Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MACESS London Metropolitan University Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht 2003 – 2004
Hearing of Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers: Interview or tribunal?
A comparative study about the practice of interviewing unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, in Belgium and the
Netherlands (in the light of the Separated Children in Europe Programme).
Supervisor: Eva Berghmans Dorien Mertens
2035813
23Th August 2004 This dissertation is the work of 2035813 and has been completed solely in fulfilment of a dissertation for the MA in Comparative European Social Studies at the Hogeschool Zuyd in Maastricht.
Table of contents Introduction 1 1. Why this topic? 1 2. Cross-national research 3 3. The dissertation content 4 Chapter 0. Methodology and methods 5 0.0 Hypothesis 5
0.1 Cross-national research 5 0.2 Comparative research 5 0.3 Theoretical research 5 0.4 Interviews 6 Chapter 1. Unaccompanied minor refugees, who are they? 7 1.1 Definitions 7 1.2 Statistics 12 1.3 Asylum procedure 16 1.3.1 Belgium 16 1.3.2 The Netherlands 17 1.4 Policy 21 1.4.1 The Netherlands 21 1.4.2 Belgium 23 Chapter 2. Separated children in Europe Programme 25 2.1 Introduction 25 2.1.1 The Separated Children in Europe Programme 25 2.2 Statement of Good Practice 27 2.2.1 First Principles 28
1. Best interests 28 2. Non-discrimination 28 3. Right to participate 29 4. Bi-culturalism 29 5. Interpretation 29 6. Confidentiality 30 7. Information 30 8. Inter-organisational cooperation 30 9. Staff training 31 10. Durability 31 11. Timeliness 31
2.2.2 Main work principles 32
1. Access to the territory 32 2. Identification 32 (3. Family tracing and contact) 33 4. Appointment of Guardian or adviser 33 5. Registration and Documentation 34 (6. Age Assessment) 34 (7. Freedom from detention) 34 8. Right to participate 34 (9. Family Reunification in a European Country) 35 (10. Interim Care – Health – Education and training) 35 11. The Asylum or Refugee Determination Process 35 2.2.3 Country Assessments 38 a) The definition of a s separated child 38 b) Access to the territory 39 c) Appointment of a guardian or adviser 40 d) Right to participate 42 e) The asylum or refugee determination process 43
Chapter 3. What specific provisions are made in the national institutions dealing with the UAM’s asylum procedure, surrounding the interviews? 44
3.1 Belgium 44 3.1.1 First contact at the border or at the Belgian territory 44 3.1.2 Request for asylum at the Immigration Office (=IO) 46 3.1.3 (First) Interview at the Immigration Office 46 3.1.4 (Second) Interview at the Commissariat General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (= CGRS) 54
3.2 The Netherlands 65
3.2.1 Asylum request / application and first interview 65 3.2.2 Follow-up (=second interview) 66 3.2.3 The hearing of unaccompanied minors less than 12 years old 69 1. Communication 71 2. (Not to) be suggestive 72 3. Loyalty 72 4. Trauma 73 5. Cultural differences 73 6. Interviewer / hearer 74 7. Adults attending the interview 75 8. Preparation 75 9. Setting 76 10. Atmosphere 76 11. Best moment in time 77
Conclusions 78 1. Comparison between Belgium and the Netherlands 78 1.1 Countries’ background and history with unaccompanied minors 78 1.2 Policy 79 1.3 The asylum procedure 80
1.4 What is done in practice by both countries to foresee in special provisions for the UAM’s 81
1.5 Do both countries confirm to the rules of the separated children in Europe programme? 86
Recommendations 90 Bibliography 92
List with abbreviations 96
Appendixes 97 I Convention on the rights of the child
II “European Council on Refugees and Exiles: position on refugee children”
III Form Non-accompanied minor alien
Introduction
1. Why this topic? “(…) much of the promise of an intercultural social work lies in its focus on the way we
categorise ourselves, our ideas and experiences in relation to others. The very notion of
intercultural or international social work is based on assumptions about boundaries,
differences, and ways of differentiating and defining sets of experiences. (…) Once we are
forced to examine these assumptions, about how and why we categorise ourselves in relation
to other people in particular ways, the way is opened up for us to be much more critical about
the bases of our own, often very deep-seated, thinking. (…)
Intercultural social work, taken as a potential site for understanding the creation of difference
then, has the potential to help us examine the bases of much of our practice in any setting,
since most practice involves some kind of categorisation of phenomena.
(…)
In the field of inter-cultural social work, this might mean that rather than focusing on the
differences/similarities between countries, we might be better off asking what can be
learned from the experiences in each country. So posing critical reflective questions of our
practices provides the basis for other ways of working. Recognising where our deep-seated
assumptions come from, and how whether they fit our professional purposes, is mandatory to
a sound and critical social work practice. (…)”
When I read J. Fook’s text “Considerations on the potential contributions of intercultural
social work”, I found parts I really agree on. I really believe in an intercultural social work
with all the mentioned issues above. This is what has led me in the beginning to decide what
topic I wanted to write about.
It had to be an issue about practices. I am a social worker, not (yet) a policy maker. I want to
work with and for the people who need social work. That’s why the practice itself is so
important. Secondly I always wanted to work with minority groups, like migrants and asylum
seekers. Through my foreign experiences with social work I know how important
intercultural and international social work is and can be.
So it had to be about practices in working with minority groups and in different countries.
Well the best part was that we had to write in a comparative way. I wanted to write about
practices, so I decided to compare the practices of two countries (I chose Belgium and The
1
Netherlands). We could choose the target group and specific issue ourselves. So I chose for a
very vulnerable group under the minorities; the unaccompanied minor refugees.
“I’m a child from a country far away.
Sometimes I walk hand in hand with a child from this country,
Sometimes I’m alone and don’t know where to go.
I’m a child from a country far away.
I learn a language: Is it English, Flemish, Belgish,
It doesn’t matter I will learn it that’s my conclusion!
I’m a child from a country far away,
With my happiness and sadness,
Even if that last one is not always visible.
Sometimes I get bullied, sometimes adored,
Sometimes avoided as a disease.
It’s sometimes difficult to understand what you mean.
It’s sometimes nice to see how fascinated you are.
It hurts sometimes to see how you keep up with your life…”
This poem is written by a teacher of a reception class, where minor unaccompanied refugees
and refugee children (with parents) come to learn Dutch.
It’s about a minor unaccompanied refugee.
Since the asylum procedure in Belgium and The Netherlands became stricter the last years,
the number of refugees has decreased. Still a quite big part of the refugees seeking asylum,
are unaccompanied minors. They have special needs and have to be provided with an adapted
approach for interviewing.
The poem describes in a very good way how their life is when they arrive; with heavy
baggage, experiences, so they have to be met in an adapted way. That’s why it’s important to
make the asylum procedure as easy as possible for them, spare them from an extra weight (of
2
problems) on their shoulders. The approach in the case of the interviews during the asylum
procedure should be adapted to their special needs.
The Separated Children in Europe Programme gives guidelines on how to threat refugee
children. These minor refugees have rights, but do the institutions in Belgium and The
Netherlands follow them and what is done to ensure these rights? It’s important to check if
The Netherlands and Belgium live up to these rules.
There are already lots of literature and reports about the unaccompanied refugees. About their
difficulties, chances, in – and exclusion in society, integration … But I haven’t read that much
about approaches in working with them. I found some tips for social workers to help them in
their approach towards the children, but that’s the only specific structure I could find.
That is why I wanted to fill in a small peace of the gap and therefore write my dissertation on
a specific approach; the approach, used in the interviews with minor unaccompanied refugees
during their asylum procedure.
2. Cross – national research For my research I chose Belgium (Flanders) and The Netherlands.
They are two quite similar countries, the red line in their asylum procedures has big
similarities, they both have the same language and they have a chaired border.
The big difference between the countries lays in the different state system and welfare-
system. Belgium is a federalist state. It’s divided in two ways. Belgium has three districts,
namely the Flemish district, the Wallon district and the Brussels district. At the other hand
it’s divided in three communities; the Dutch speaking community, the French speaking
community and the German speaking community.
The division of the state has consequences for the decision- making. Some issues are made at
the federal level so for the whole country. Some issues are made by the communities, when
we talk for example about policy. Therefore there can be a different policy in the three
communities.
To make it clearer I will explain it with my research issue. All the rules and laws according to
the asylum procedure of the minor unaccompanied refugees are made at federal level, but the
specific policies on reception (in education or in refugee centres) or integration, or, … are
3
under the decision of the communities, so they defer from community to community. While in
The Netherlands all the decision about the minor unaccompanied refugees are made on the
federal level.
So it’s not self-evident to compare the two countries, comparing three different decision-
making organs (the three communities) in Belgium with one organ in The Netherlands. To
avoid this difficulty I will only compare the Flemish part of Belgium with The Netherlands.
3. The dissertation content *After the introduction there’s a small part on the methodology. As every researcher
experiences, the methodology and planned methods and instruments change during the
research period. Some methods sounded nice in theory but were not so easy to achieve in
reality. This chapter shows in short what kind of methodology, methods and instruments I
used when putting my research plan in practice.
*The first real chapter writes about: “Unaccompanied minor refugees. Who are they?”
The chapter contains definitions about the unaccompanied minors (from different
international organisations). It provides statistics about these minors in Belgium and the
Netherlands and both countries’ asylum procedure and specific policy towards the
unaccompanied minor refugees.
*Chapter 2 is on the Separated children in Europe program (= SCP). What is the SCP?;
What’s their background and current context of the program. A lot of the attention goes to the
Statement of Good Practice, which I will use as a parameter to measure the comparison of
good practice between Belgium and The Netherlands. There’s a part on the articles that were
taken up in the statement and a part on the country assessments from 1999 and 2003 based on
the Statement of Good practice (to see what has changed/ improved/ got worse, according to
the statement, the countries confirmed to.)
*The third chapter is named: “What specific provisions are made in the National institutions dealing with the Unaccompanied Minors’ asylum procedure, surrounding the interviews?” This really is THE chapter on the practices of interviewing. *than there’s the conclusion chapter *The recommendations
4
Chapter 0: Methodology and methods 0.0 Hypothesis “The Belgian and Dutch approach of interviewing during the asylum procedure is adapted to unaccompanied minor refugees” 0.1 Cross-national research The cross- national research stayed the same. I kept both countries I planned in the first stage of the research. I still think it’s really interesting to learn more about my own country’s practice, because I will have a lot of contact with the asylum institutions, when working in my (hopefully) future job with unaccompanied minor refugees. The comparison with the Netherlands is still interesting because of the “quite” similar culture of both countries. 0.2 Comparative research I chose to conduct a comparative research between the neighbour countries Belgium and the Netherlands because of the above (see cross-national research) reasons. The plan was to compare both countries with each other and than check if they live up to the rules/guidelines of the Convention of the rights of the child (CRC). I kept the comparison between both countries but changed the comparison with the CRC to a comparison with the Separated Children in Europe Program (SCP). The SCP is more interesting to include in my research because it concludes more rules and guidelines and rights then the CRC. The SCP contains for example also the “European Council on Refugees and Exiles position paper on Refugee Children” (= ECRE) and the 1997 “Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum”. I also wanted to use the SCP because it’s not known with a lot of people and organisations, even though it does a lot of good work and has quite some lobbying-influence in different EU-member states (who subscribed the program). Belgium and the Netherlands are two of them. So as every researcher, I made some changes on the research topic, along the way. 0.3 Theoretical research The theoretical research took most of my time. I achieved to find all the information I needed. During this (mostly internet) research, I came to the conclusion that although Belgium is less transparent in providing information than the Netherlands, the information that’s provided on the website and in other written information (like brochures and year reports), is much clearer and extended than the Dutch information. Especially when I speak about the institutions connected connected to the asylum procedure. For Belgium I could find a lot of information on the working of the immigration Office (=IO) and especially about the Commissariat General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), on their website. For the IO, I had to look for the missing information in the interview with one of the IO’s interviewers. The CGRS has their publications (mostly brochures and year reports) provided on their website, so
5
even the specific information I needed about a vulnerable group as the unaccompanied minor refugees could be found on the website. The information I hoped to find about the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS), almost completely came out of the interview with manager and one of the interviewers of the INS’s “Unaccompanied minor refugees-unit”. Their website and publications provide much less information than expected. So an element to remember for future research, don’t always count on what you expect and planned to find, by conducting theoretical research! 0.4 Interviews I wanted to include people out of the work field and the target group themselves, in my research. I wanted to talk to social workers and unaccompanied minor refugees in the Netherlands and I should have done that, but it wasn’t so easy to find organisations. No knowledge about the social map around the unaccompanied minors issue was one of the reasons for not finding easily contacts, even though this isn’t a valid reason for not having Dutch interviewees in the research. I used my contacts from previous experiences and projects, during my social work education, to find social workers and unaccompanied minors to interview. Interviewing the social workers all went very easily. Interviewing the unaccompanied minors was a whole different story. Some of the minors were suspicious about the interview. After explaining them several times, by the social workers and myself, that the information they give would only be used for a school – report and wouldn’t have any influence on their asylum application, they still were too scared to talk about their “interview” – experiences. I had an approximated number of interviews (with unaccompanied minor refugees) in mind, but with the unforeseen outcome of my, maybe too idealistic view on the interviews, I had to be satisfied with a lower number of interviews. The interviews I did conduct were long, analysing and very interesting. Another element to keep in mind for the future; I shouldn’t take it just for granted that all “planned” and expected interviews will be achieved without any problems. Some issues are not so easy to talk about in comparison to others. To be able to talk about sensitive issues, with unaccompanied minors, it’s important to spend much more time with the future interviewees to create a certain relationship, to take away their suspicions. If the comparative research would have taken a full year, I think I could have gathered much more experiences on my research topic. The final conclusion is that my too idealistic view on making easily contacts with (foreign) organisations and taking for granted that all planned interviewees would agree to cooperate in the research, meant less information than I hoped for. All together a good lesson for the future!
6
Chapter 1: Unaccompanied minor refugees, who are they?
1.1 Definitions:
The report on “Inter-agency Guiding principles on unaccompanied and separated children”
says:
When an armed conflict or other disaster occurs, many children become separated from their
parents or other care-givers. Because their status is seldom immediately clear, they are
referred to as ‘separated’ or ‘unaccompanied children’ rather than orphans.
They give 4 definitions that are seen in close contact with the unaccompanied minors’ issue1.
A child means any person under the age of 18, unless under the (national) law applicable to
the child, majority is attained earlier (Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC,
article1).
Separated children are those separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or
customary primary care – giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. These may,
therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members.
1 http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+bwwBmLeYfz3wwwwqwwwwwwwhFqA72ZR0gRfZNtFqr72ZR0gRzFqmRbZAFqA72ZR0gRfZNDzmxwwwwwww1FqmRbZ/opendoc.pdf
7
Unaccompanied children (also called unaccompanied minors) are children who have been
separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who,
by law or custom, is responsible for doing so.
Orphans are children, both of whose parents are known to be dead. In some countries,
however, a child who has lost one parent is called an orphan.
My dissertation is focused on the unaccompanied minors. That’s why I was looking for a
definition that would fit this specific subject.
But when looking for one definition, I came across some disagreements about the right
definition of an unaccompanied minor. Different big international humanitarian organisations
disagree on some issues in the definition. The big difference, in the end, is that they put the
emphasis on different aspects of the definition.
8
Definitions of big international organisations
*UNHCR
UNHCR Comments on The CIC's (= Canadian Immigration service) Draft Discussion Paper
"Unaccompanied Minor Refugee Claimants” says:2
The definition of unaccompanied children is: "any child under the age of 18 who is separated
from his/her parents."
This definition fails to take account of the fact that minor asylum-seekers who have been
separated from their parents are frequently looked after by relatives, or by others who (by law
or by custom) have assumed the role of guardian.
*UNICEF3
UNICEF defines a UAC as a “child less than 18 years of age, unaccompanied by a parent, a
member of the extended family, or by a guardian recognized by law or custom”.
*THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 4
“Unaccompanied children” are persons under eighteen years of age who have been separated
from both parents and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is
responsible to do so.
2 http://www.web.net/~ccr/uam.htm
3 http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/irin_73097.html
4 http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/spain/learn_kids.htm
9
The term “separated children” refers to persons under eighteen years of age who are separated
from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver.
Unaccompanied or separated children are often refugees or migrants.
*SAVE THE CHILDREN5
Says in its action for the rights of the children that:
For those children separated from their families and who are totally alone, the term
“unaccompanied children” is generally applied.
However, even in emergency situation, relatively few children are found to be all alone (truly
“unaccompanied”), even though many have been separated from their parents or usual
caregivers, many may be living with, or accompanied by, extended family members, friends,
neighbours or other adults.
Consequently, a second term “Separated children” has come into use. This term encompasses
this extended group, and includes unaccompanied children. Here they confirm with the
UNHCR’s definition:
“Separated children” are children under 18 years of age who are separated from both parents
or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver.
As we can see, there are some small differences in the definition used by international
organisations, but in the end they all see the necessity to make a distinction between an
“unaccompanied minor refugee” and a “separated child”.
The term separated child is broader than the term unaccompanied child.
5 http://www.savethechildren.net/arc/files/c_sepchil.pdf
10
The final definition that I agree on, the most, is the one used by the Separated children in
Europe programme, which holds the parameters for my comparative research.
'Separated children' are children under 18 years of age who are outside their country of
origin and separated from both parents, or previous/legal customary primary care
giver. Some children are totally alone, while others may be living with extended family
members or other adults. As such, some may appear to be 'accompanied' but the
accompanying adults are not necessarily able or suitable to assume responsibility for
their care.
It’s good to have an overall definition to measure things on, but how are the definition agreed
upon in Belgium and the Netherlands? How do they define their respectively “Niet-begeleide
buitenlandse minderjarigen” en hun “alleenstaand minderjarige asielzoekers”?
In Belgium the definition for “Niet-begeleide buitenlandse minderjarigen” used by the DVZ
(Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken) = immigration office is:
“Every person under 18 years of age, who enters the country, without guidance of a person
with parental authority or a person that has guardianship over the minor, following the law in
the child’s home country, and originating from a ‘non- European- Economic- Territory’
State.”6
In the Netherlands the definition for “Alleenstaande minderjarige asielzoeker” used by the
IND (Immigratie en naturalisatie-dienst) =immigration office is:
6Rapport Koning Boudewijnstichting: “Buitenlandse niet begeleide minderjarigen; Stand van Zaken en praktijkvoorbeelden voor opvang en hulpverlening.” September 2003. http://www.kbs-frb.be/files/db/NL/PUB_1364_Niet-begeleide_minderjarige_vreemdelingen.pdf
11
“A minor asylum seeker is seen as unaccompanied, when at his/her arrival, s/he isn’t guided
or taken care of, by parents and/or adult relatives.”
1.2 Statistics
The UNHCR office in Geneva did a research on “Trends in Unaccompanied and Separated
Children seeking asylum in industrialized countries, during the period 2000-2003”.
Table 1. Asylum applications lodged in 28 industrialized countries: total and by
unaccompanied and separated children (UAC/ SC), 2000-2003.
Country
of asylum 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total
applications UAC / SC
Total
applicatio
ns
UAC / SC
Total
applicat
ions
UAC / SC
Total
applicat
ions
UAC / SC
total % total % total % total %
Austria 18.284 553 3.0 30.135 3.484 11.6 39354 3163 8.0 32342 2049 6.3
Belgium 42691 848 2.0 24549 747 3.0 18805 603 3.2 16940 589 3.5
Bulgaria 1755 44 2.5 2428 .. - 2888 205 7.1 1549 152 9.8
Croatia 24 0 - 85 2 2.4 100 4 4.0 63 6 9.5
Cyprus 651 1 0.2 1766 0 - 951 0 - 4411 2 0.0
Czech.
Repub. 8788 298 3.4 18087 280 1.5 8481 216 2.5 11396 129 1.1
Denmark 12200 219 1.8 12512 239 1.9 6068 137 2.3 4557 159 3.5
Finland 3170 94 3.0 1651 35 2.1 3443 68 2.0 3221 108 3.4
FYR
Macedoni8 0 - 195 0 - 118 1 0.8 2283 10 0.4
12
a
Germany 78564 946 1.2 88287 1068 1.2 71127 873 1.2 50563 977 1.9
Greece 3083 .. - 5499 206 3.7 5664 247 4.4 8178 314 3.8
Hungary 7801 1170 15.0 9554 2018 21.1 6412 658 10.3 2401 190 7.9
Ireland 11096 300 2.7 10325 600 5.8 11634 288 2.5 7900 277 3.5
Latvia 4 0 - 14 0 - 30 0 - 5 0 -
Liechtenst
ein 11 .. - 112 2 1.8 96 3 3.1 101 3 3.0
Malta 71 .. - 116 1 0.9 350 14 4.0 568 16 2.8
Netherlan
ds 43895 6705 15.3 32579 5951 18.3 18667 3232 17.3 13402 1216 9.1
New
Zealand 1551 .. - 1601 65 4.1 997 11 1.1 819 5 0.6
Norway 10842 566 5.2 14782 .. - 17480 894 5.1 15614 916 5.9
Poland 4589 69 1.5 4506 80 1.8 5153 213 4.1 6921 217 3.1
Portugal 224 10 4.5 234 9 3.8 245 18 7.3 107 6 5.6
Romania 1366 34 2.5 2431 121 5.0 1151 53 4.6 1077 21 1.9
Slovakia 1556 145 9.3 8151 .. - 9700 1058 10.9 10323 704 6.8
Slovenia 9244 45 0.5 1511 113 7.5 702 24 3.4 1100 34 3.1
Spain 7926 4 0.1 9489 2 0.0 6309 1 0.0 5767 1 0.0
Sweden 16303 350 2.1 23515 461 2.0 33016 550 1.7 31355 561 1.8
Switzerlan
d 17611 727 4.1 20633 1238 6.0 26125 1518 5.8 21051 1324 6.3
United
Kingdom 80315 2730 3.4 71025 3470 4.9 84130 6200 7.4 49370 2800 5.7
Total 383623 15858 4.1 395772 20192 5.1 379196 20252 5.3 303384 12786 4.2
Europe-
21 364754 15103 4.1 363083 19918 5.5 342021 17820 5.2 266232 10676 4.0
EU -12 256776 11358 4.4 255116 12041 4.7 240303 11614 4.8 174420 6419 3.7
13
Centr. Eur 35103 1805 5.1 46682 2612 5.6 34517 2427 7.0 34772 1447 4.2
When looking at this table, we can see that over the period 2000-2003 the total number of
asylum applications has decreased for both countries. The number of unaccompanied minors
and separated children per total of the asylum applications has also decreased over the years,
but in percentages we can see that for both countries the number minors has increased quite a
lot.
The decrease of the total number of applications and the number of minors is probably the
consequence of the stricter asylum policy in Belgium and the Netherlands.
When we look at Belgium the percentage minors of the total number increases over the whole
line. But when we look at the Netherlands we see an increase of the percentage during the
first two years, but then the third year it decreases slowly and than all of a sudden it drops
quite a lot. But this has a normal reason. Since 2001 the Dutch government imported a more
strict policy towards unaccompanied minors. So it’s not easy at all to receive a permit to stay.
The message reached the “sending” countries, as we can see in the percentage that dropped
almost 50% from 2002 till 2003.
The above table gave numbers of asylum applications of the UNHCR; let’s see what numbers
are given by the immigration service of Belgium and The Netherlands.
The Belgian Immigration Office (IO) has statistics on asylum applications by unaccompanied
minors for 2002-2003 and till the 5th month of 2004. Their numbers are similar for 2002 and
2003: a small increase of the percentage of minors of all asylum applications. I thought it
would be interesting to see if this evolution would stay the same in the next half year of 2004.
14
I took the average of the first 6 months and put them onto 12 months. The percentage at the
end of the year would mean a small decrease again and the percentage would stay the same as
in 2002. So there will be no big changes in minors applying for asylum in Belgium.
It wasn’t that easy to find clear statistics about unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands. But
there are some numbers spread, like I will show below.
In 2000 there were still 6705 minors applying for asylum in the Netherlands. In 2001 State
Secretary Kalsbeek introduced a new “unaccompanied minor refugees –policy”. This new
policy starts from the principle that all UAM who don’t get asylum have to return to their
home country. This explains why there has been such a big decrease of unaccompanied
minors applying for asylum. In 2002, 3233 minors applied and there were only 1216
applications left in 2003. This trend started after the new policy was introduced and if it keeps
going on like this there will be no more unaccompanied minors or separated children applying
for asylum in the Netherlands; A country which was one of the most desirable countries for
refugees during the last 2 decades.
15
1.3 Asylum procedure
A next important part of this first chapter is the asylum procedure the unaccompanied minors
have to go through.
1.3.1 Belgium
In Belgium7 the asylum procedure for unaccompanied minor refugees is identical as the one
for adults. In short there are three different stages when someone applies for asylum:
First, the Aliens (= immigration) Office of the Ministry of the Interior determines whether
another European Union (EU) member state is responsible for deciding the asylum
application, according to the Dublin Convention. Generally, the Dublin Convention stipulates
that the member state permitting the asylum seeker entry, or the member state where the
asylum seeker first sets foot in the event of illegal entry, is responsible for reviewing the
asylum application.
“In 1998, Belgium requested other EU member states to assume responsibility for deciding
1,621 asylum applications, of which other EU members accepted 1,331. Other EU members
requested Belgium to take responsibility for deciding 1,029 asylum applications during the
year. Belgium accepted 671 of these requests, of which 251 transfers actually took place.
Belgium reportedly interprets the Dublin Convention's provisions liberally, allowing family
members to apply together for asylum in Belgium even if the convention's terms would allow
for the return of family members to another EU country. Authorities reportedly also permit
7 http://www.refugees.org
16
other asylum seekers to remain for humanitarian reasons in Belgium even if the convention's
terms normally would call for the asylum seeker's transfer elsewhere.”8
If the Aliens Office determines that Belgium is responsible for reviewing the asylum
application, it then decides on the admissibility of the asylum claim. Manifestly unfounded
claims can be rejected at this stage. The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless
Persons (CGVS) may review negative admissibility decisions. Belgium may detain
insufficiently documented asylum seekers pending a decision on admissibility.
The third step of the procedure is for the CGVS to render decisions on the merits of
admissible claims. Either the government or the applicant may appeal CGVS decisions to the
Permanent Commission of Appeals for Refugees (PCAR), an administrative appeals tribunal.
1.3.2 The Netherlands
In the Netherlands the procedure for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers is comparable
with one for adults; however there are some differences in the procedure for minors. Asylum
procedure in the Netherlands
A new Aliens Act, intended to shorten and streamline the asylum procedure, came into force
on April 1, 2002. Under the new legislation, asylum seekers must lodge their application at
one of four registration centres, where the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND)
conducts a screening interview of the applicant, issuing an admissibility decision within 48
working hours. If the claim is deemed inadmissible, the asylum seeker may appeal, but may
be deported while the appeal is pending.
If the claim is found admissible, the applicant undergoes a second, more detailed interview, 8 http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/1999/belgium.htm
17
which forms the basis for assessment of the claim. The asylum seeker receives a report of the
second interview and is given the opportunity to correct any aspect of the report he or she
deems inaccurate.
If the IND intends to deny the asylum request, the asylum seeker receives written notification
of this intention, and is given the opportunity, with the support of a legal advisor, to submit a
response, which the authorities take into consideration when making a final decision. If the
decision to deny the claim is unchanged, the asylum seeker has the opportunity to appeal to a
judge, and is permitted to remain in the Netherlands pending the judicial review. While the
asylum seeker may lodge a final appeal against a judge’s negative decision, he or she is no
longer automatically protected against deportation, although deportation suspension may be
granted at the discretion of the Ministry of Justice.
Protection is granted to asylum applicants on one of four grounds: the Refugee Convention;
the European Convention on Human Rights; other humanitarian considerations; or the need
for group-based protection. If the IND approves the asylum request, the refugee receives a
temporary asylum permit, valid for up to three years. The permit can be revoked if the
government decides that conditions in the refugee’s home country have improved sufficiently
to allow repatriation. After three years, permit holders may obtain indefinite residence
permits.
The new asylum permit confers the same package of benefits and entitlements upon each
asylum, in contrast to the varying benefits that accompanied each of the three statuses granted
in previous years. According to the Dutch government, these variations in status often had the
consequence of encouraging extra litigation from refugees who wanted to obtain the status
that afforded them the best possible benefits.
18
Generally, the authorities must issue a decision on an asylum application within six months
(in 2001, a decision was issued in 80 percent of all cases within six months). In the case of
war refugees, however, the Ministry of Justice can issue a moratorium for up to one year on
asylum decisions for a specific group. If the situation in the refugees’ home country does not
improve within that period, they then become eligible for the three-year status available to
other refugees.
In response to a sharp rise in the number of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers arriving
in the Netherlands in recent years, the government announced a more restrictive policy. Under
the new policy, greater efforts will be made to repatriate rejected child asylum seekers, many
of whom were formerly permitted to remain in the country on humanitarian grounds. Child
asylum seekers who do not cooperate with authorities in determining their identity or the
possibility of repatriation will not be given a temporary residence permit, thus rendering them
ineligible for eventually obtaining a permanent residence permit. Asylum seekers who are 15
years old upon arrival in the Netherlands will lose the right to residence after they turn 18, and
will be repatriated.
Most asylum seekers remain in collective centres throughout the asylum process. Repeat
applicants are not offered accommodation; nor are asylum seekers whose cases are assessed to
be the responsibility of another state that is party to the Dublin Convention. The government
makes exceptions for pressing humanitarian circumstances or if the Dublin referral claim is
late.
Asylum seekers receive a weekly allowance for food and clothing, free medical care, and
legal support. Children are able to attend school. Asylum seekers must leave their reception
centre 28 days after being notified of a first-instance asylum application denial, even if they
19
are awaiting the outcome of an appeal.
At the end of 2001, about 70,000 persons lived in reception centres, while 15,000 lived in
alternative housing. An estimated 95,000 reception spaces will be needed by 2003, according
to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
The most important reason why I found it necessary to include both asylum procedures in this
chapter, is because I wanted to make it clear were the interviews are situated in both
countries’ procedures.
In Belgium, a short questionnaire has to be filled in when requesting asylum. For the
unaccompanied minors there’s a special form made up to fill in when there’s first contact with
the minor at the border or when found by the police. This form will be sent immediately to the
Immigration Office and to the Guardian Service. (see appendices)
When requesting for asylum, a questionnaire, with some identification questions and
(sometimes) a small interview about the travel route, has to be answered.
After this request for asylum, under guidance of a guardian, there will be an appointement
made, for a first (real) interview. This interview will also be done at the Immigration Service.
For this interview a special questionnaire is used for interviewing all unaccompanied minor
refugees.
When the Immigration officer is convinced of the fact that the request is admissible, (=
positive decision), the minor and his/her guardian will have to go for a second interview to the
Commissariat General for Refugees and Stateless persons (CGVS). Here they will have to go
through a deeper, much more detailed interview. If they receive a positive answer, the minor
will get a permit to stay.
20
Mostly the Immigration Office denies the request and the only way to go through with the
asylum procedure is to go in appeal at the CGVS. They will listen again to the story and
decide about the admissibility of the request. So CGVS is at the same time a first and second
line service.
Interviews in the Belgium asylum procedure can happen at two institutions: the Immigration
Office (IO) and the Commissariat General for Refugees and Stateless persons (CGRS).
In the Netherlands, the asylum seekers have to apply for asylum in an application centre and
also get a screening interview at the centre. The INS decides about the admissibility of the
application. When they decide the request is admissible, they will invite the asylum seeker for
a second more detailed interview, which will form the basis for the claim.
So in Holland, there is one interview when applying for asylum and a second interview, if you
are lucky, when they agree on the admissibility of your request.
There is possibility to react on negative decisions but this is only written.
1.4 Policy
1.4.1 Netherlands
“Of all refugees who come to the Netherlands, more then a quarter is under 15 years old.
Many young people flee with one parent or both. In the last few years, many unaccompanied
minor asylum seekers (or ama's) have arrived in the Netherlands. In 2000, more than 6,500
single minors applied for asylum, which is 15% of the total number of asylum seekers in that
21
year. This trend an also be seen in other European countries.”9
The Ministry of Justice firstly decides whether or not the unaccompanied minor qualifies for a
residence permit on the grounds of asylum. If this is not the case, then the ministry of Justice
will consider whether or not the young person in question would be able to live independently
in the country of origin and, failing that, whether the country of origin is able to provide
adequate reception. If the minor is incapable of living on his own and the country cannot
provide reception, then he or she will get a temporary residence permit on the usual grounds.
This permit can be withdrawn if the situation in the country of origin changes.
If the minor turns 18 within three years of arrival in the Netherlands, and becomes an adult, he
must return to his country of origin. This means that ama's who, upon arrival in the
Netherlands are older than 15 and are not recognised as refugees, must return to their country
of origin before they turn 18. Those who are under 15 when they arrive may remain in the
Netherlands if they have been provided with a residence permit with a time limitation.
This policy has been in operation since the beginning of 2001. Prior to this, the policy was a
lot less restrictive. Ama's who have come to the Netherlands before early 2001 are still subject
to the old policy.
The rules for ama's obviously only apply to minors. When the age is in doubt, the Ministry of
Justice conducts an investigation into their age, in which wrist bones and the collar bone are
studied. Opinions are divided as to the reliability of this investigation.
While they are in the Netherlands, the minors are under guardianship of the institution called
9 http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/en/sections/01070600.html
22
"De Opbouw", which is responsible for supervision of these youngsters. The Dutch Refugee
Council promotes their interests during the asylum procedure and develops initiatives to get
these young people out of their isolated situation.
1.4.2 Belgium10
Since 1st April 1999 and the departmental note of the Office des étrangers, unaccompanied
foreign minors who are refused asylum or any document allowing them to remain in the
country are given the right to remain provisionally: a deferred declaration of arrival, then a
certificate of temporary registration on the register of foreigners (CIRE) and, finally a
definitive CIRE. These documents are delivered only after the Immigration Office has
acknowledged the impossibility of returning the minor to his/her place of origin.
Formerly, the unaccompanied minor was considered to be here illegally, but was never sent
back before the age of 16 years. The Belgian state tolerated this "illegality" with all the
consequences that entail (e.g. no right to social welfare assistance).
But legal or illegal, other problems remain: school enrolment, assessing the level of
education, absence of a guardian, lack of suitable housing, no organised family search, access
to health care and social welfare, etc.
10 Statement of Good practice, country assessment Belgium 2003 http://www.separated-children-europe-programme.org/Global/Documents/Eng/RepliesQuestionnaires/Belgium_engQ.htm
23
Some private initiatives should also be mentioned: schools organising specific courses,
associations sponsoring these minors, judicial authorities recognising their right to social
welfare based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20th November 1989.
There remains a last, crucial point regarding the conditions of return of a minor when this
arises. Who accompanies him/her? Are there adequate guarantees for his/her reception? What
controls operate? There is vagueness about all this and the Immigration Office needs to
practise a more transparent policy. This should also cover minors arriving at the airport and
returned directly without even being able to introduce a request for asylum.
Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are a vulnerable group (that is still growing) that needs
a suitable reception. This reception shouldn’t only be adjusted to their personal situation
(language, culture, background, trauma’s,…), but it also has to take in account their
administrative situation (asylum procedure, future perspectives, family tracing,…). Next to
material assistance, the reception should flow into a concrete pedagogic project that will give
the youngsters the chance to function in a more autonomic and responsible way and to assist
and prepare them to be able to handle their future difficulties.
24
Chapter 2: Separated Children in Europe Programme
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Separated Children in Europe Programme11
The Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) is a joint initiative of some members
of the International Save the Children Alliance and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR). The Programme was initiated in 1997 and is based on the
complementary mandates and areas of expertise of the two organisations; the International
Save the Children Alliance is focused on the full realisation of children’s rights; UNHCR’s
responsibility is to ensure the protection of refugee children and those seeking asylum. A
commitment to the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC) is fundamental to the work of the Programme.
‘Separated children are children under 18 years of age who are outside their country of
origin and separated from both parents, or their previous legal/customary primary caregiver.
Some children are totally alone while others, who are also the concern of the SCEP, may be
living with extended family members. All such children are separated children and entitled to
international protection under a broad range of international and regional instruments.
Separated children may be seeking asylum because of fear of persecution or the lack of
protection due to human rights violations, armed conflict or disturbances in their own
country. They may be the victims of trafficking for sexual or other exploitation, or they may
have travelled to Europe to escape conditions of serious deprivation’
11 http://www.separated-children-europe-programme.org/Global/Documents/Eng/CompAna.htm
25
(CRC, Arts. 1&22; Hague Convention for the Protection of Children, 1996, Art.6; UNHCR
Guidelines, para.3.1; ECRE paras.8&11; EU Resolution on Unaccompanied Minors.,
Art.1(1))
The separated Children in Europe Programme uses the word separated rather than
unaccompanied because it better defines the essential problem that such children face.
Namely, that they are without the care and protections of their parents or legal guardian and as
a consequence suffer socially and psychologically from this separation. While some separated
children appear to be “accompanied” when they arrive in Europe, the accompanying adults
are not necessarily able or suitable to assume responsibility for their care.
International protection is necessary because separated children have left their home
community and country and have travelled into or across Europe. A solution to their situation
is likely to require attention in their home country and current country of domicile. Protection
through internationally law is therefore essential.
Europe for this programme includes: Austria, Baltic States, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
26
2.2 Statement of Good Practice12
The programme has prepared a Statement of Good Practice that aims to provide a
straightforward account of the policies and practices required to implement and protect the
rights of separated children in Europe. The Statement is principally informed by the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC 1989) and two documents: the UNHCR’s
Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking
Asylum (February 1997), and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles position paper on
Refugee Children (November 1996).
Not more than right, the second (and most up to date) edition of the Statement is used in this
dissertation: “Statement of Good Practice, Second Edition, October 2000”
Throughout the statement are references to relevant international and regional law, policy and
guidelines. The statement is divided in two different chapters. The first one “the first
principles” includes the principles that underpin the Statement of Good Practice and should be
born in mind at all stages of care and provision for separated children.
The second chapter “Good Practice” sets out good practice with respect to separated children
from the point of arrival up to taking a long-term decision on a child’s future. Each section is
accompanied by references to international and regional instruments.
12 http://www.separated-children-europe-programme.org/Global/English/StatementGoodPract.htm
27
2.2.1 First principles
The “First Principles” –chapter is generally important to bear in mind when working on a
dissertation about the separated children’s-issue. It’s very important to check if Belgium and
The Netherlands have adapted their policies and practices of interviewing the minors, bearing
all these first principles in mind.
A quick overview of the principles and the references to international and regional law, policy
and guidelines.
1. Best Interests:
“In all actions concerning children…the best interests of children shall be a primary
consideration”.
References: *CRC, Art. 3
*ECRE, para.4
2. Non-discrimination:
“Separated children are entitled to the same treatment and rights as national or resident
children. They must be treated as children first and foremost. All considerations of their
immigration status must be secondary.”
References: *CRC, Art. 2
28
*CRC, Art. 22(1)
*ECRE, paras. 5-7
3. Right to Participate:
“The views and wishes of separated children must be sought and taken into account whenever
decisions affecting them are being made. Measures must be put in place to facilitate their
participation in line with their age and maturity.”
References: *CRC, Art. 12
*ECRE, paras. 25&26
4. Bi-culturalism:
“It is vital that separated children be able to maintain their mother tongue and links with their
culture and religion. Provision of childcare, healthcare and education must reflect their
cultural needs. Preservation of culture and language is also important should a child return to
their home country.”
References: *CRC, Art8
*CRC, Art. 30
*ECRE, para 39
5. Interpretation:
“Separated children must be provided with suitable interpreters who speak their preferred
language whenever they are interviewed or require access to services.”
References: *CRC, Art. 12
29
*CRC, Art. 13
6. Confidentiality:
“Care must be taken not to disclose information about a separated child that could endanger
the child’s family members in her or his home country. The permission of separated children
must be sought in an age appropriate manner before sensitive information is disclosed to other
organisations or individuals. Information must not be used inappropriately for purpose other
than for that for which it was sought.
References: *CRC, Art. 16
7. Information:
“Separated children must be provided with accessible information about, for example, their
entitlements, services available, the asylum process, family tracing and the situation in their
country of origin.”
References: *CRC, Art. 13
*CRC, Art. 17
*CRC, Art. 22
*ECRE, para. 31
8. Inter-organisational Co-operation:
“Organisations, government departments and professionals involved in providing services to
separated children must co-operate to ensure that the welfare and rights of separated children
are enhanced and protected.”
30
References: *CRC, Art. 22(2)
9. Staff Training:
“Those working with separated children must receive appropriate training on the needs of
separated children. Immigration or border police staff must receive training in conducting
child-friendly interviews.”
References: *CRC, Art. 3 (3): States shall ensure that institutions and services providing
protection or care for children meet established standards, inter alia, in the suitability
of their staff and competent supervision.
10. Durability:
“Decisions that are taken regarding separated children should take account of, where ever
possible, the long-term interests and welfare of the child.”
References: *CRC, Art. 3
*CRC, Art. 22 (1)
*CRC, Art. 22(2)
11. Timeliness:
“All decisions regarding separated children must be taken in a timely fashion.”
31
2.2.2 Main work principles
The “Good Practice” chapter includes 12 main issues for countries to work on, to ensure
separated children’s future.
All of these issues are of course important, but I will pick the ones out, who are especially
interesting for my research.
1. Access to the territory:
1.1 Separated children seeking protection should never be refused entry or returned
at the point of entry. They should never be detained for immigration reasons.
Neither should they be subject to detailed interviews by immigration
authorities at the point of entry.
References: *CRC Art. 6(1)
*ECRE, paras. 14 &15
2. Identification:
At ports of entry immigration authorities should put in place procedures to identify separated
children. Where children are accompanied by an adult, it will be necessary to establish the
nature of the relationship between the child and adult. Since many separated children enter a
country without being identified as “separated” at ports of entry, organisations and
professionals should share information in order to identify separated children and ensure they
are given appropriate protection.
References: *CRC, Art. 8:
32
3. Family Tracing and Contact
(NND= not necessary for dissertation)
4. Appointment of Guardian or adviser
4.1 As soon as a separated child is identified, a guardian or adviser should be
appointed – in a long-term perspective- to advise and protect separated
children.
The guardian has to ensure the child’s:
-best interests
-suitable care, accommodation, education, language support and health care
-legal representation to deal with immigration status or asylum claim
-consult and advise
-link with other organisations
-chances on family tracing and reunification with the child
4.2 To ensure necessary protection for separated children, appointments of
guardians/advisers should be made within one month of a child being notified
to the relevant authorities.
4.3 The individuals carrying out these responsibilities may be drawn from a range
of specialist backgrounds. However, in order to carry out their role effectively,
advisers or guardians must have relevant childcare expertise and an
understanding of the special and cultural needs of separated children. They
should receive training and professional support.
33
References: *CRC art. 18(2) en art. 20 (1)
*ECRE, paras.16-18
5. Registration and Documentation
Registration and documentation are essential to protect the long-term interests of separated
children. This should be carried out by a “twin-track” interview procedure once a
guardian/adviser has been appointed. Immigration and border police officers should limit their
interviews to gathering basic information about the child’s identity. A complete social history
should be taken by an organisation with care duties towards the child. All those interviewing
separated children should have appropriate training or expertise.
Refernces: *CRC, art.8
6. Age Assessment
(NND)
7. Freedom from detention
(NND)
8. Right to Participate
The views and wishes of separated children must be sought and taken into account whenever
decisions affecting them are being made. Measures must be put in place to facilitate their
participation in line with their age and maturity. Any interviews by immigration or police
officers should be done in a child-appropriate manner by officials who have received training
in interviewing children. Separated children are entitled to be heard directly or via a legal
representative or guardian/adviser.
34
References: *CRC, art. 12
*ECRE para. 25 & 26
9. Family Reunification in a European Country
(NND)
10. Interim Care – Health – Education and Training
(NND)
11. The Asylum or Refugee Determination Process
11.1 Separated children, regardless of age, should never be denied acces to the
asylum process. Once admitted they should go through the normal procedures
and be exempt from alternative procedures including those relating to ‘safe
third country’ (admissibility), ‘manifestly unfounded’ (accelerated) and ‘safe
country of origin’ and from any suspension of consideration of their asylum
claim due to coming from a ‘country in upheaval’.
References: *ECRE, Para 22- 23
11.2 At all stages of the asylum process, including any appeals or reviews, separated
children should have a legal representative who will assist the child to make his
or her claim for asylum/ Legal representatives should be available at no cost to
the child and, in addition to possessing expertise on the asylum procedure, they
should be skilled in representing children and be aware of child-specific forms
of persecution.
35
References: *CRC Art. 12
*ECRE, para. 24
11.3 “Minimal procedural Guarantees”
Decisions on a child’s asylum application should be taken by a competent
authority versed in asylum and refugee matters. Children who receive a
negative first decision should have a right of appeal. Deadlines for appealing
should be reasonable. Children’s applications should be identified and
prioritised so they are not kept waiting for long periods of time.
References: *ECRE, paras. 22, 24 & 28
11.4 Independent expert person carry out assessment of the child’s ability to
articulate a well-founded fear of persecution.
11.5 Where are interviews are required they should be carried out in a child-friendly
manner (breaks, non-threatening atmosphere) by officers trained in
interviewing children. Children should always be accompanied at each
interview by their legal representative and, where the child so desires, by a
significant adult (social worker, relative etc).
References: *CRC, Art. 3.3
*ECRE, para. 26 -27
11.6 Criteria for making a decision on a child’s asylum application:
36
When making a decision about a separated child’s asylum claim, authorities
should have regard to UNHCR guidelines as contained in the Handbook and
the 1997 Guidelines, specifically;
-age and maturity of a child and their stage of development
-possibility that children manifest their fears differently from adults
-children have limited knowledge of conditions in their countries of origin
-child-specific forms of human rights violations
-situation of the child’s family in their country of origin
therefore, in the examination of their claims it may be necessary to have greater
regard to certain objective factors, and to determine based upon these factors,
whether a child may be presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution.
References: *CRC Art. 12, 32, 34, 38
11.7 Separated children who become adults during the course of the asylum process
should be treated in a generous way.
References: *ECRE para. 30
12. Durable or Long-term Solutions
37
2.2.3 Country assessments
National Assessments of the policies and practices concerning separated children seeking
asylum have been completed in the majority of countries in Western-Europe and in some of
the central European countries and Baltic States.
In 2003 the separated children in Europe programme’s ngo partner in 14 EU-states co-
ordinated the updating of the 1999 assessments or conducted entirely new assessments.
The updating of the assessments is per specific issue of The Statement of Good practice so I
will keep that order to make it more clear what changed per issue, per country. Let’s take a
look what changed.
a) The definition of a separated child:
Regardless of whereabouts in Europe a child arrives, the receiving State’s definition whether
a child is separated or otherwise remains very important, because it will have consequences
for the provision of welfare support and a route through the various immigration procedures.
The update assessments from the respondent countries noted a small number of changes from
the 1999 position in how separated children are defined.
The Netherlands
The Dutch assessment noted that the definition of a separated child has become more
restricted; “any child with relatives within the Netherlands from their extended family up to
the fourth degree would now no longer be considered as separated”. This applies both for the
purposes of the asylum determination procedure and the provision of care and support.
Checks and assessment procedures have not been put in place to establish whether relatives
38
have a meaningful relationship with the child or whether they are able and willing to provide
an adequate level of care. The courts will no longer consider appointing a guardian in such
circumstances.
Belgium
Internal Home Office procedural notes and law on Separated children’s Guardianship (2002)
have reaffirmed the Belgian position on the definition of a separated child, but there’s still no
nationwide definition on unaccompanied minors, that can lead to uniform policy for these
children. Civil society works towards a definition that is relatively similar to that as outlined
in The Statement of Good Practice and that could be applicable to all sectors and institutions
that come in contact with the unaccompanied minors.
Conclusion
On Balance there has been very little movement since the publication comparative analysis
following the 1999 assessments. The definition of a separated child as outlined in The
Statement of Good Practice is still not applied extensively throughout Europe. It does
however appear that Art. 1 of The CRC is now universally applied.13
b) Access to the territory
It is difficult to see how states could fulfil Art. 22 of the CRC, the duty to provide appropriate
protection to refugee children, if they deny them access to the territory. Some country’s
practices can be seen to be moving closer to The Statement of Good Practice whilst
conversely the update assessments identify a number of states diverging from The Statement.
13 Art. 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
39
The Netherlands
All separated children arriving in the Netherlands are now subject to a new procedure. Since
the introduction of a new ‘separated children’s policy’ in May 2001, regardless of their age
separated children must submit an asylum application in an application centre. Previously
separated children were exempt from the regulation insisting that all asylum applications were
lodged in these centres. At present a number of different application centres are being used to
accommodate newly arrived separated children though it is proposed that in the future they
should be processed through a dedicated centre.
Belgium
An Internal Home Office note originating in March 2002 outlines that were there is no
immediate durable solution for a separated child they should have access to the territory and
receive an arrival declaration valid for 3 months. The Belgian update assessment however
notes the following constraint that in practice separated children not always have access to the
territory as many are held in closed centres for the first phase of the procedure.
c) Appointment of guardian or adviser
In recognition of the importance of providing separated children with guardians the EU
Council Directive on Temporary Protection (2001/55/EC) Art. 16 places particular
responsibilities on member states relating to guardianship. The Directive requires steps to be
taken to ensure the necessary representation of separated children by legal guardianship or by
any other appropriate and responsible representation. Perhaps as a consequence of this there
have been some positive developments in the provision of guardianship services for separated
40
children. Art. 20 of the CRC notes that children who are separated from their families are
entitled to receive social protection.
The Netherlands
Contrary to the Statement of Good Practice the Dutch arrangements for guardianship have
seen changes that are likely to weaken the effectiveness of guardians in promoting the welfare
of separated children. A whole new reception model has been implemented consisting of an
integration model and a return model. Those children who are placed in the integration model
are expressly denied the support of the Guardianship Foundation if a family member up to the
fourth degree is resident in the Netherlands. (because these minors aren’t seen as
unaccompanied anymore).
Belgium
The Belgian Government has adopted a new law creating a guardianship body for separated
children. The New body’s mission is to guarantee the protection and representation of
separated children and to work at establishing durable solutions for them. This is a positive
development consistent with the Statement of Good Practice though some ngo’s are
concerned that there is a lack of political will behind this initiative and that the budget will be
insufficient for the service to be of good quality.
(here I would like to mention that the ngo’s were write about their queries surrounding the
guardianship-service. Looking at the service now these days in 2004, when it’s working on ful
capacity, the ngo’s predictions came out. The whole basic meaning of the service is fantastic,
but there’s just not enough financial government support to let it work. The service is willing
to do a good job, but there just aren’t enough guardians to find, willing to do the job for such
a low pay. The worst consequence is for the unaccompanied minors; because they can’t take
any further steps in there asylum procedure because the guardian is obliged to be there in
41
every interview the minor has to go through. So at this moment there’s a procedural stop for
many many unaccompanied minor refugees dossiers at the immigration office and at the
Commissariat General.14)
d) Right to participate
Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the child’s right to participate as said in art. 12
of the CRC and the recognition that this is a key pillar in the maintenance of the rights of
children, there appears to be a lack of will to place the child’s right to participate at the heart
of policy development. It is likely that by involving children in the development of services
they will be more relevant and workable than if their views were excluded.
Separated children did not appear to have a good understanding that they had a right to
participate and to influence decisions in line with their best interests.
The Netherlands
In the Netherlands new policies whose primary focus is on gathering information surrounding
the separated child’s asylum application allow for the interviewing of children as young as 4
years old.
Belgium
The Belgian guardianship law of December 2002 makes reference to the child’s right to
participate, though this appears to have been stated in isolation with little consideration to
how this will be implemented in practice.
14 Interview Veerle Aerts, interviewer at Immigration Service
42
(there has been an initiative of UNICEF Flanders, to do a research on what unaccompanied
minor refugees want, what they would like to see, how they would change things. This report
is called “what do you think?” I will come back to it in a more detailed way further in the
dissertation.)
e) The asylum or refugee determination process
The determination process
The Netherlands
In the Dutch application centres some decisions relating to separated children are being made
within 48 hours now.
Belgium
In Belgium there are no clear changes in the provisions around the determination process.
Children need a stable environment and this is reflected in the principle that decisions
concerning their welfare should be made immediately without delay. However gathering
detailed information from a potentially frightened and traumatised child takes time and should
be done in an appropriate surrounding and by trained people. All these issues may slow down
the work that has to be done. There has to be a balance between a quick decision making
process and the need to ensure that when made, these decisions have enough back-up
information about the child to confirm to Art.3 of the CRC, “the best interests of the child”.
43
The other specific principles of The Statement of Good Practice didn’t say anything about
changes in The Netherlands and Belgium and aren’t necessary to mention in this comparative
research.
This last assessment of the separated children’s in Europe Programme was done very recently
and provides some interesting information. But looking at the changes happened during the
last year 2003-2004, a lot of things have happened, especially in Belgium.
Specific changes according to the statement of good practice were mostly on the right for a
guardian-principle which meant a big change for the whole asylum procedure and therefore
connected, also for the interviews with the minors. During the asylum procedure, there can’t
be anymore interviews with unaccompanied minors, without a guardian or an official
representative replacing the guardian. The fact that there aren’t enough guardians leads to a
situation where the minors have to wait even longer before getting the first or second
interview. Conclusion; the guardian service was created to assist and advise the minors in
their asylum application and the further procedure, but ends up to be an interruption of the
procedure. So what was predicted before about the fact that the government hasn’t put enough
financial resources in the guardian service has become true.
The principles of The Statement of Good Practice will be used as parameters to check if the
Belgian and Dutch way of interviewing and everything connected with the interview, can be
as child friendly, or better said; “IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERST”.
So I will come again to the “Separated children in Europe program” in the conclusion.
44
Chapter 3: What specific provisions are made in the National institutions dealing with the UAM’s asylum procedure, surrounding the interviews? This chapter is all about the institutions, and their interviewers, conducting the interviews; preparation of the interviewees, information stream concerning the asylum procedure and the interview itself, towards unaccompanied minors; documentation,… 3.1 BELGIUM 3.1.1 first contact at the border or at the Belgian territory
As soon as they arrive in the country, unaccompanied minors are given a short interview
intended to complete a form identifying them as minors as quickly as possible. This
obligation, responsibility for which falls on the Immigration Office des according to a
departmental note of 1st April 1999, must be completed as rapidly as possible.
Since 23/04/2004, a ministerial note15 was send to all municipalities in the country. This letter
explains what to do when an unaccompanied minor is found at the border or at Belgian
territory by the police or immigration officers, or the first contact made at the immigration
office. The whole meaning is to have one identification form16 to ensure an unambiguous
way of identification, which makes the administration much easier, for the Guardianship
service and for the Immigration Office and who warns these two institutions about the
presence of the unaccompanied minor at Belgian territory. With this form the minor doesn’t
automatically asks for asylum.
To fill in the form the unaccompanied minor’s “finder” ,or first contact person, has to ask the
minor all sorts of questions to identify the child and to figure out some first issues about the
15 See appendix: omzendbrief 23/04/2004 16 see form in english both: http://www.dofi.fgov.be/nl/1024/frame.htm
45
minor’s situation. Asking these questions, it is the first interview, the minor has to go through.
People conducting these hearings at the border and police officers aren’t trained to hear
unaccompanied minors, which points out the first impression about the way of interviewing.
People aren’t trained at all. There are no guiding lines on what and how to ask. They can only
hold on the questions written on the form.
Bear in mind that these people are the first contacts the unaccompanied minors have with the
Belgian institutions…
So when the unaccompanied minor is found and the form is send to the Immigration Office
and the Guardianship Service, s/he will get a guardian, who will assist the minor during the
rest of his/her stay in the country and with the asylum procedure.
3.1.2 Request for asylum at Immigration Office
When the child has a personal guardian, they both can go to the Immigration Office and hand
in a request for asylum. Here the minor will be asked some identification questions for
administrative reasons. That’s it! An appointment will be made for a first real interview
concerning the asylum procedure.
3.1.3 First (and only) interview at the Immigration Office
This interview is to check if the request for asylum is considered to be admissible and ready to
go to the next phase of the procedure.
I heard quite a lot of negative reactions on this first interview. All sorts of people complain
about the way these interviews are prepared and conducted; people working for ngo’s, social
46
workers, teachers of reception classes, and last but not least, the unaccompanied minor
refugees themselves. The minors are not prepared in any way about what to expect from the
procedure and the interviews, they say there’s no direct information stream from the
Immigration Office (= IC) towards the unaccompanied minors…
The minors are scared of what to expect before the first interview and feel bad after the
interview and, as a consequence make hard statements about the way of interviewing at the
Immigration Service.
Unicef Belgium coordinates a project “What do you think?” It’s pointed at children and
youngsters till 18 years of age in Belgium, it wants to give them the chance to raise their voice
at all levels. More concrete they question children and youngsters about their rights. In this
context, they are working together with unaccompanied minor refugees to think about how
steps can be taken to improve their situation in Belgium.
A statement that came out of the project’s report:
“We are not well, sometimes not at all, informed about the asylum procedure. We don’t know
what’s going to happen. We are scared, stressed and intimidated by people working for the
Immigration Service. We often get the impression that they see us as liars.”17
Ernest, 18 years old, Rwanda18:
“I didn’t think the interview at the Immigration Office was fair, because they interviewed us
separately. Odette was 11 years old at that time and I was 15 or 16. They judged the trueness
of our story on base of the facts we told at that time, but I don’t think that’s right. They
compared the story of my sister and me, and a few things weren’t right according to the
17 “Wat denken de niet – begeleide minderjarige vreemdelingen ervan?” unicef België. 2004. 18 “Buitenlandse niet-begeleide minderjarigen vertellen hun verhaal...” Vlaams minderheden centrum vzw
47
decision. But hey what do you want, Odette was just a child at that time, she didn’t know half
of what I knew at that time. My mother told me much more about our situation.”
I wanted to know what was true about these allegations and started to do research on how
people thought about the interviews at the IO (=immigration office). To get an –as much as
possible- objective view on the situation I tried to talk to all sorts of people who came, in one
way or the other, in contact with the interviews at the IO. I interviewed social workers at two
reception centres with a special wing for unaccompanied minors; some unaccompanied
minors at the reception centre in Kapellen and an interviewer at the Immigration Office in
Brussels.
First I went to talk to some social workers, active at a reception centre with special wing for
unaccompanied minors in Arendonk and Kapellen. I talked to the social worker in Arendonk
about the preparation of the interview. Is there a preparation in what way so ever, from the IC
towards the minors in the light of the asylum procedure and especially their upcoming first
(and really important) interview?
“The only thing they get when they go to the IC to request for asylum is a paper with an
explanation of the way the IC works and in short about the asylum procedure, but it’s only
made up in Dutch and in French and written on a professional level. Impossible to
understand for the minors. The only preparation they had in the past was that we as social
workers tried to explain them a little bit about the asylum procedure and what was going to
happen at this first interview. Since 1 May 2004 the new guardianship service started to work.
One of their main tasks is to assist the minor in his/her asylum procedure and has to
accompany the minor during every interview. So they will also have to take the preparation of
the minors as one of there tasks, because IO doesn’t make any moves towards more
information streaming for the kids.”
48
When asking the interviewer at the IO about a brochure or any documentation regarding the
preparation of the unaccompanied minors onto their asylum procedure and more specific the
interview, she answered: “No, there’s a letter which explains the asylum procedure and exists
in different languages. This letter is given to the minors and also to the adult asylum seekers.
Well…and the ones who can’t read or write just have bad luck…”
Dorien: “But what if the Immigration Office doesn’t provide any preparation for the
unaccompanied minors, who else has to provide it then?” IO: “Mmmm…well that’s the
guardian’s task now…”
I spoke to a 17,5 years old boy from Afghanistan at the reception centre in Kapellen, he told
me that he really didn’t know what to expect from the procedure and the interview. No one
explained him anything; they just started to ask him questions, without him knowing why
they were asking him these things and what the Immigration Office was standing for. So no
information or explanation from the IO, nor the guardian towards this child.
CONCLUSION
The Immigration Office claims they have an Information Brochure19, explaining the asylum
procedure, with all the institutions connected to the procedure. This brochure exists in
different languages.
The social worker says there’s no information brochure at all, only one paper with a very
short explanation about the asylum procedure and nothing in it about any interview what so
ever. This paper only exists in French and Dutch and is written in a, for a minor refugee,
impossible way to understand.
19 “Algemene infobrochure over de asielprocedure”, service public federal interieur. See appendix
49
I asked the interviewer at the IO, if she could send me this information brochure, she spoke
about, in ENGLISH so I could use it for my dissertation. After asking her explicitly for the
English version, which she told me existed, she only send me the Dutch version. Why didn’t
she send me the English one? Because it doesn’t exist?
When I checked the Royal decision, KB of 11 July 2003,20 about the fixing of certain
elements of the asylum procedure, that had to be followed by the Immigration Office, I found
out that there was a specific chapter on the information stream towards asylum seekers. All
the points that had to be written in the brochure, according to the KB are written in the real
brochure. The KB mentions the fact that (unaccompanied) minor refugees can ask for the
guidance of an adult or guardian at the interview. This isn’t written in the brochure, but this
can be a consequence of the creation of the guardianship service since 1 May 2004. The
guardian is always obliged to be with the minor at any time now, so the minors don’t have to
ask explicitly for a guardian, they will get him/her anyway.
When reading the information brochure is sounds all understandable for me, because I’ve
been working myself through this difficult matter, all the time, these last few months. I asked
some of my family members to read the brochure and tell me if and what they could
understand out of it. I can assure you that they had difficulties to make sense out of it,
knowing that Dutch is their mother tongue.
Is an unaccompanied minor refugee supposed to understand a text like this, even if they
would speak Dutch or French…?
20 KB 11 Juli 2003, Koninklijk besluit houdende vaststelling van bepaalde elementen van de procedure die dienen gevolgd te worden door de dienst van de Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken die belast is met het onderzoek van de asielaanvragen op basis van de wet van 15 december 1980 betreffende de toegang tot het grondgebied, het verblijf, de vestiging en de verwijdering van vreemdelingen. Art. 2 en 3
50
After looking close at the preparation of the interviews, let’s take a look now at the first
interview itself.
For this part I think it’s very interesting and useful for the reader to use the answers I got from
the IO’s interviewer on my questions concerning the first interview.
Dorien: “who is present in the room during the interview?” IO: “The minor, the guardian, the
interviewer and an interpreter.”
Dorien: “Were the interviews done? Is there a special room?” IO: “No, the interviews are
done at the RMENA-bureau.” (Rmena is the bureau that does the interviews with the
unaccompanied minors. There are 5 people working in that one room, who are all there during
the interview.)
Dorien: “Is there an introduction at the beginning of the interview on what the interview is
about, what’s important or not…?” IO: “There’s no introduction at all, they just ask if the
minor agrees on the interpreter and if s/he understands the interpreter in a good way. Then we
immediately start with the questionnaire, used to interview unaccompanied minor refugees;”
Dorien: “Are the questions and interview techniques adjusted to the age and maturity of the
interviewed unaccompanied minors?” IO: “No, de minors are questioned in a calm way. For
example: when adults tell things that are not interesting for us to hear, we tell them to stop and
go on to another question, but with the minors we let them tell everything they want, we don’t
interrupt them.”
When talking to a minor at the reception centre at Kapellen he was very mad about the fact
that he couldn’t do his story at the IO. They always interrupted him, so he couldn’t tell them
important facts out of his story. The interviewer was always looking at his watch and didn’t
51
seem to be interested at all in what the boy was saying. He thought by himself, ‘ he mister
interviewer, don’t watch your clock all the time, I’m telling you my story here!’
Dorien: “Who conducts the interviews?” IO: “One of the 5 people of the Rmena bureau.”
Dorien: “What is there educational background? Is there a specific training for these people?”
IO: “The interviewers don’t have a specific background at all. They all took part in a ‘state-
exam to become an Immigration-officer. All the people working here at the IO passed their
exam and can work in a state-institution like the IO. There’s no specific training for the
officers and especially not pointed to unaccompanied minor refugees! I, myself, interviewed
adult refugees for a few years and then was transferred to the Rmena bureau to interview
minors.”
Dorien: “Ok, but I just wonder…if everyone with a higher diploma can attend these state
exams…no matter what education they’ve done…take for example someone who studied law,
has a very good basis to work for an institution as the IO, but I can’t imagine that these people
have experiences in interviewing people…and especially not children. For me it’s very hard
to understand that there’s no training for all these persons, before they can start interviewing
children…” IO: “Well I don’t think that just because you didn’t get a special training on how
to interview children or because you don’t have the right educational background, you can’t
handle children!”
Dorien: “What do you think about the way of interviewing at the IO? What would you keep
for sure? ” The IO didn’t really answer this question, but it seemed like she agreed on the way
things are going right now. Dorien: “What would you change?” IO: “A training in how to
interview unaccompanied minors could be interesting, maybe!”
52
CONCLUSION
From what I heard there’s no specific way in which they interview children, no provisions to
take special care of the minors (no introduction, no special room, no trained staff,…). The
only evidence that can point at an unambiguous way of interviewing is the questionnaire21.
This questionnaire is used at every interview. It even contains some example questions on
how to ask for the minor’s travel story.
This questionnaire which can be found in annex contains questions about the minor’s identity,
family’s identity; if minor is married, earlier asylum procedures; places and countries of
passage; information about family members living in another EES (European Economic
Space) –country; diverse questions like certain diploma’s, plans to achieve in Belgium, why
they picked Belgium, Is the minor planning on moving to USA, Canada? All these first
questions are to collect as much information as possible about the minor’s (and his/her
family’s) identity.
The second and very important part of the questionnaire is about WHY the minor left his/her
country and asks here in Belgium for asylum?
For what reasons, based on your race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social
group or political conviction, do you fear persecution? Are you part of a political party or
religious movement? What were your activities according to these memberships? In case you
were already persecuted for what reason what so ever, explain what happened and hand in
eventual prove, witnesses, documents…
Then the third part of the questionnaire contains 2 main questions.
21
53
The minor is asked to explain what an asylum application means.
Then there are questions asked about his/her home country, about the situation in their
country and in Belgium. People they were or are living with. Their opinion about their home
country and about Belgium.
To figure out how the minors get here, it’s very important that the IO asks questions about
persons guiding the minors till they’re in Belgium. This can help to prevent minors to get in
contact or captured by traffic networks. The IO pays quite a lot attention to this last part of the
questionnaire. They ask specific questions about the fact if the minor’s parents new about
him/her leaving to Belgium,…
Last but not least the interviewer can write down some advices or remarks on the interview
and everything that happened or was said. This is the only way in which the interviewer can
have some influence on the decisions made in the asylum dossier.
3.1.4 Second interview at Commissariat General for Refugees and Stateless persons
(=CGRS)
Asylum seekers can turn to the CGRS for two reasons.
After they had their first interview at the IO, the asylum seekers will receive an answer. This
can be a positive or a negative answer. In both cases they can turn to the CGRS. When
receiving a positive decision on the first interview, the asylum seeker will have his/her second
interview at the CGRS to go through the second stage of the asylum procedure. If they would
receive a negative answer, they can hand in an appeal at the CGRS. The CGRS will check the
dossier made up by the IO and then decide if they want to conduct a second interview to
check the validity of the dossier.
54
Most of the reactions on the CGRS were divided.
When asking about the content of the interviews, most interviewees reacted negative. They all
said that the interviews are much too detailed. The questions aren’t possible to answer all.
Questions about political situations in certain countries are impossible to answer for a 14-18
year old. Some of them (maybe) can tell something more about these kinds of issues, but
these questions would get the same empty answer from a Flemish youngster of the same age.
They are not interested in the political situation or are just too young to understand what it’s
all about. Very detailed geographical questions about for example a certain river that flows
through the village or where the church is in a town… “The interviewers ask too detailed
questions”, is the overall reaction.
Daneal, 20years old, Sierra Leone:
“My experiences with the CGVS were quite frustrating.(…) They didn’t believe there was
war at the moment I left Sierra Leone, because following their official report, the war was
“over”, while the civil war was going on the whole time. Houses were destroyed, burglary
all over and even arson. They can say what they want, about official war or no war, but at
that moment in time I didn’t feel safe in my country. They also didn’t believe me when I said I
arrived here in Belgium by ship, just because I couldn’t describe the ship. I got in and out of
the ship at night, so no-one would see me. If I would have known, they were going to ask me
these kind of questions, I would have put my attention on how the ship looks (…)”
(Vlaams Minderheden Centrum, 2001)
55
The way, in which the interviews are done, so the treatment the minors get, is judged in a
more positive way. Even though they ask more detailed questions, the interviewers are nicer
and take much more time to do the interview. There’s still a high stress factor, but this is not
because of (for example) the time pressure, it’s more because of the fact that the minors have
to dive deeper in their past to remember the details they are asked for. Some of the children
are scared to go to the CGVS, because they hear from adult asylum seekers that they weren’t
treated in a nice way.
15-year-old girl, Congo
“I am scared for my interview at the CGVS, they are going to ask me even more questions
than at the IO, and I couldn’t answer them yet…do you think that I should be scared of the
interview? Honestly do you think I should be scared…?”
17-year-old boy, Afghanistan
“When I came to the CGVS the people, interviewing me were nice. They asked why I left my
country and gave me all the time I needed to finish my story. That was really nice. But on the
other hand they were stupid. I don’t know my right age, but here at the asylum centre they say
I am 17 years and 7 months old (with the age assessment), and the interviewers at the CGVS
asked me about something that happened in my country, 20 years ago. Of course I couldn’t
answer it. They kept on asking me about this same situation, several times, just formulating
the question in another way, but hey I’ m not that stupid (laughing) I always answered that I
couldn’t know or remember what happened because I wasn’t even born yet (…) But all
together the people were really nice to me!”
56
What I could conclude out of my interviews with the children is that most of them liked the
way in which they were treated, but they were scared of what to expect.
So I started looking at what the CGRS provides concerning information streaming and what is
done to prepare their interviewers to treat the minors in such a good way.
When looking for information streaming concerning the CGRS I decided to take a look at
their publications. Consulting their website I came across a range of information brochures.
The CGRS publicised four brochures.
The first one, a “general brochure”22 is for everyone and contains information about the
working of the CGRS; a description and a scheme about the procedure and it explains the
different services within the CGRS. This brochure exists in Dutch and French. It can be
downloaded or ordered from the organisation’s website.
The second, “Small brochure”23, is also concentrated on a big reader’s audience. It gives an
overview on the CGRS’s working and provides the readers with data on asylum requests. This
brochure also only exists in Dutch and French.
The third brochure, “Cedoca brochure”24, is in the same line as the other two. It contains
information for all interested. The information is more specific on the Research and
documentation centre (=cedoca). The CGVS has about 30 researchers and a big library with
See CGVS website for the brochures: 22http://www.belgium.be/eportal/application?origin=indexDisplay.jsp&event=bea.portal.framework.internal.refresh&pageid=contentPage&docId=31221.0 23http://www.belgium.be/eportal/application?origin=indexDisplay.jsp&event=bea.portal.framework.internal.refresh&pageid=contentPage&docId=31222.0 24http://www.belgium.be/eportal/ShowDoc/cgvs/imported_content/pdf/Brochure_van_Cedoca.pdf?contentHome=entapp.BEA_personalization.eGovWebCacheDocumentManager.nl
57
around 3000 pieces. The task of the research and documentation centre is to gain as much
detailed information about certain region’s in the world, as possible. Another task is the
conduct of language analyses during the interviews and on base of written pieces to check if
the person really comes from the country and place he/she claims.
The fourth brochure, the “Video brochure”25 is for a more specific audience. This one is
pointed out especially to the refugees themselves. It’s a “video brochure”. The video brochure
and the video cassette itself are translated in 10 different languages (Albanian, Arabic,
German, English, French, Dutch, Persian, Russian, Servo-Croatian , Turkish). The CGRS
made this video in the beginning of 2002 to improve the information stream towards the
asylum seekers. The video explains the asylum procedure and especially the procedure at the
CGRS. This video was spread for free in all open (asylum) centres and includes the info
brochure.
CONCLUSION
When looking at these four brochures, I have to decide that the CGRS’ will to spread
information about their way of working is certainly there. They provide enough information
towards different groups in society. Asylum seekers, which is the most important group, but
next to that to all interested people. The General brochures, that are meant to reach a general
(Belgian) audience, exist only in Dutch and French. We shouldn’t forget that these are the two
most important languages in Belgium, so it’s enough. On the other hand the brochure pointed
out especially towards the asylum seekers, the video-brochure and the videocassette, exists in
10 languages. So they really put effort in reaching as much asylum seekers as possible with 25http://www.belgium.be/eportal/ShowDoc/cgvs/imported_content/pdf/BrochureEngels.pdf?contentHome=entapp.BEA_personalization.eGovWebCacheDocumentManager.nl
58
the brochure. The explanation of the procedures is written in very easy language for everyone
to understand. So for my opinion the provisions in information streaming are there for sure.
The thing I’m really missing in there publication department, is the absence of a brochure
pointed out especially to reach (unaccompanied) minor refugees, even though the video-
brochure (and – cassette) can also be used for the minors, because of the easy way of
explaining.
I heard from the social workers in the asylum centres in Kapellen and Arendonk that there’s
almost none or no information at all towards the asylum centre or the minors. But when I read
the year report 2001-2002, it says that the video-brochure and belonging videocassette is
spread in all asylum centres. None of the social workers spoke about these videos.
Can we blame the CGRS for the bad information streaming or is there a bad internal
communication in the asylum centres (between the adult and minor unit)?
Next to these brochures the CGRS publicises its year reports, which contain especially
important information about how the organisation wants to provide the best possible service
to the asylum seekers. The report describes the CGRS’s mission, values, strategic goals…all
these issues form the base for the way they handle the asylum seekers.
I red and used the 2001-2002 report which is the most recent report to find on the website.
In the spring of 2001, the CGRS started a workgroup “mission-description” with essential
norms and values, to hold on to in making the procedural decisions. It’s all about human
beings’ lives. This mission description is also used as an instrument for the selection of new
members and is part of the basic training; the every new employee has to go through.
59
The mission, with its norms and values was written down in a charter/covenant.
From the beginning of 2002 this charter was placed on strategic places in the CGRS building
and also in all offices.
The CGRS’s norms and values expected from their interviewers and other employees are:
Respect; Impartiality; Integrity; to be Skilled; Empathy; Decisiveness; Coherence;
Professional engagement.
According to these norms and values, the CGRS stands for:
Responsibility – Cooperation – Loyalty – Openness & Clarity
Their strategic goal is to be an open, reliable and decisive key organisation.
Open: in their way of working; transparent towards internal and external contacts; maximum
accessibility and customer-friendliness.
Reliable: qualitative decisions made on short-term base, by capable people, through
streamlined procedures.
Decisive: organisation is capable of handling fast changing situations, without loosing its
quality and speed.
The knowledge and study centre was established and integrated in the CGRS. The knowledge,
present in the organisation, is transmitted onto the new colleagues. There’s a course on
60
interview techniques and hearing. This course is taught by the ICCN. ICCN is a Dutch
specialised bureau that has been working for the IND (the Dutch Immigration and
Naturalisation service). Through these courses, a lot of employees could improve their
interview techniques.
Since September 2001, every new member receives a basic-package of training. The 5 weeks
training contains:
Refugee law; interview techniques; cooperation with interpreters; decision techniques;
country information; use of IT-network CGRS; formal motivation requirements; ways of
working with MINORS; problems connected to trafficking of human beings; way of working,
used by the Psy-supportcel; guided visits to other (connected) organisations.
The interpreters-service together with the knowledge and study centre organised an intern
training on interviewing unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.
The “dossier handling” is done in a specific way. The CGRS will check the asylum seeker’s
subjective story on base of the organisation’s objective country information.
First of all, the Cedoca centre will gain as much information as possible, about the country (or
specific region or city in the country) where the asylum seekers come from. To judge how the
situation was at the time the person left his/her country (to check if the flight reason is
acceptable) and how the situation is now (to check if it’s possible to repatriate the person,
when the answer to the asylum dossier is negative). The gathered information is also used to
base their interview questions on.
61
The second phase is all about the asylum seeker’s subjective story. This phase contains the
interview. Every asylum seeker, adult or (unaccompanied) minor will be interviewed by an
interviewer with a university degree and specific geographical knowledge.
Specialised interviewers, who base their way of working on actualised guidelines, interview
unaccompanied minor refugees. Next to the unaccompanied minors a lot of attention goes out
to another vulnerable group; women. Women are mostly interviews by a woman, because of
their mostly complicated (sexual) situation.
The decision in the asylum dossier will be taken on base of the whole report (so IO + CGRS).
The interviewer will decide on the dossier with supervision of the Commissioner General or
the adjunct Commissioner General.
The CGRS has been giving special attention to some vulnerable groups, as I already told
before, I want to go a little bit deeper on one of these groups; the unaccompanied minor
asylum seekers.
Statistics say that:
In 2001: 1611 minors filed an application for asylum, 747 of them were unaccompanied
minors.
In 2002: 912 of all minors were unaccompanied, 314 of them were minors for sure (as showed
by the medical age assessment)
The Immigration Office says that in 2002:
* 2% younger 6 years old
62
* 6% 6 years – 11 years old
* 30% 11 years- 16 years old
* 27% 16 years old
* 25% 17 years old
Development around the provisions for unaccompanied minors in practice:
The last two years, the Commissariat General has given special attention to the
unaccompanied minors problematic, and tried to promote an adequate and human treatment of
the asylum dossiers.
Special guidelines for accompanied and unaccompanied minors refer to the fact of giving
more attention to specific issues like: the age assessment (more explanation, interpreter,
female doctor in case of girls), possible dangerous situations and risks if disappearance.
For all geographical sections new dossier- decision makers and supervisors were appointed, to
handle the minors’ asylum applications. They get specific training and information on the
minors’ issue. They were taught about issues like child soldiers and youngsters in captivity.
In the beginning of 2002 a new bureau “Minors” was created at the Immigration Office. They
are responsible for the registration and (first) hearing of the minors, but they also do
administrative observation of the unaccompanied minors’ asylum dossier. This all in close
cooperation with the CGRS.
63
Conclusion
Like the CGRS’s mission: “As independent Federal instance, it’s the Commissioner General
and his colleagues task, in the light of the asylum procedure, to offer protection to strangers
who have a well founded fear for persecution.”, already says, the CGVS exists to help asylum
seekers, not to make their situation even worse. It’s just not always possible to make a
positive decision in all cases.
Some elements that prove the will to provide good service towards the asylum seekers,
already speaks out of the fact that they created a working group around mission and norms
and values. The importance and special attention for training is out speaking; the created
knowledge centre, that supports the employees to use their knowledge and experiences to
train other (new) colleagues. The centre also organises general trainings concerning interview
techniques, sometimes in cooperation with the ICCN ( a Dutch bureau that has been a close
partner of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service in the Netherlands)…
The specific provisions for unaccompanied minors are quite broad.
Special guidelines were made up for accompanied and unaccompanied minors. For example:
the age assessment has to be explained much more to the minors. Another issue about the age
assessment is to take in account that minor girls prefer a female doctor to conduct the
assessment. The CGRS engaged special decision makers and supervisors for the
unaccompanied minors’ applications. These people receive special training on issues
concerning these minors, like information on child soldiers, but the training is especially on
interview techniques.
64
3.2 Netherlands
As already mentioned before (in the piece on the Dutch asylum procedure), the asylum
procedure exist out of two parts.
3.2.1 Asylum request/application and first interview
First of all the asylum seekers have to request for asylum at one of the four application
centres. There they will get one interview to check the admissibility of their asylum
application. This all happens at the same day for the adult asylum seekers.
All unaccompanied children have to request for asylum in one of the four
application/registration centres at the borders. The asylum procedure includes an initial
interview and a follow-up interview
Unaccompanied minors between 12 and 18 years old can apply themselves and normally will
get an intake-interview. Just as with adult asylum requests, the first interview is the
determination of nationality, identity and travel route.
Since the 4th of March 2002, children aged 4-12 are also interviewed on their motives for
seeking asylum. For these very young children, the policy is that the first interview is
restricted to nationality, essential personal information and the determination of the child’s
language.
For all young unaccompanied children, the first interview takes place in one of the application
centres. These interviews are not done by special trained staff. These interviewers are the first
people the unaccompanied get in contact with and or not trained at all. These are officials
working at the application centres who normally only have to ask the unaccompanied minors
about their identity and some other formalities. These things can be asked by any person, with
65
some empathic abilities, IF it would all stay with these official questions to identify the child.
The fact that more emotional questions are asked, like things about the travel route, are not
justified to be done by just an official without any training in hearing these youngsters and
kids.
After this first interview the INS decides on the admissibility of the application and
determines whether the follow-up interview on the motives for seeking asylum will be held in
the application centre or somewhere else.
3.2.2 Follow-up (=second interview) as basis for the assessment of the claim
Children aged 4-12 are interviewed in special interview rooms in Den Bosch and Elspeet,
comparable to the rooms used by the juvenile police. However in practice children fewer than
12 are also heard at certain application centres. For these interviews, the INS’s interviewers
come over from Den Bosch to hear the children at the AC. I will come back to these
interviews with minors between 4 and 12 a little bit later.
“The INS’s follow –up interviews with unaccompanied asylum seekers over 12 years old, do
not always take place by someone that has appropriate training or expertise on children” is
what was concluded in the 2003 SCP country assessment for the Netherlands.
(see Harvard style: SCP questionnaire for country assessment, the Netherlands 2001-2003, by
Simone Bommeljé, Defence for children international Netherlands)
http://www.separated-children-europe-programme.org )
Last April I had an interview with Toon Van Dijck, manager INS- Unaccompanied minors’s
unit in Den Bosch and Steve d’Holossey, interviewer unaccompanied minor refugees at the
same unit.
66
They both offered me a lot of information on their unit’s way of working. I asked Toon Van
Dijck about the fact that they put an age limit of 12 years old for the specific way
interviewing unaccompanied minors. I told him that I had some doubts about this age limit.
Dorien: “Shouldn’t it be more about maturity than about age? I can imagine that some
children of 11 years old, who had to take care of their younger brothers and sisters, can have a
quite old maturity for their young age. On the other hand you can have a 14 year old who still
acts like a child. How do you solve situations like that?”
Toon: “What a coincidence that you ask me this question right now! Yesterday we had a
meeting with all the partners of the Dutch unaccompanied minor –network. It was an
evaluation on the hearing of -12 year olds. One of the big discussions points was the same
questions like you just asked. The question raised was: to think about increasing the age limit
from 12 years old up till 15 years old. This should not be a problem. It doesn’t have to be so
perfectly similar to the way the interviews are done now with the -12 year olds. It doesn’t
have to be in a special room, but the approach can be the same one as used in the other
interviews. We already keep the maturity-issue in mind.”
So for the unaccompanied minor asylum seekers from 12 till 15 years old there’s the solution
of the specific interviews, done in a (eventual) specific environment, but for sure conducted
by trained officials. The minors between 15 and 18 years old are not included in this specific
way of interviewing, even though Steve d’Holossey, one of the INS’s minors interviewer,
says that they will always approach the unaccompanied minors in a more relaxed way than the
adult asylum seekers. With the new asylum-policy towards unaccompanied minor asylum
seekers, it almost doesn’t happen that youngsters older than 15 years of age still have to go
through many interviews at the INS. When we take a look at the new unaccompanied minors’
policy, we can see that youngsters over 15 years of age almost all are placed in the return,
67
instead of the integration-stage. So they don’t have to go through many interviews to prove
themselves.
The Netherlands had a big immigration stream with unaccompanied minor asylum seekers,
under which a quite big number of unaccompanied minors under 12 years old. These minors
received almost all the time a permission to stay, because these children couldn’t be
interviewed according to the national law. The INS couldn’t discover if they really had a
reason for applying for asylum, nor if there was adequate reception of family, friends or
organisations to send the child back.
Than the directorate Refugee-policy of the ministry of justice decide there was a need for a
new unaccompanied minor’s policy because of a few reasons:
1) The migration stream of unaccompanied minors into the Netherlands had increased a
lot, which had led to problems like very long procedures.
2) The abuse of the unaccompanied minors –policy increased quite a lot, more and more
adult asylum seekers try to receive a permission to stay as an unaccompanied minor.
This lead to the fact that the provisions for the real minors were overload.
The emphasis is put on the unaccompanied minors (=UAM) under 12 years of age. It was
decided to make it possible to interview these children. The goal of conducting a follow-up
interview with these children is: to figure the asylum seeker’s background and finding an
answer on the question why the asylum seekers fled to the Netherlands, next to these two
topics the emphasis will also be on the family situation in their home country, to check the
eventual adequate reception in the home country.
68
What’s really important to remember, conducting the interviews with minors, is to check if
the child had the chance to tell whole his/her story. The hearing of the children doesn’t have
to be a perfect copy of the adult hearings.
“The question “Is the follow-up interview in the child’s interest?” raised, several times
preparing the new policy. The reaction from the INS and Valentijn (= reception centres for
unaccompanied minors) was, that It’s not always in the child’s best interest to hand out a
permission to stay. Both organisations say that most of the unaccompanied minors don’t
have right for asylum, because there’s no danger in their home country. The follow-up
interview can be an instrument to make the repatriation of the child possible and is in most
cases in the best interest of the child (as long if the reception possibilities in the home country
are ensured).”
(Report: Hearing young unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, A.M. Meulink, Katholieke
Universiteit Nijmegen, October 2000.)
3.2.3 The hearing of unaccompanied minors less than 12 years of age
The INS was very interested in the hearing of the young unaccompanied minors, but only if
there would be a report on what they had to keep in mind as interviewers, while conducting
the interviews. Next to extra theoretical knowledge, they also wanted to be ensured about
training, specifically pointed out at interviewing young unaccompanied minors.
The INS-UAM-unit contacted Catholic university of Nijmegen, if they were interested in
researching what is really important to keep in mind. A former student Anthropology did the
research. The report includes 3 main questions:
1) What is the goal of hearing the unaccompanied minor asylum seekers?
69
2) What do the –direct involved- organisations think about interviewing
unaccompanied minors younger than 12 years old and in what way can they
cooperate?
3) In what way can the interviews be arranged so they take in account; the minority
and special position of the child?
Two examples about hearing minors in practice are written in the report; the youth-and vice
squad and the Swedish Immigration Office.
The report also writes on the child’s development. It includes different elements to lead the
hearing in a responsible way. The report also includes recommendations about the hearing,
the interviewer and some other issues.
(Meulink, A.M. Horen jonge ama's / A.M. Meulink. – Nijmegen :Katholieke Universiteit
Nijmegen, 2000. - 66 p.)
The report writes on the different phases in the child’s development. There are different ways
of development: the development of the brains, the cognitive development, the psychosocial
development and the moral development. I can describe in detail in what way a child develops
on these 4 areas but that’s not relative for my dissertation. The conclusion on the research of
the child’s development is that 4-year olds can tell a valid and trustable story about what they
experienced in the past. The interviewer has to keep the development level in mind. It’s
important to understand that children until their adolescence have difficulties with interpreting
and evaluating their perceptions. From their 7 a 8 years old, they have a good understanding
of time.
70
The interviewer has to be able to make a consideration about the psychosocial and moral level
of the child. If the interviewer is trained in a proper way to interview the child, it’s possible to
get a clear view on what happened to the child.
There are important elements in the report, to keep in mind when interviewing a child
between 4 and 12 (and even for youngster between 12 and 18). These are specific guidelines
as a basis for the training, the INS interviewers would receive.
1. Communication
The first one is the Communication. Important issues to become a good communication are;
building a relationship of trust between the interviewer and the child. This relationship can be
achieved by being honest to the child about what the interview is about, explain the child that
there will be a conversation between interviewer and child about nice things and not so nice
things, to find a good solution for the child. The interviewer has to make sure that the child is
relaxed, this can be achieved by hearing the child in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere, with
space to play and draw. If possible the interviewer can give the child compliments on what it
has created. The child has to trust the interviewer and most of all it has to trust itself. A
second issue to create good communication is the way of talking to the child. It’s really
important to ask the minor open questions. If the hearer would give the child possible answers
it would get confused and this ca lead to invalid information. The interviewer has to show the
child that it’s telling important things. Looking the child in the face could be helpful and
giving short encouragements. The interview questions always have to be posed according to
the child’s age. For young children it’s really hard to place some interpretations in the right
context. So the best way of interview still is to ask them direct questions and don’t ask for
interpretations.
71
2. Not to be suggestive
A next big issue to keep in mind during the hearing is not to be Suggestive. The interviewer
can limit the influencing of the child, by paying attention to two things; his own attitude and
the way he communicates with the child. AN unfriendly attitude will intimidate the child and
take away the validity of what the child tells. Asking suggestive questions should be avoided.
In some certain cases a suggestive questions is necessary to help the child crossing a
imaginary border and start telling their story.
3. Loyalty
Third there’s the issue of Loyalty of the child towards some people very important and close
to him/her. The whole meaning of a hearing is to figure out the truth about the child’s life
story. But the problem is that in many cases the child’s parents, family or other people told the
child that it couldn’t tell certain things that happened. On the other hand these people tell the
children to talk about certain things (which most of the time aren’t true). The child, of course,
believes its relatives and friends, so it will tell the story how it should be told. It’s really
important for the interviewer to keep in mind that it’s not good to interrupt the child’s loyalty
towards these connections with the past.
It’s important that the hearer tells the child, in the beginning of the interview that he/she
knows that the child carries a big responsibility on its shoulders and that the interviewers will
not ask the child to answer a question, where the child things to hurt some one with.
72
The loyalty conflict also occurs when brothers and sisters have a separately interview and
have to tell their story individually. The hearer has to keep in mind not to use one child’s story
against another child.
4. Trauma
Unaccompanied children can be traumatised, but is that always true? The report makes a big
difference between a shocking experience and a trauma. All refugee children had to go
through shocking situations, but not all of them are traumatised. Most people handle
shocking situations in a quite emotional manner, but that’s good and normal. When people
and children don’t handle shocking situations, than we get to the point of traumas. Most of the
time for children is spoken about shocking experiences, but sometimes there are really
traumas and than the child shouldn’t go through the interview. The policy note on
interviewing unaccompanied minors under 12 years of age says that these children can only
be interviewd when there are no considerable concerns, for the child that give a reason not to
take the interview. So the children should only be heard when they are checked for
pedagogical and psychological elements and when it’s proved that they are not traumatised.
5. Cultural Differences
A fifth concern to pay attention too is the issue of Cultural differences. It’s very important to
remember the differences in norms and values between the own culture and the child’s
culture. It’s impossible for the interviewers to know all elements of all cultures. It’s more
important to understand that the child’s attitude can be a consequence of its culture. A simple
73
example is the fact that in a lot of cultures it’s polite not to look an adult in the eyes when you
talk to him, while in the Netherlands (and Belgium) you should look an adult in the eyes.
An open attitude from the interviewer towards the child and the will to take a certain distance
from his own cultural norms and values can help to improve the quality of the hearing and
avoid painful misunderstandings between the child and the hearer.
6. Interviewer / hearer
The key person to point the hearing in the right direction and to keep it on track is the
interviewer/hearer. He/she is the one who has to keep all these elements in mind to make the
hearing as good and as easy as possible. Professional agreed on the fact to provide the
interviewers with 3-phase training. The phases should include: a theoretical overview about
the unaccompanied minors themselves and things to keep in mind; than the interviewers
should practice (eventually with Dutch) children and than finally the interviewer will conduct
a hearing with an unaccompanied minor refugee (under supervision).
The hearer has to pay attention to his attitude. They have to create a friendly, but professional
attitude towards the child. They have to show that they take the child serious and they have to
explain very clear what the hearing is all about. A child will never believe that an adult will
talk to them for more than an hour just out of curiosity.
These hearings are not only stressful for the children; the interviewers will also be
emotionally touched. That’s why it’s important for the INS to create a good supervision and
supporting service for their interviewers.
74
7. Adults attending the interview
It’s important to avoid having too much adults in one room during the interview, because
that will work intimidating on the child. There will always be some adults in the room, like an
interpreter and someone who will watch over the child bests interests. These two persons also
have to know about all the above elements to make sure that the interviews will be totally
conducted (and translated) in the child best interest.
8. Preparation
The report writes on a good preparation of the children, by for example creating a brochure
pointed especially at unaccompanied minor refugees. The person that will guide the child
during its asylum procedure will have to prepare the child for the hearing. This preparation
goes just fine in the present. The INS created a real good brochure to prepare the children.
When I showed it in Belgium to social workers at the reception centres for unaccompanied
minors, they were really interested and hoped for a brochure with pictures for the Belgian
asylum institutions as well.
This brochure only exists in a certain circulation. The INS –UAM-unit manager gave me one
of the brochures (from the previous circulation), which didn’t fit as appendix in the
dissertation because of its size, and I rather keep the original copy for myself, because they
are so hard to get. If you, the reader of this dissertation, are interested in the brochure you can
try to order it at the Ministry of Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation service.
75
9. Setting
Next to a good preparation there is still another surrounding element that has to be provided
outside of the person of the interviewer and the child; the setting. The “setting” includes the
place. In the report was mentioned that the interview should be conducted in a place far
enough away from the child’s residence. On the other hand it’s not good that the child has to
travel too long before arriving at the interview. So taking both together we can decide that the
place of the interview shouldn’t be at the child’s home, so the child can take a distance of the
interview experience, but it can be in the same city so the child doesn’t have to travel too
long.
There was also a preposition to hold the hearings in special rooms that the INS could rent at
the police.
(We can see in reality that over the years the INS created its own hearing rooms for children
between 4 and 12, in Den Bosch.)
10. Atmosphere
1The atmosphere of a setting is also very important. A relaxed and friendly atmosphere will
give the child a better feeling about the whole interview. The place of the hearing, the room,
should be decorated in a child friendly, but not in a childish way. This means that the quantity
of toys has to be limited. Much better than toys is a room, painted in friendly colours, some
plants, furniture on children’s size,…
76
11. Best moment in time
What is the best moment in time to conduct the hearing? The report says that it should happen
as soon as possible for the 4 till 12 year olds, because they can only relax when the interview
is finished.
(Horen jonge ama’s, Anne Marleen Meulink, oktober 2000)
77
Conclusions
1 Comparison between Belgium and The Netherlands
Even though I chose both countries for my cross-national research, because they have so
many similarities, like the language, the culture… I have to conclude there are a lot of
differences between both countries concerning my research topic. It became clear that in
many cases I was comparing apples with pears!
1.1 Countries’ background and history with unaccompanied minors
It already starts with their background. Both countries have a totally different background
when it concerns unaccompanied minor refugees. The Netherlands have always been the big
arriving country for UAM. Belgium also received quite a lot UAM, but not that much in
comparing with the Netherlands. When we look at the table in chapter 1, we can see that:
Belgium Netherlands
2000: 848 6705
2001: 747 5951
2002: 603 3232
2003: 589 1216
These numbers prove how many UAM asked for asylum in both countries, Netherlands’s
number is much higher than the Belgian number.
78
1.2 Policy
Belgium made its general policy towards asylum seekers stricter with its “last in first out
principle”, but there was no big change for the unaccompanied minor’s policy.
The UAM stream into the Netherlands became too big. There was a lot of abuse of the UAM-
procedure by adult asylum seekers. The load on the reception centres and other organisations
became too heavy. That’s when the minister of justice decided to change the asylum
procedure for UAM’s towards a much stricter policy, with two roads. Some UAM’s can stay
and others have to return to their home country when they turn 18. This rule already meant a
big decrease in the number of UAM, but there was also the case of the UAM’s less than 12
years old. They automatically received a permit to stay, even though most of them didn’t have
any reason to ask for asylum. The second part of the new policy meant a big change for the
unaccompanied children less than 12. A new legislation made it possible to interview these
children also during the asylum procedure. The Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service
(INS), requested for a report on what to keep in mind, when interviewing these children and
an appropriate training on interview techniques with young children.
In Belgium on the other hand, children under 12 years old will only be questioned about their
identity (at the IO). They are almost never interviewed in a detailed way ( at least not for the
ones who applied for asylum, the children who are in the country illegally can be questioned
more detailed, because they are mostly just transiting through Belgium to be reunited with
their family in another Western Europe. They are questioned to figure out where the parents
are staying, but this was not in the asylum procedure and I didn’t use it, because I had to draw
my line somewhere!)
79
Here we already can conclude that there are some major differences between two countries.
Belgium never had that much UAM’s like the Netherlands and didn’t have to create a policy
to keep the UAM’s out of the country or to be able to send them back. Belgium doesn’t even
have a separate procedure for the UAM’s and adults.
The background and policy differences are the basis for more changes between the countries!
1.3 The asylum procedure
In Belgium there are several institutions involved in the procedure. This makes it more
complicated, but on the other hand there’s still a way to make an appeal against a decision of
the asylum institutions like the IO and the CGRS. These two institutions are in contact the
most with the UAM’s. Two institutions mean two different ways of working!
The IO does the first hearing with the UAM’s; the CGRS does the second one (after a positive
decision) or repeat the first one again (after a negative answer). Before the UAM comes in
contact with these two institutions it probably already had a first (short) questionnaire to fill in
by a police officer to warn the IO and The guardianship service of the UAM being on Belgian
territory. The questions are asked by a police officer who doesn’t have any experience with
interviewing minors. After that the youngster will be brought to the IO where he has to go
through a second interview with an IO-officer to answer almost the same questions as the first
time about identity. Than an appointment will be made to see the minor with his guardian for
a first real interview. If this gives a positive decision, this is where the interviews stop, but
mostly the decision is negative and the minors have to go to another institution CGRS for
another interview. All these interviews are spread over a too long period of time. When the
80
asylum seekers in Belgium receive a negative answer they can still request for an appeal and
defend themselves in a conversation.
When we look at Netherlands now, we can see that, the minors will have to go through only
two interviews all together. The first interview will be held at the application centre. The
minors have to answer some questions about identity (take-in). The second and more detailed
interview is done by the INS and is to gather more detailed information. The first interview is
done by uneducated people at the application centre. The second and more detailed interview
is always done by an interviewer of the INS. These people are well educated about the
UAM’s topic and elements to keep in mind, conducting the interviews. Next to their broad
theoretical knowledge, (most of them) are trained in interview techniques especially pointed
out to UAM’s. When the asylum seekers in the Netherlands want to file an appeal they can
only do it written. So there are much less interviews than in Belgium.
1.4 What is done in practice by both countries to foresee in special provisions, in the
asylum procedure, for the UAM’s?
1. Preparation in connection with information streaming towards (UAM) asylum
seekers
The Belgian IO has one general brochure that has to provide information to all asylum
seekers, UAM’s inclusive. This brochure is in a way obliged because it’s written in a
Royal decision (KB, 11 juli 2003). Everything mentioned in the KB can be found in the
brochure. So it provides the necessary information about the IO’s way of working and the
81
asylum procedure. The only negative issue is that it’s not understandable for lot of people
especially not for minors. The level of writing is to high and in practice it seems that the
info brochure is only spread in Dutch and French.
The CGRS on the other hand, has 4 information brochures, who explain very well what
the organisation is all about. The (video) brochure meant especially for the asylum seekers
explains in an easy where the CGRS and the procedure is all about and exists in 15
languages.
So for Belgium we can conclude that both institutions make an effort to spread
information towards the asylum seekers. The one organisation some more than the other.
But what is a very obvious sign, is the fact that there’s no special brochure pointed out at
the unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.
Let’s take a look how the Dutch INS provides information to its minor asylum seekers.
Especially towards the under 12 year- olds, they’ve put a lot of time and effort in the
creation of a brochure. The brochure is a picture brochure. It explains every step in what
will happen the day the child will be interviewed at the INS- UAM-unit in Den Bosch.
From a picture entering the building to a the room where the interview will take place,…
AS I already say it’s especially pointed out at children. The older unaccompanied minor
refugees have to get their preparation in the reception centres, or out of a general
brochure, cause there’s no specific information created for them.
The main conclusion to make at this point is the fact that the emphasis lays on a different
group of asylum seekers. In Belgium there are some brochures, but more generally
created. In the Netherlands the pressure lays more on the brochure for the young
82
unaccompanied minors. The brochure is also quite expensive, and only exists in few
pieces, spread to the reception centres.
2. Training of interviewers
In Belgium there are two different institutions that are independent from each other.
That’s why there’s a big difference in their way of working. The IO officials don’t receive
any training in interview techniques or theoretical knowledge about the Unaccompanied
minor asylum seekers issue. This was admitted by one of the interviewers herself. The
hearers learn on the job! The only thing they do differently in interviewing minors, is to
give them some more time and a more relaxed way of interviewing. There a no specific
provisions in training. The interviewer didn’t really feel bad about the fact that she didn’t
really receive training about UAM’s, but it maybe could be interesting to get some
training now and then. All interviewers for UAM’s already had experiences with
interviewing adults.
The CGRS’s interviewers, on the other hand have gone trough much more training and
preparation. They even have an own knowledge and education centre within the institution
to keep all employees posted on the UAM’s issue and training. They organise trainings in
the institutions and experienced interviewers train young-new trainers, so it functions
quite well.
The Dutch situation is comparable with the CGRS. The CGRS’s way of providing training
is in a way a copy of the INS provisions. They both have a Knowledge and education
centre, both train own people and interpreters.
So ways of training personnel are quite similar, for both countries, except for the IO in
Belgium.
83
3. Interview itself
In Belgium, the complaint comes especially about the fact that there’s not enough time at
the IO, for the UAM’s to tell there story, they also feel intimidated about the interviewers
because they don’t make them feel relaxed at all, they feel like they are guilty in a way,
like the interviewers already don’t believe them, even before the interview has started, it
feel like a tribunal. This can already be, because of the fact that the interviewers don’t
know what are specific elements to keep in mind when interviewing youngsters. Another
reason for not feeling comfortable can be the room, where the hearing is conducted. In a
bureau with 4 other adult interviewers working at their desk, is not really a good place to
interview a minor.
At the CGRS, the questions make the youngsters feel uncomfortable because they are so
detailed. The interviewers have very specific knowledge on the UAM’s home country.
This is the place to be honest in your interview, because the hearers know approximately
everything about the countries. In a way the children don’t really mind, but the
interviewers ask also questions about things that happened even before they were born.
The kids can’t answer the questions and think they will be send back for that reason only.
A good thing is that at the CGRS; the children get the time to explain their whole story
without being interrupted by the interviewer.
This can be a result of different elements; trained people with a lot of knowledge and the
right techniques to handle children and the right attitude towards these minors, which
means the most.
The Dutch INS- interviewers are really good in their job, interviewing unaccompanied
minors. I haven’t seen any interviews with minors older than 12, but I had the chance to
84
see two videotapes with children between 4 and 12 years old. It’s amazing how the
interviewers conduct the hearings. They spend a lot of time explaining the kids what’s
going to happen and take their time to get to know each other. They play games with the
kids to make them feel comfortable and relaxed. The hearings also have a positive note,
just because they take place in such a nice setting (the special rooms).
I think the way of interviewing between the INS and CGRS can be compared in the way
of interviewing; the attitudes and time to spend with children. The Belgian IO’s interviews
just don’t have the elements to be successful for the children…
So final conclusion.
For both countries I think there are similarities to find in training and attitude of the
interviewers in the CGRS and the INS. But there’s one big issue to always keep in mind,
which doesn’t really make the similarity valid: The pressure on the specific age –group is
different in both countries.
In Belgium most interviewed unaccompanied minors are between 14 and18 years old, in
the Netherlands a lot of good provisions are made in the same way, but especially for the
under 12 year-olds. So the INS and CGRS provide similar services but with the pressure
on another age category.
85
1.5 Do both countries confirm to the rules of the separated children in
Europe programme (= SCP)?
I checked if Belgium and the Netherlands live up to the rules written in the SCP. For the
checklist I only used the main working principles that can be found in chapter 2 under point
2.2.2.
1. Access to the territory:
In Belgium there are still unaccompanied minors detained at the closed reception
centre at Zaventem. UAM’s always get immediately, after they are discovered by he
border control or the police, a first short interview to fill in a questionnaire to identify
the child.
In Holland the children can also be hold at the reception centre at Schiphol. There also
have to undergo an immediate take in conversation with an untrained official of the
reception centre.
Both countries don’t really confirm to the SCP.
4. Appointment of Guardian or adviser
4.1 after identifying the child, a guardian should be appointed
In Both countries there’s a will to appoint a guardian, but it takes quite long
time. In Belgium this is because there or not enough financial provisions to pay
for the guardians, so not enough people are interested to become a guardian
and the children have to wait for a very long time before getting their guardian.
86
This has consequences for their asylum procedure, which will be interrupted,
because the guardian has to be with the minor during every interview.
So in both countries is a will to appoint guardians but they just don’t have
enough for all unaccompanied minors.
4.2 The guardians need to have a certain background
In Belgium every one who’s interested can become guardian, no special
education is asked, the new guardians get training about the UAM topic and
about the asylum procedure and they can get started. While in the Netherlands
the guardians are people with a educational background that leans on to the
social work profession and even than they still receive extra training.
So let’s say that the Dutch guardians confirm more to the SCP than the
Belgians
5. Registration and documentation
In Belgium the immigration and border police mostly conduct their interviews to
become identification of the UAM. These officers are mostly untrained to interview
unaccompanied minors.
In Holland only the border police interviews for identification, the immigration police
asks for more detailed issues. The border police isn’t trained, but the immigration
officers are very well trained.
They both need some extra training for some of their officers and they would confirm
the SCP well.
87
8. Right to participate
Unaccompanied minors in both countries can participate in the procedure that’s deciding
over their right to stay. They can participate in the way that they get the chance to be
questioned in an interview.
11. The asylum or Refugee determination process
11.1 Separated children in asylum procedure
In Belgium all UAM’s are aloud to attend the procedure. In Holland according
to the new policy some children are aloud in a different way to the procedure.
UAM’s under 15 years of age still get a fair chance for permission to stay,
while youngsters over 15 mostly end up in the return variant. So because of
their age they don’t get same chances as other UAM’s.
Here Belgium confirms more to the SCP statement of Good Practice than
Holland.
11.2 Right for a legal representative at no cost to the child.
This is ok for both countries.
11.3 Minimal procedural guarantees
Both countries have a competent organisation making decision on the asylum
procedures. In both countries the UAM’s have the right for appeal, so these
elements are all positive, but in both countries the decision periods take far tool
long, so for both quite negative in confirming the SCP.
88
11.5 Who accompanies the child in the procedure?
In both countries the children are obliged to be accompanied by a significant
other (guardian for Belgium, other adult for Netherlands), but not always by a
legal representative.
So for most of the SCP main working principles, both countries confirm a part. The will to fill
them in as good as possible is there, but they just have to finish the still missing parts, which
are still quite important; guardianship, training for interviewers are he most important I guess.
89
Recommendations
For the Unaccompanied minor refugees it’s especially important to be provided with enough
information about what to expect. So info brochures specifically towards Unaccompanied
minor refugees, written in an understandable level for minors in different languages and
eventual with pictures.
(I thought that the pictures would be better just for the young children, but the social workers
at the reception centres were really interested in the Dutch picture brochure. They also wanted
to have a brochure like that, to make it easier to explain their minors on what’s going to
happen.)
The interviews itself have to be in a relaxed atmosphere where, there’s enough space and time
for introduction and getting to know each other to make both parties feel comfortable. The
attitude of the interviewer is very important. He/she should have an open, welcoming attitude
towards the minors, not a attitude of judging the minor before even hearing him. The child
feels these things and won’t be open to talk as easily.
The interviewers have to be able to receive training specifically appointed towards the UAM’s
topic. Where they can build on theoretical knowledge on what elements to keep in mind about
this vulnerable group, and techniques to help them open up to tell their story.
It all sounds very nice when the institution organises trainings, but in practice ot seems that
some interviewers don’t really have the right method of interviewing, because there are still
complains of UAM’s feeling intimidated and scared at the interviews at the CGRS, even
though this institution has training for their people.
90
Every interviewer interprets these trainings in his/her own way. A written report with literally
rules and guidelines, like a handbook of hearing UAM’s should be created to support the
interviewers and to protect the child. Because only than all the interviews can be fully
uniform.
For an example of a report like that, I would friendly advice you as a reader to take a look at a
report of the Finnish Directorate of Immigration from March 2002 at the UNHCR website,
called: “Guidelines on interviewing (separated) Minors”
on this link: http://www.unhcr.se/Protect_refugees/pdf/children_world/interviefin.pdf
91
Bibliography
www.aivl.be
www.amnesty.be
www.amnesty.nl
www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/idealism.html
http://www.belgium.be/eportal/ShowDoc/cgvs/imported_content/pdf/Jaarverslag20012002.pdf?
contentHome=entapp.BEA_personalization.eGovWebCacheDocumentManager.nl jaarverslag
CGVS
www.chass.utoronto.ca
www.childfocus.org
www.dofi.fgov.be
www.ecre.org (European Council on refugees and exiles)
www.fedasiel.be (juridische studie over de opvang van asielzoekers)
www.flwe.ugent.be/cie/CIE/loobuyck4.htm
www.justitie.nl/publicaties (amabeleid januari 2003)
www.kleinkasteeltje.be/nl/belgië/procedure
www.kuleuven.ac.be
www.limburg.be/mozaiek
www.minjust.nl/b_organ/naps/wetgeving/vn_conventie_rechten_kind.htm
www.nodoubt.co.nz/articles/ethics.pdf
www.ombudsman.nl/jaarverslag2002/10/2002jv_10A.2.3.3.html (AMA’s in jaarverslag 2002)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism
http://pratt.edu
www.samah.nl (AMA-beleid staatssecretaris van justitie N.A. Kalsbeek)
www.savethechildren.org
www.sce.gla.ac.uk (Separated children in Europe Program)
www.tgl.be/discus/reactie57-2.htm
www.theaha.org/perspectives
www.trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/positivism
www.unhcr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
www.unhcr.org
92
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/home/+gwwBmenSQ8ewxwwwwnwwwwwwwhFqAIRERfIRfgItFqA5BwBo5B
oq5AFqAIRERfIRfgIcFqf5BwBo5Boq5adDa1DwqqdMpwDonmaMoDdG5Dzmxwwwwwww
1FqmRbZ/opendoc.pdf (Trends in Unaccompanied and Separated Children seeking asylum
in industrialized countries, 2001-2003, juliy 2004)
www.veto.student.kuleuven.ac.be/jg25/veto2529/kind.html
www.vluchtelingenwerl.nl
www.vmc.be/main/asielprocedure.pdf
Ayotte, W., (2000) Separated children coming to western Europe-why they travel and how they
arrive, save the children.
Bhabha, J., (2001) Inconsistent state intervention and separate child asylum-seekers. In
European Journal of Migration and law 3, 2001.
COA, (april 2002) Unaccompanied Minors in The Netherlands, Information text. The Hague
(TEKST)
Council of Europe, (2001) Hearing on the specific situatio of young migrants. Budapest.
Defence for Children International (1999) Separated children in Europe Program, Country
Assessment for The Netherlands. Amsterdam.
Delahaye, R., (2003) … Maastricht (EINDWERK)
De Pauw, H., (april 2002) The disappearance of unaccompanied minors and minors victim of
traficking in human beings, child focus, Jacques Debulpaep.
Ecre, (2000) Country Report, The Netherlands
Hammarberg, Thomas, Holmberg, Barbro, (2000) Best Interest of the Child- the principle and
process in Children’s right: Turning Principles into practices, Save the children, UNICEF
93
Koning Boudewijnstichting, (2003) Buitenlandse Niet-begeleide minderjarigen in België, stand
van zaken en praktijkvoorbeelden voor opvang en hulpverlening. (rapport KB-stichting)
(RAPPORT)
Laurence, G. and Martin, C., Building People, Building Programs. Op
http://www.capt.org/The_MBTI_Instrument/Reliability_and_Validity.cfm.
May, T., (2002) Social Research. Issues, methods and process. (BOOK)
Mertens, D., (2001-2002) De kinderen die mijn hart voor altijd stalen. Het Belgisch beleid
inzake opvang en integratie van niet-begeleide buitenlandse minderjarigen in België.
(EINDWERK)
Meulink, A.M., (2000) Horen jonge ama’s. Nijmegen
Mlczoch, M., (2002) I would like to turn the world upside down. Participation and
Empowerment of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in Austria and The Netherlands.
Maastricht. (EINDWERK)
Okitipi and Aymer, (2000) The Price of Safety: Refugee Children and the Challenge for Social
Work, Social work in Europe, volume 7 number 1, pages 51-58.
Rutter, J., (2003) Working with refugee children.(Joseph Rountree Foundation) (RAPPORT)
Stout, A., (1999) Je suis tombe en Europe, comme ca. A comparison about the social isolation
of minor unaccompanied asylum seekers in Belgium and the Netherlands and their experiences
in building up social networks. Maastricht.
(EINDWERK)
… Papa, wat is een vreemdeling? …. (nog terug opzoeken in de bib)
(BOEK)
… Mensenhandel … (“) (BOEK)
94
UNHCR, (1997) Guidelines on policies and procedures in dealing with unaccompanied
children seeking asylum. Geneva.
Vanlerberghe, J., (2002) Een mens op de vlucht. De klapdeur van onze vrijheid. Roeselaere. (BOEK) Vidal, K., (1999) Op de deurmat van Europa. Reis langs de grenzen van het vluchtelingenbeleid. Antwerpen.
95
List with abbreviations
IO = Immigration Office (Belgium)
INS = Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Netherlands)
CGRS = Commissariat General for Refugees and stateless persons
CRC = Convention on the Rights of the Child
ECRC = European Council on Refugees and Exiles position paper on
refugee children November 1996)
96
Appendixes I Convention on the Rights of the Child II European Council on Refugees and Exiles, position
paper on refugee children November 1996 III Form non-accompanied minor alien
97
Appendix I
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25
26of 20 November 1989
Entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49
Article 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Article 2 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 3 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
26 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
98
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
Article 6 1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Article 8 1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity
Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Article 13 1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
99
Article 16 1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
others.
Article 17 States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall:
(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;
(b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources;
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books;
(d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous;
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.
Article 18
2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
Article 20 1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
Article 22 1. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties.
100
2. For this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co-operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason , as set forth in the present Convention.
Article 30 In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.
Article 32 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular: (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.
Article 34 States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
Article 38 1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
101
3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.
4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.
102
Appendix II
In this annex I would like to give the full overview of the ECRE’s position on Refugee Children. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles programme and position on different issues aren’t so well known by the people. That’s why I want to provide the readers of this dissertation at least with the full position on Refugee Children. It contains some more interesting information about refugee children, which is instructive, not specifically in connection with my research, but in general for sure.
The paragraphs used by the separated children’s programme to base their statement of good practice on, are written in italics.
“European Council on Refugees and Exiles: position on refugee children”
november 1996
Summary of key recommendations on refugee children
1. Refugee children have the full rights of children and the full rights of refugees. This requires that each state should fully respect both the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
2. The "best interests of the child" principle should inform all procedures affecting the child.
3. Children's asylum applications should be given priority but the asylum procedure itself should not be accelerated.
4. Each refugee child has the right to be heard in any procedure affecting the child. Those who interview children should be appropriately trained, and should have a knowledge of child development and relevant cultural factors.
5. A refugee child should have the same social, economic, cultural, civil and political rights as other children living within the host state. There should also be special provisions to meet the needs of refugee children, for example in the areas of education and health care.
6. An unaccompanied refugee child should never be returned to a third country. S/he should never be subject to a detailed interview at the point of entry.
7. Each unaccompanied refugee child should be provided promptly with a guardian who designates or provides full parental responsibility, and with all necessary psycho-social support throughout the asylum procedure.
8. Each unaccompanied refugee child should be provided rapidly with legal representation throughout the full asylum procedure, at no cost to the child or those caring for the child.
9. An unaccompanied child, as a general rule, should not be returned to his/her country of origin after his/her asylum claim has been rejected, unless it is in that child's best interests and other necessary conditions are also guaranteed.
103
10. An unaccompanied child should never be detained, and detention of any refugee child should be avoided except in the most exceptional cases.
General statement
1. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is concerned with the protection and assistance of asylum seekers and refugees in Europe. Within this overall concern, ECRE aims to improve the protection and assistance of asylum seeking and refugee children. ECRE also aims to strengthen the international promotion of these children's rights (see below: The Definition of a "Refugee Child").
2. The ECRE position on refugee children is based on the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines on Refugee Children. ECRE here intends to be more precise than these texts on procedural matters with regard to acquiring international protection in European host countries. The general principles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulating the best interests of the child, non-discrimination, survival and development, and participation shall apply to all children.
Respect for rights as both refugees and children
3. ECRE maintains that refugee children have both the full rights of children and the full rights of refugees. In many instances, their rights as children will supersede their rights as asylum seekers or refugees. They have the 27same needs for care, education and special consideration as other children, in addition to their specific needs and rights as asylum seekers or refugees.
4. The best interests of the child principle should inform the entire determination procedure and is particularly crucial during the period immediately after the asylum determination. It should override all other considerations of a political or financial nature, and it requires that the developmental needs of the child should be at the forefront of the decision makers' minds.
Status and non-discrimination
5. Children should be granted those rights described in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, whether they benefit from Refugee Convention status or from national protection or temporary protection measures. Non-discrimination should be the guiding rule: a refugee child possesses the same social, economic, cultural, civil and political rights as other children living within the host state's jurisdiction.
27 http://www.ecre.org/positions/children.shtml#top
104
6. ECRE calls on states to respect the rights set forth in international human rights instruments in the case of each refugee child within their jurisdiction, without discrimination of any kind.
7. ECRE calls on each European state to refer specifically in their asylum legislation to the additional rights of both accompanied and unaccompanied refugee children, including child asylum seekers.
Definition of a "refugee child"
8. ECRE defines a child as every person below the age of 18. ECRE here refers to a "refugee child" as every child who is
• seeking refugee status or other international protection, • considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and
procedures, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other adult, or who is
• forced to flee across an international border (as a result, for example, of war, civil war or generalised violence).
Age determination
9. In determining age, ECRE believes that young asylum seekers should be given the benefit of the doubt. If an age assessment is necessary, for example when it is thought that travel documents have been falsified to present a child as an adult or an adult as a child, an independent medical examination by a paediatrician should be carried out. Such an age assessment should take into account the child's physical appearance and psychological maturity. However, medical testing should be handled with the utmost care, with due consideration given to the scientific limitations. Any medical testing which is forcible and/or violates the physical or cultural integrity of the individual should be ruled out.
10. ECRE suggests to European states that each state should establish a register of independent paediatricians whose "balance of probabilities" assessments with regard to both physical and psychological age will be taken in good faith. In determining psychological age, paediatricians should use a knowledge of countries of origin, relevant cultural factors and refugee issues.
Unaccompanied refugee children
11. Unaccompanied children are those who are separated from both parents and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, has responsibility to do so.
ECRE maintains that unaccompanied refugee children should receive particular protection and care. Since they are separated from their parents and community they are particularly at risk and in a vulnerable situation. ECRE therefore calls on states to develop policies which take account of the special needs of unaccompanied children, both within the asylum procedure and in the provision of suitable care.
105
12. Children who arrive without an accompanying adult, but who do have family members in the host state, should be reunited with those family members as soon as possible. Unaccompanied siblings should never be separated by the reception system of the host state.
13. Unaccompanied children possess all the rights of refugee children, as well as those specific rights that are highlighted in the following recommendations.
The rights of all refugee children
Access to the territory
14. European host states should give refugee children immediate access to their territory.
An independent body should be appointed to guarantee that unaccompanied children are admitted to the receiving state under conditions of safety and effectively protected against refoulement.
All border officials should be trained in how to treat unaccompanied children and should inform the central competent authorities immediately of any unaccompanied child at the border.
15. An unaccompanied child seeking protection should
• never be returned at the point of entry, • never be detained at the point of entry, • never be subject to detailed interviews by immigration authorities at the point of entry,
nor prior to the provision of a guardian and legal representative (see paragraphs 16-18 and 24).
Guardianship
16. One of the most important ways to ensure that an unaccompanied child's best interests are defended is through the appointment of a guardian who nominates or assumes parental responsibility in the absence of the natural parents. The guardian's task is to ensure that decisions, both on status determination and the future, will be in the child's best interests. They must consult with the child so that the child's views are taken into account by the decision-making authorities.
17. Guardians, whether individuals or the staff of an appropriate institution, should be carefully selected, trained and supported in their work. They should be matched to take account of the child's racial, cultural, religious or linguistic background. In addition to child welfare expertise, guardians should have some knowledge of refugee law and an understanding of the situation in the child's country of origin.
18. ECRE therefore maintains that each unaccompanied child should
• be provided rapidly with a guardian who will work closely with the legal representative referred to in paragraph 24,
106
• be provided at each point in the procedure with psycho-social support as appropriate.
Accommodation
19. Suitable accommodation facilities, responding to material, cultural, religious, linguistic and psychological needs in an age-appropriate way, should be provided by the host state for all unaccompanied children.
Freedom from detention
20. ECRE maintains that unaccompanied children should never be detained. This includes detention at the border, for example in international zones, or any form of detention after the asylum claim has been rejected.
21. Children together with their primary care-givers should not be detained. The single exception to this rule is when the state authorities can prove that the sole primary care-giver must be detained for reasons of national security or other such exceptional reasons and that detention is therefore the only means of maintaining family unity, in the best interests of the child. Such a situation should be extremely rare and occur for a very short period of time. Moreover, families including children must not be held in detention under prison-like conditions.
The determination procedure
Access to the procedure
22. ECRE maintains that each unaccompanied child should
• immediately be admitted to the full asylum procedure and adequate reception facilities,
• be exempt from all accelerated procedures, including "safe third country" procedures.
right to apply for asylum
23. A child may have grounds for seeking asylum in his/her own right and is entitled to an individual determination of his/her application. This is not only true for unaccompanied children, as above, but also for those children who, although with their families, may wish to lodge an application in their own right. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not discriminate in terms of age as to whether applications are admissible.
Legal representation
24. ECRE maintains that each refugee child who is seeking international protection in their own right should
• be provided promptly with legal advice and representation throughout the determination procedure, including any appeals,
• be provided, if necessary, with the means to obtain this legal representation,
107
• if unaccompanied, automatically receive such representation at no cost to the child or those caring for the child,
• be provided with interpreters trained in both refugee and child issues, • have the right to appeal against a negative decision to an independent judicial
authority.
Right to be heard
25. The refugee child who is capable of forming his or her own views has the right to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child - particularly the refugee determination procedure. These views should be taken into account and given due weight, in accordance with age and maturity.
26. ECRE maintains that all procedures and determinations which affect a refugee child should therefore be designed to allow the child to be heard. Any meeting for this purpose should take place in a child-appropriate way (ie. with breaks, non-threatening surroundings and the presence of the child's guardian or a trusted family member). The child may either be heard directly, or a guardian or legal representative may put forward the child's views.
27. Those who interview children and assess their claims should be appropriately trained, with additional knowledge of child development, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and relevant cultural factors. Oral interviews with children should never be used for the primary purpose of finding discrepancies. If possible, provision should be made for an expert assessment of the child's ability to express a well-founded fear of persecution.
Other procedural safeguards
28. ECRE calls on states to adopt and implement administrative procedures which help assure the fair and efficient processing of asylum claims from children, as keeping children in an insecure situation for long periods of time can be extremely harmful.
29. Applications from, or involving, children should be given priority but the procedure itself should not be accelerated.
30. States should have a generous approach in the handling of cases where the child reaches the age of maturity during either the determination procedure or during the process of finding the best solution for the individual.
31. Refugee children require thorough explanation of asylum processes and preparation for possible outcomes, in an age-appropriate manner.
Family tracing, contact and reunion
32. In tracing family members of refugee children and in taking steps to facilitate contact between refugee children and family members, ECRE calls on states to cooperate in efforts made by the UN and by other competent inter-governmental or non-governmental organizations which work with the UN. Particular reference is made to the ICRC and the role of its Central Tracing Agency. Applications by a child or his/her family for reunion should be dealt with in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. Again, ECRE wishes to stress the importance of consultation with the child during this process.
108
33. ECRE emphasizes the need for investigation of a family's situation and ability to care for the child prior to family reunion. This should be carried out by an independent agency which has no vested interest in the outcome other than the welfare of the child.
34. States should take immediate steps to allow reunion of refugee children with family members who have already found protection or are otherwise resident in countries outside the region of origin.
35. ECRE specifically recommends that unaccompanied children seeking asylum in EU Member States should be immediately assisted with family tracing and reunion in other EU host countries. Family reunification in such cases can enable a family's application to be dealt with in one Member State rather than in several, which is both more efficient and more humane.
Health care
36. ECRE maintains that medical and psychological services should be available for refugee children at the same standard available to children of the host country. In addition, there should be facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation, staffed by medical practitioners who are aware of refugee health conditions.
Education
37. ECRE believes that a refugee child has the same right to education as other children of the same age within the territory of the host state; this includes the period during which the asylum claim is examined. European host states should actively take steps to ensure that each refugee child's right to education is fully realized.
38. Schools need to be flexible and responsive to refugee children, and should provide the child with any necessary language or other support.
39. A child refugee should be able to benefit from additional education in his/her mother tongue in order to preserve cultural identity.
Other social assistance
40. ECRE calls on states actively to promote the physical and psychological recovery and the social integration of refugee children.
41. ECRE believes that the provision of any other social assistance to refugee children should be based firmly upon their rights and needs as both refugees and children.
post-determination care
42. As a general rule, following a negative asylum determination, an unaccompanied child should not be returned from the host country to his/her country of origin, unless all the following conditions are satisfied:
• it is determined, with the agreement of the child's guardian, to be in the best interests of the child that s/he should return,
109
• parent/s or relative/s or another adult care-taker, or government child-care agency have agreed, and are assessed as being able, to provide immediate and long-term care upon arrival in the country of origin,
• during the return the child is properly accompanied, • after the return the situation of the child is effectively monitored by a designated NGO
or international agency.
43. In unaccompanied child cases where the asylum application is rejected and the above conditions for return are not satisfied, states should ensure that a residence permit is granted on other grounds.
110
Appendix III Form Non-accompanied minor alien This form must be completed at the time of interception at the border or within the territory by the police or during the first contact with the Aliens Office of an individual who : - seems to be or declares to be less than 18 years of age and - seems to be a non-accompanied minor alien16 (NAMA) and - has requested the status of refugee or does not fulfils the conditions for entry into the
territory and residence laid down by the laws on entry into the territory, residence, settlement and removal of an alien.
Photograph17 Height : …………………………………………………………………
Particulars : ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………..
…….………………………………………………………………………………….
Mother tongue / spoken language : ………………………………………….
1. Identity of the minor Name–First name : ...........................................................................................................................
Place and date of birth : .....................................................................................................................
Nationality : .........
Domicile/ residence - in Belgium and abroad: .................................................................................
Identity of the person established on the basis of: ............................................................................
Cross out the documents which the person does not hold: passport - identity card - oral/written declaration - false/falsified passport - other documents (to be specified)..................... ............................
2. Information about the family
a. Identity of the parents of the minor
111
Father: Name – First name :..............................................................................................................
Place and date of birth :........................................................................................................
Nationality :............................................................................................................................
Domicile / residence : …………………………………………………………………………….
Mother:Name – First name :..............................................................................................................
Place and date of birth :........................................................................................................
Nationality :............................................................................................................................
Domicile / residence :............................................................................................................
Additional information ……………………………………………………………………..
PHOTO
b. Identity of other family members
Name-First name :
Place and date of birth :
Nationality :
Domicile / residence :
Family relationship :
Name - First name :
Place and date of birth :
Nationality :
Domicile / residence :
Family relationship :
3. Is there a contact person or contact address in a country of destination within the Schengen Space or in a country signatory to « Dublin II18 » ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
112
4. Modus operandi / Specific data regarding the minor (circumstances of the interception, etcetera)......... ............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
5. Information about possible companions : (identity of the companion(s) of the minor) Name – First name : ...........................................................................................................................
Place and date of birth :......................................................................................................................
Nationality :..........
Domicile / residence............................
Identity of the person established on the basis of : 18 Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2001 of the Council of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member States responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. ............................
Cross out the documents which the person does not hold : passport - identity card - oral/written declaration - false/falsified passport - other documents (to be specified).......................................
Family ties of the companion with the minor :............................
Name – First name : ...........................................................................................................................
Place and date of birth :......................................................................................................................
Nationality :..........
Domicile / residence............................
Identity of the person established on the basis of : ............................................................................
Cross out the documents which the person does not hold : passport - identity card - oral/written declaration - false/falsified passport - other documents (to be specified).......................................
Family ties of the companion with the minor :............................
6. Reason for the immigration / why did the NAMA come to Belgium
............................ ............................
............................
............................
113
............................
............................
............................
7. Are there any indications as whether the NAMA could be a victim of human trafficking ? ............................ .
............................
............................
8. Is there any doubt about the alleged minority ? ............................ ............................
If police services complete this form, please specify whether there is any doubt or not. Request to the Guardianship Service19 to carry out a medical examination. This section must be completed by the Aliens Office, because it is the authority competent to
request such an examination from the Guardianship Service.
19 Article 7 (1) of Title XIII, Chapter 6, « Guardianship of non–accompanied minor aliens » of the Programme-Law of 24 December 2002.
9. Is there a connection with other facts ?
Is there a connection that can be made with persons having travelled with the minor ? Name – First name : ...........................................................................................................................
10. Indicate whether the NAMA has personal objects
............................ ............................
............................
............................
10. Name, address, phone, … of the office completing the form ............................ ............................
............................
............................
11. Sending of the data
a) to the Guardianship Service :
Waterloolaan 15
1000 BRUSSELS
114
Phone: 078/15.43.24
Fax : 02/542.70.83
As soon as it has received the form the Guardianship Service will get in touch with the authority responsible for the reception of aliens, in order to ensure the urgent accommodation of the NAMA. This formality, however, should be accomplished with respect to the legal provisions governing the entry into the territory. b) to the Aliens Office (if it has not been this authority which completed the form) : Antwerpsesteenweg 59B
1000 BRUSSELS
Fax : 02 274 66 13
Please send this form immediately to the Guardianship Service and the Aliens Office, together with a copy of the identity and/or residence documents.
115
116
