and 90, specifying that no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its jurisdiction and reserving these waters for peaceful purposes. 25 From a jurisdictional perspective, ships sailing on the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state with the express prohibition of boarding foreign ships, save in the exceptional circumstances listed in Article 110 (right of visit). Included in this list of exceptional circumstances is the reasonable ground for suspecting that a ship is without nationality. 26 The fact that boats carrying migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from Africa to Europe in an irregular manner are generally flagless, and therefore not subject to any state's exclusive jurisdiction, authorises the ships of any state to establish and exercise its jurisdiction over these boats. This is in fact the 21 For a general overview of the Convention, see Hollis D.J. and Rosen T., United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, at 22 For the purposes of this report, some key terms ought to be defined. Article 3 states that the territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles from the baselines, whereas a state's internal waters are those waters on the landward side of the baseline ("baseline" defined in Article 5 as the low-water line along the coast ). The contiguous zone (Article 33) is that stretch of water contiguous to the territorial sea but not extending beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines, whilst the exclusive economic zone (Article 57) may stretch up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines. Finally, Article 86 provides that the high seas are those parts of the sea that essentially do not form part of the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of any state. Also, in defining "innocent passage", Article 19 includes loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the... immigration... regulations as not being included in such a definition. 23 Acuerdo entre el Reino de Espaňa y la República Islámica de Mauritania en material de inmigración, Madrid, 1 July 2003, Boletín Oficial del Estado, No. 185, 4 August 2003, See AI/ECRE, Briefing on the Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) briefing to the European Commission, p. 27, 25 Article Article 110(1)(d). 10

11 legal basis upon which European Union member states exercise their jurisdictional authority during the interception activities carried out on the high seas off the Canary Islands and in the central Mediterranean. 26. Yet for the purposes of the present analysis, an appreciation of the concept of jurisdictional authority under international maritime law does not suffice for a more comprehensive discussion on interception at sea. Whilst international maritime law clarifies the nature and extent of a state's obligations at sea, in terms of exercise of its jurisdictional powers, international human rights law provides guidance as to how far such jurisdictional powers trigger the intercepting state's international human rights responsibilities. The question is essentially whether a state is bound by its human rights obligations when conducting interception measures at sea (depending on the ratione loci of the relevant human rights treaties) The territorial application of treaty obligations is undisputed; a treaty entered into by a state binds the state in respect of its entire territory, unless of course the treaty specifies otherwise. 28 A state is therefore bound to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons within its territory. As stated above, a state exercises sovereign authority and jurisdiction within its own territorial waters, thereby also subject to its human rights obligations. Therefore interception measures conducted by a state in its own territorial waters ought to be carried out in conformity with the state's human rights obligations, requiring the state to safeguard the rights of all persons aboard the intercepted vessels and, in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, to ensure their access to its asylum procedures and not to be returned to their countries of origin, as also reiterated by UNHCR As indicated above, the de jure jurisdiction enjoyed by a state when acting within the territorial waters of another state, on the basis of the latter state's ad hoc express consent or acquiescence, leads to the same conclusion. This point was also reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bankovic case. 30 Thus, for example, Spanish activities within Mauritanian territorial waters on the basis of a bilateral agreement granting it jurisdictional authority to intercept boats of persons and return them to Mauritanian shores, trigger the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) ("the Convention") in respect of Spain Moving further away from a state's coast and territorial waters, the interception on the high seas of boats of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees and potential victims of trafficking generally involves intercepted boats that are flagless, thereby authorising the intercepting state to exercise its jurisdiction over the vessels and the persons aboard them. Such clear de jure jurisdiction should also be considered a sufficient legal basis for the triggering of the intercepting state's international human rights obligations, therefore requiring the state to act towards the intercepted persons in the same manner as it would with 27 See for example: Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil, Political Rights (ICCPR); Article 2(1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Also at the regional level: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 28 This principle is also enshrined in Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UNHCR Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 97 (LIV), see footnote 20, recommends at paragraph (a)(i) that the state within whose sovereign territory, or territorial waters, interception takes place has the primary responsibility for addressing any protection needs of intercepted persons. See also UNHCR's paper on Maritime interception operations and the processing of international protection claims: legal standards and policy considerations with respect to extraterritorial processing, November 2010, at paragraph Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 other Contracting States, Application No /99, judgment of 12 December 2001, paragraph 71, where the Court stated that a state may exercise jurisdiction when acting outside its own territory and on the territory, or within the jurisdictional authority of another state, through the consent, invitation or acquiescence of the Government of that territory, in Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2009, Oxford University Press (Second Edition), p. 805, and Klug A. and Howe T., The concept of State jurisdiction and the applicability of the non-refoulement principle to extraterritorial interception measures, in Ryan Bernard and Mitsilegas Valsamis (eds.), Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, 2010, Martinus Nijhoff. 31 Bankovic is one in a series of cases where the Court examined the Convention's extraterritorial application. The Court's general conclusions in this regard are that once a state exercises effective control and authority over persons or property, then it exercises de facto jurisdiction and, consequently, is obliged to behave in a manner that is consistent with its human rights obligations. See Cyprus v. Turkey (First and Second Applications) Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, 1975; the third inter-state case Cyprus v. Turkey, No. 8007/77, 1978; Loizidu v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), 1995; the fourth inter-state case Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No /94, 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey, Application No /99, 2005; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, Application No /99, 2004, and Issa v. Turkey, Application No /96, An evaluation of the cases, and the progressive development by the Court of the Convention's extraterritorial application may be found in Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, footnote 30 supra, pp

12 regard to persons present within its own territory. It should be noted that a state is also bound by its international human rights obligations when its exercises de facto jurisdiction Yet the latter conclusion is disputed in relation to the extraterritorial application of the principle of nonrefoulement 33 since, it is argued, the prohibition of returning a person to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened applies to persons already within a state's territory and not to persons trying to enter such territory. On the basis of this argumentation, the practice of diverting boats of persons, including asylum seekers and refugees, from the high seas to territories where their lives would be at risk would not constitute a practice prohibited under international refugee and human rights law. 34 Yet the extraterritoriality of the non-refoulement principle is firmly supported by UNHCR, as clearly stated in the Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol In the advisory opinion, UNHCR reiterates established principles and interpretations of states' obligations with regard to non-refoulement and considers these obligations from a geographical perspective. It concludes that:...the purpose, intent and meaning of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention are unambiguous and establish an obligation not to return a refugee or asylum-seeker to a country where he or she would be at risk of persecution or other serious harm, which applies wherever a State exercises jurisdiction, including at the frontier, on the high seas or on the territory of another State UNHCR's approach also considers the protection vacuum that would be created if states were authorised to return refugees and asylum seekers to a country were they are at risk simply on the basis of the consideration that they are acting outside their territory, an approach deemed to be inconsistent with the humanitarian object and purpose of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. 37 The opinion draws extensively on cases and statements of international and regional human rights bodies in order to underline an interpretation of the prohibition of refoulement that extends to state actions beyond their territory and on the high seas Furthermore, as will be discussed below, international maritime law relating to the prevention of smuggling and trafficking and European Union legislation also make specific reference to the obligation of states to respect the principle of non-refoulement, including during activities on the high seas. 34. The application of international human rights norms on the high seas, including the principle of nonrefoulement, requires states to exercise their jurisdictional authority over the intercepted vessels and persons in a manner that is consistent with such norms. It ought to emphasised that this requirement is not only limited to the prohibition of direct or indirect refoulement, but also to the broader spectrum of rights. Was excessive force resorted to by the states' naval officers during the interception measures? May the return to 32 See UNHCR amicus curiae in Hirsi at: paragraph The prohibition is enshrined in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 7 ICCPR and Article 3(1) CAT. At the regional level it may be found in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2(3) of the Organisation for African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969, and in Article 22(8) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. For an extensive analysis of the principle under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the ICCPR, the European Convention on Human Rights and CAR, see Wouters K., International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement, 2009, Intersentia. 34 This is the viewpoint adopted by the United State Supreme Court in Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, et al., Petitioners v Haitian Centres Council, Inc., et al, 21 June 1993, 509 US 155, and subsequently followed in a number of cases in Australia and in Britain. Also, in 2005 the German Federal Ministry of the Interior stated that state practice and predominant legal opinion are that the principle of non-refoulement in the Geneva Refugee Convention does not apply on the high seas to persons alleging persecution, since the high seas are extraterritorial, referred to in Fisher-Lescano A., Lohr T. and TohidipurT., Border Controls at Sea: Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law, International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp , at p January 2007, at 36 Paragraph Paragraph 29. A similar argument, yet with reference to the broader extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights, was made by the Court in the fourth inter-state case involving Cyprus and Turkey, where the Court stated that a conclusion not recognising such an extraterritorial application of human rights norms would result in a regrettable vacuum in the system of human rights protection in the territory in question by removing from individuals there the benefit of the Convention's fundamental safeguards and their right to call a High Contracting Party to account for violation of their rights in proceedings before the Court, at paragraph Reference is made to various Executive Committee Conclusions, the Court cases referred to above, the Human Rights Committee, the International Court of Justice and the Committee against Torture. 12