Asylum Seekers from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia – particularly victims of sexual abuse and other forms of torture

March 2006

NOAS

NOAS is a private human rights organisation representing the interests of asylum seekers in Norway. Initial precaution: It is our specific task to see cases from the perspective of the asylum seekers. It is also important to note that we are experts on the negative decisions – the positive decisions we do not see as often. Yet, through the many negative decisions we review (and also the positive decisions we sometimes contribute to) we have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of current decision practice for different groups of asylum seekers.

Ethiopia

Brief background

Ethiopia is Africa’s third largest country according to population. There are approximately 80 different ethnic groups:

– Oromos (40-50 percent).

– Amharas (25 percent).

– Tigrayans (5-7 percent).

– Ethnic Eritreans.

– Ethnic Somalis.

The country is controlled by the former guerrilla group the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which overthrew Mengistu Haile Mariams Marxist dictatorship in 1991. TPLF’s government has since developed into totalitarianism. The persecution of the Oromos has been particularly harsh over the last years, and after parliamentary elections in May 2005 also the legal opposition movement has been heavily persecuted. There have been mass arrests, and a great number of politicians, editors and human rights activists have been put on trial. Before the last deterioration, the estimates of the number of political prisoners ranged from 13 000, to 40 000 only in the region of Oromiya.

Initially, it must be pointed out that many Ethiopians receive protection in Norway. There are, however, also a great number of decisions we view as highly problematic.

Victims of Torture – Past Persecution

In Norwegian practice, to our knowledge past persecution is not seen as a basis for asylum. According to the UDI, there were some Bosnians who were granted asylum on this basis. This, however, is the only instance we are aware of. Persons who have suffered severe forms of persecution in the past may be granted a residence permit on humanitarian basis, but usually this would only be in cases where the asylum seeker has (very) serious psychological problems due to the past persecution. The principle that someone who has suffered very serious forms of persecution should not be forced to return to the place of persecution, is generally not accepted.

Case example 1:

Ethiopian woman of Eritrean ethnicity, subjected to serious abuse in connection with the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea 1998-2000, where approximately 75 000 people were deported to Eritrea (a place many of them had never been) under often horrible circumstances. Her father had been arrested and killed due to suspicions of support for Eritrea. She was arrested four times and repeatedly raped by the prison warden and prison guards. She became pregnant due to one of the rapes. Later, when both she and her one year old infant were again imprisoned, as she tried to avoid a blow the infant was hit and fell to the floor; the child has had problems with the hearing since then.

The UDI raised concerns in regard to her credibility, e.g. that it was unlikely that her torturers would send her to a hospital. This imposes a very schematic standard of rationality on the torturers. It is enough to point out that also in German concentration camps there were health facilities. Also, there are rational reasons why they would want her to live; this was obviously a prerequisite were they to be able to continue the questioning and the abuse.

Utlendingsnemnda pointed out that she had not reported the abuse to the police. They also pointed out that they believe the warden and prison guards acted outside of their official mandate. The fact that the abuse took place in connection with a state initiated campaign of massive human rights abuses against ethnic Eritreans was not reflected in this assessment. Utlendingsnemnda also referred her to seek assistance from the Ethiopian Women Lawyers’ Association (EWLA), which runs a shelter (see comments below).

Victims of Torture – The Emphasis Placed on Past Torture in the Assessment of Future Risk

I have read seven cases where a man has suffered torture or violence directed at the genitals and has been rejected. It is important to note that the regime that perpetrated these acts is still in power – this is not Kosovo, where the Serbs are no longer in power.

Although clearly many victims of torture are granted protection in Norway, victims of torture can not always expect an assessment of their claims which satisfies basic legal standards. Particularly in Ethiopian cases, it is common that the past torture simply is not mentioned when considering future risk. Also, it is common that torture scars are not medically documented. While in Denmark the authorities might send the asylum seeker for a torture examination, in Norway this is entirely up to the asylum seeker and the lawyer. Clearly, the current practice is not always as should be expected for such serious cases.

Case example 2:

An Oromo man, wrongly suspected of being connected to the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). He was arrested twice, first for two months, then for a month and a half. He was subjected to severe torture: He was suspended naked, beaten with electric wires and burned with glowing barbed wires. The wounds, including on his genitals, are documented through a medical statement. He literally escaped out the back door when the police discovered weapons in the establishment of which he was the proprietor.[1] Utlendingsnemnda states that they do not believe there is a sufficient risk of persecution upon his return. The specific circumstances of his escape are not reflected in the justification. Also, as all other cases mentioned in this brief, Utlendingsnemnda rejected the case in a simplified procedure (a chairperson alone, rather than a board meeting).

Case example 3:

A young Oromo man, active in the OLF, arrested when he was 18, kept in prison for 16 months, part of the time alone in a dark basement cell, and regularly subjected to severe torture. When the torturers believed he might die, his father was summoned to retrieve his son, in order to take care of the burial. As senior researcher Siegfried Pausewang at Christian Mihcelsen’s Institute said, they released him so that the parents would see him die, as an example for the village – this is how OLF followers are treated.

Utlendingsnemnda stated that people actually suspected of OLF involvement are not released from prison after such short periods of time. That 16 months in prison (part of the time alone in a dark basement cell) is a short period of time, is in and of itself a peculiar view. Given the fact that he had been tortured almost to death, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not only is the torture not reflected in the justification; it even seems to have had no bearing on the assessment of the “short” imprisonment. This case has been re-opened following further appeals.[2]

Specifically about Victims of Sexual Abuse

In many decisions for Ethiopian women, sexual abuse at the hands of state representatives in prisons and police stations or during house searches is referred to as “arbitrary” or “common acts of crime”. Utlendingsnemnda has indicated that they will revisit this terminology. Although this is positive, the problem is clearly the assessment, not just the terminology. A senior researcher at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the University of Oslo, Kjetil Tronvoll, gave a public comment to the current practice, saying that he thinks ”it is very strange that the UDI can extract rapes from the political context when they take place while the victims is detained and tortured by state security forces”.[3]

Case example 4:

A young Oromo woman, connected to the OLF though her family, also active herself, subjected to sexual abuse both during a house search and when imprisoned after a demonstration. Utlendingsnemnda dismissed the abuse as “arbitrary acts of crime” and referred her to the state authorities for protection.

Utlendingsnemnda also referred her to seek assistance from the Ethiopian Women Lawyers’ Association (EWLA), which runs a shelter. In fact, in a country of 70 million people they run one shelter. In Norway, with a population of 4,5 million, there are more than 30. The shelter is also intended for girls who flee forced marriage. It is hardly a safe place for persons fleeing the authorities.

Utlendingsnemnda’s decision reflects the strictest standard possible for the consideration of what constitutes effective state protection, where the mere existence of a state apparatus – and one women’s shelter – is deemed sufficient, although it would be almost unthinkable that she would receive assistance. Quite on the contrary, independent researchers have pointed out that seeking police assistance in such cases would entail a risk for further abuse, since the abusers belong to the government apparatus and the abuse forms part of widespread political suppression.[4]

Eritrea

Deserters and conscientious objectors

The largest group of asylum seekers from Eritrea are deserters and conscientious objectors. In general, the practice for deserters and conscientious objectors is usually very strict for any country of origin. Previously, also deserters and conscientious objectors from Eritrea were uniformly rejected. In several decisions, Utlendingsnemnda pointed out that it is the right of any sovereign nation to draft their citizens into defence forces. The fact that Eritrea is a one party state and a brutal military dictatorship is clearly not reflected in this assessment, although it is an obvious question whether such a government is legitimate. More rhetorically, one may ask why a liberal democratic state such as Norway should stand up for the rights of a tyranny. Many decisions also referred to the “spartan” standard of Eritrean prisons, a term which was greatly insufficient in describing the actual, often horrific conditions.

During the last year and a half, the practice for Eritrean deserters and conscientious objectors in particular and Eritreans in general has changed. Still, deserters and conscientious objectors are not granted asylum. However, they are usually granted a residence permit for other protections ground or for humanitarian grounds.

Somalia

”UNHCR Position on the Return of Rejected Asylum-Seekers to Somalia”, January 2004:

UNHCR considers that persons originating from southern Somalia are in need of international protection and objects to any involuntary return of rejected asylum-seekers to the area south of the town of Galkayo.

”UNHCR Position on the Return of Rejected Asylum-Seekers to Somalia”, November 2005:

7. UNHCR acknowledges that not all Somali asylum-seekers may qualify for refugee status under the 1951 Convention. However, UNHCR considers that asylum-seekers originating from southern and central Somalia are in need of international protection and, excepting exclusion grounds, should be granted, if not refugee status, then complementary forms of protection.

8. Correspondingly, UNHCR re-iterates its call upon all governments to refrain from any forced returns to southern and central Somalia until further notice.

Contrary to this recommendation, more than 30 percent of the asylum seekers originating in the southern and central areas have been rejected in 2004 and 2005. This would often be single males, often from conflict-ridden areas and who have themselves suffered persecution at the hands of a dominant/rival clan.

[1] From the interview: ”Jeg ble slått daglig av forskjellige menn som kom i grupper og mishandlet meg. Hele kroppen min er full av torturmerker. Jeg ble torturert med elektriske ledninger, ble brent med glødende piggtråd. De brente meg med piggtråd også på penis. All slags lidelse som mennesker ikke skulle oppleve eller en gang se. Jeg lengtet etter døden. Jeg ble hengt opp naken, brent med glødende tråd og slått. Se på baken min og penisen min. Ikke engang dyr behandles slik. Hva slags mennesker gjør slikt med andre? Jeg føler meg verdiløs. Jeg klager over hvorfor jeg har blitt skapt.”

[2] From Utlendingsnemnda’s decision: ”Etter det nemnda er kjent med blir ikke personer som er av interesse for myndighetene i forbindelse med OLF-aktiviteter løslatt fra varetektsfengsel etter så korte tider som klager satt fengslet.”

[3] ”… det er veldig rart at UDI kan utelukke voldtekter fra den politiske sammenhengen når de blir utført mens offeret er anholdt og blir torturert av statlige sikkerhetsstyrker”. Stavanger Aftenblad, 20.10.2005.

[4] From Utlendingsnemnda’s decision: ”Nemnda er imidlertid ikke kjent med at familiemedlemmer av personer med tilknytning til OLF risikerer å bli utsatt for langvarige fengslinger og/eller alvorlige overgrep av en slik art at de er å anse som forfølgelse.” ”Overgrepene anses ikke å være ledd i en individuell forfølgelse av klageren, men fremstår som enkeltstående kriminelle handlinger.” ”Hun kan i denne sammenheng søke hjelp hos hjemlandets myndigheter ved å henvende seg til domstolene…”. ”For øvrig vises det til at klageren lan søke hjelp hos organisasjonen Ethiopian Woman Laqyers Association (EWLA) i Addis Abeba som har krisesenter og tilbyr fri rettshjelp for kvinner.”