sou · GRB325d1 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — En entydig och saklig information om vad ett påtvingat åter- vändande innebär och effektivare möjligheter att verkställa avvisningen eller utvisningen skall ge tydliga signaler till personer som vistas i med verkställbara avlägsnandebeslut samt till potentiellt olagliga migranter om att olaglig inresa och vistelse inte leder till varaktig bosättning i . Det måste således stå helt klart för en utlänning, som inte har rätt att stanna, att han eller hon till slut måste lämna . Möjligheterna till ett påtvingat återvändande är väsentliga för att inte undergräva trovärdigheten för svensk asylpolitik. Därför är effektivare verkställigheter en viktig del av ett fortsatt värn av asylrätten och det är av största vikt att lagakraftvunna avlägsnandebeslut verkställs inom de i lagen fastställda tidsramarna. Många människor som måste lämna landet far illa av den ovisshet som uppkommer om verkställigheten drar ut . Särskilt svårt är det för barnen. Det är därför även från humanitär synpunkt mycket angeläget att tiden mellan avslags- beslutet och avresan blir kort. Självfallet måste det finnas begräns- ningar för vilka tvångsåtgärder som kan tillgripas. Utlänningarnas integritet måste respekteras liksom att det är av stor vikt att skydda deras fysiska och psykiska hälsa. De internationella konventionerna och medlemskapet i EU fastställer i många avseenden ramarna för vår migrationspolitik. En gemensam syn på migrationspolitiken inom EU är av grund- läggande betydelse för en trovärdig kamp mot olaglig migration. EU-medlemskapet innebär inte någon grundläggande förändring i den svenska asylpolitiken, men medför att den nationella asylpoli- tiken måste utformas i samverkan med EU och delvis som en del av dess politik. Men EU-maskineriet går framåt relativt sakta och måste snabbare driva igenom nationell lag- stiftning, som är anpassad till den förändrade verkligheten. Den situation som vi nu befinner oss i – med alltfler dokumentlösa – har systemet nämligen inte förutsett. Övriga EU-medlemmar möter liknande hinder som för ett smidigt och snabbt åter- sändande av personer, som inte har rätt att vistas i EU, till deras ursprungsländer. Det kan handla om att personen ifråga inte vill återvända självmant, att personens vistelseort eller identitet är okänd, att resehandlingar saknas eller att det uppstått svårigheter i samarbetet med vissa stater när det gäller att utfärda identitets- och resehandlingar, att den återvändande personen gör fysiskt motstånd eller att lämpliga transportmedel saknas. Flyktingkonventionen förutsätter att den asylsökande med- verkar till att så långt som möjligt klarlägga om han eller hon uppfyller kriterierna för flyktingstatus. Den sökandes identitet och medborgarskap är viktiga utgångspunkter i detta klarläggande. Enligt skall den sökande tala sanning och bistå utredningen så att alla fakta i ärendet fullständigt klarläggs. Den sökande skall dessutom anstränga sig att underbygga sina uppgifter genom att använda all tillgänglig bevisning och, i förekommande fall, ge tillfredsställande förklaringar till varför bevisning saknas. Den sökande skall lämna all relevant information om sig själv samt redogöra för sina tidigare upplevelser så detaljerat att man i utred- ningen kan fastställa alla väsentliga fakta. Skyldigheten att säkerställa att alla relevanta fakta kommer fram och att värdera dem ligger emellertid både på den sökande och på utredaren. Tydliga signaler måste ges om att bristande medverkan väger till den asylsökandes nackdel. För att fortsatt kunna vidmakthålla trovärdigheten till vårt asylsystem måste en effektivare ordning införas i syfte att klargöra de sökandes identitet. In recent years, several commissions of inquiry have been appointed with the task of examining different aspects of problems relating to the enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders under the Aliens Act. In 1994 the Government appointed a special commissioner whose assignment included proposing measures that would allow enforcement to take place in a dignified fashion while at the same time being as effective as possible. In 1995 the commissioner presented an interim report (SOU 1995:55), which was in the nature of a principles document. A special commissioner was appointed in January 1997, for the purpose of proposing procedures for transferring the responsibility for enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders from the authorities to what was then . In the same year the commissioner presented the report Enforcement and control in aliens cases (SOU 1997:128), generally known as the Enforcement Report. At the beginning of 2001 a special commissioner was appointed to investigate certain questions concerning the participation of Swedish missions abroad in aliens and citizenship cases and the treatment of aliens in detention. The commissioner delivered a report (SOU 2001:110) in . The Government appointed the present commission of inquiry (UD 2002:02) in , and gave it the task of conducting a review of the regulations on enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders, particularly in cases where the identity of the alien is unclear. It is important to emphasise that this inquiry should not be regarded as a new enforcement inquiry; the commissions brief is limited primarily to a review of problems arising in connection with aliens who do not themselves clarify their identity. Another reason for the appointment of this commission was reports in the media that several cases of enforced return to had been handled improperly. A review of the cases had indicated that there may be a lack of clarity in both the legislation and practice regarding the country to which a person refused entry shall be returned. Asylum and migration issues are among the most complicated and sensitive political issues in today, not least because the decisions made by the authorities often have far-reaching consequences both for the individuals concerned and for society more broadly. The number of people seeking asylum in has increased in recent times and has virtually doubled in two years. In 2002 approximately 33 000 aliens applied for asylum in , which is the highest annual figure since 1994. Most of them came from the , and the CIS countries. When adjudicating cases, and, upon appeal, find that many asylum-seekers lack the grounds that are necessary to entitle them to asylum or some other type of protection under the Aliens Act, and that they must therefore leave . It is important that aliens seeking asylum in are treated with dignity and respect when they submit their asylum applications. People in need of protection must be guaranteed that their application for asylum will be examined in compliance with the conventions to which has acceded and in accordance with our own legislation. In connection with their application for asylum, asylum-seekers must be informed about both their rights and their responsibilities. The growing influx of asylum-seekers and the sharp rise in workload due to the ever increasing tendency of asylum-seekers not to provide confirmation of their identity and/or citizenship are making greater and greater demands on the responsible authorities in . is now making greater efforts to develop new methods for prompt examination of cases concerning persons without documents and to adapt to the new situation. In order to illustrate the problems the authorities have to deal with, it may be noted that according to statistics from , 88 per cent of all asylum-seekers in 2002 were without a passport, while an estimated 70 per cent (estimates based on experience) lacked any type of acceptable and credible identity document at the time of their application for asylum. Not only has the number of asylum-seekers grown over the past year, the percentage of asylum-seekers without documents has also gone up. The reasons why asylum-seekers dispose of their identity documents or state that they lack documents vary. It must be emphasised very forcefully in this connection that a lack of documents does not necessarily imply that an asylum-seeker has no grounds for protection. The large number of asylum-seekers without documents quite certainly includes people who are in need of protection, e.g. individuals who have had to flee or leave their home with such urgency that they have had no opportunity to obtain documents, and others who are afraid and therefore are unwilling to apply for documents or do not dare do so, or who are unable to obtain documents even if they try. There is also a category of aliens who have been induced to purchase trips to by human smugglers and instructed to either destroy their documents or surrender them to the human smugglers after arrival in . On the other hand, it has to be stated that there are asylum-seekers who, in an attempt to stay in the country after a decision to refuse them entry, declare that they have no identification papers, as a means of impeding imminent enforcement. Asylum-seekers may also get rid of their documents because they want to avoid the possibility of their visas being traced. Another significant reason for asylum-seekers not to present documents is that, irrespective of any need for protection, they may not want to be sent back to their first country of asylum, i.e. the asylum-seeker wants to avoid the Convention, for example, being applied. A passport may also bear witness to a completely legal departure which may not fit into the image of persecution by the authorities in the country of origin that the asylum-seeker wants to prove. Assessing the reason for a lack of documents is a delicate and important task for officials investigating asylum cases, but the presumption must not be that these people lack credibility. Accumulated experience, however, shows that the grounds for asylum most people adduce are often deemed inadequate for granting asylum. One conclusion to be drawn from this line of reasoning is that considerable resources are needed to make it possible early in the asylum process to solve the difficult task of separating those who obviously have no good grounds for asylum from those who can make justified claims to protection in . The right to asylum is based on the right of individuals to seek asylum and the duty of states to provide protection to individuals in risk of persecution. The asylum system is thus based on a personal examination, which in turn presupposes that it is possible to establish the identity of aliens. It is a fact that aliens without documents are treated in the same way as asylum-seekers who state their true identity and cooperate with the officials investigating asylum cases. A large number of asylum-seekers claim names/identities and/or citizenship that prove to be false, or else change their statements in the course of the investigation, while asserting that they lack documents to confirm their identity. This is a means of prolonging the time required for processing applications, which in turn in many cases subsequently makes it more difficult or indeed impossible to enforce any refusal-of-entry order that may be issued. A large number of asylum-seekers are deemed by the responsible authorities to lack adequate grounds for protection under Swedish law, and are not entitled to permission to stay for any other reason either. Those seeking asylum often adduce circumstances that they themselves subjectively regard as grounds for asylum, but which fail to fulfil the criteria set out in the Aliens Act. A decision is therefore taken to refuse entry. The grounds determining the cases in which an alien shall be granted asylum or a permit in are laid down in the legislation on aliens. If asylum or a permit is not granted on other grounds, the alien is required to leave the country, which he or she in many cases refuses to do. For the return of an alien to be possible, valid documents (a passport or other documents) are often required. The authorities responsible for aliens cases face major difficulties in establishing the identity of the alien and inducing him or her to cooperate in obtaining documents. This report presents various proposals for tackling these problems. While it is feasible to arrive at any comprehensive solution, a variety of methods can be used in order to improve the situation (the proposals and assessments resulting from the inquiry will be found in the conclusion and the different chapters of the report). At present, according to data from , about 20 per cent of asylum-seekers obtain a permit in the first instance and a further 10 per cent approximately do so in the second instance, after lodging an appeal and making a new application; the total figure is therefore about 30 per cent. However, it is important to note that a majority of these receive permits for humanitarian reasons or because they have formed an attachment to a person living in during the period in which their application was being processed. Only a minority receive a permit because grounds for asylum apply or they are otherwise in need of protection. The basic assumption is that aliens who are not entitled to stay in leave the country of their own accord. One of the responsibilities of is to induce people who have been refused entry to leave of their own accord. The general rule is that aliens refused entry shall return to their country of origin of their own accord, primarily for obvious humanitarian reasons but also on account of cost. If an alien residing in unlawfully refuses to leave the country of his or her own accord, a forced – and so inevitably less well planned – return to the country of origin may be necessary. It must be made completely clear to aliens who are not entitled to remain in that they have to leave the country. At the end of 2002 there were approximately 1 600 persons subject to enforceable orders from and approximately 5 300 persons with enforceable orders from . and above these, there are in addition persons with enforceable removal orders issued by a authority, or expulsion orders issued by a court. These people remain in the country for various reasons, such as a failure to declare their identity and/or citizenship or failure to cooperate in obtaining valid documents that will enable them to to their country of origin or to another country that is able to accept them. The Swedish has shown that there are people staying illegally in who put their on a legal footing by applying for asylum and engage in various forms of criminal activity while awaiting a decision. According to information from , only a few people apply for asylum in connection with their entry into the country. Unambiguous and objective information about the implications of forced return and more effective possibilities for enforcing refusal-of-entry or expulsion will send a clear signal to individuals in subject to enforceable removal orders and to potential illegal migrants that illegal entry and do not lead to permanent in . It must thus be made quite clear to an alien who is not entitled to stay that ultimately he or she will have to leave the country. So as not to undermine the credibility of Swedish asylum policy, it is essential that forced return is a real possibility. Consequently, more effective enforcement is an important factor for continuing to defend the right to asylum and it is of the greatest importance that legally binding removal orders are enforced within the time frame set by the law. Many people who have to leave the country suffer because of the uncertainty that arises if enforcement is slow. It is particularly difficult for children. Accordingly, for humanitarian reasons it is very important that time elapses between the decision to reject an application and departure. Naturally there must be limits to the types of coercive measures to which it is possible to resort. The integrity of the aliens must be respected and it is also of great importance to protect their physical and mental health. In many respects, the framework for our migration policy is set by the international conventions and our membership of Union. A common approach to migration policy in the EU is fundamental to a credible fight against illegal migration. EU membership does not entail any fundamental change in Swedish asylum policy, but it does mean that our national asylum policy must be shaped in interaction with the EU and, to some extent, as a part of EU policies. However, the EU machinery moves relatively slowly and in the mean time must act more rapidly to push through national legislation adapted to meet the changes in reality. The point is that the system has not foreseen the situation in which we now find ourselves, with more and more individuals without documents. Like , other EU Member States are encountering similar obstacles to the swift and smooth return to their countries of origin of people who are not entitled to in the EU. The problem involved may be that the person in question does not want to return of his or her own accord, that the persons whereabouts or identity is unknown, that there are no documents or difficulties have arisen in the cooperation with certain states on issuing identity and documents, that the person who is to return puts up physical resistance or that no suitable means of transport are available. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees presumes that the asylum-seeker will cooperate in clarifying as far as possible whether he or she fulfils the criteria for refugee status. In this process of clarification, the identity and citizenship of the applicant are vital points of departure. According to the UNHCR manual, the asylum-seeker must tell the truth and assist the investigation so as to establish all the facts of the case clearly. The asylum-seeker, moreover, must endeavour to substantiate his or her declarations by reference to all available evidence and, where appropriate, provide satisfactory explanations for any lack of evidence. The asylum-seeker must provide all relevant personal information and describe his or her previous experiences in sufficient detail to enable the investigation to determine all the essential facts. The obligation to ensure that all relevant facts come to light and to evaluate them applies, however, to the asylum-seeker and the official investigating the case alike. Clear signals must be sent that deficiencies in cooperation will count against the asylum-seeker. To be able to continue to maintain the credibility of our asylum system, more effective arrangements must be introduced for the purpose of clarifying the identity of asylum-seekers. 2Utredningens uppdrag och arbete Av de ursprungliga direktiven, bilaga 1, framgår att utredningen har i uppdrag att utreda regleringen av verkställighet av beslut om avvisning och utvisning, särskilt när det gäller utlänningar vars identitet är oklar. Det framgår vidare att utredningen, mot bakgrund av nuvarande praxis och rutiner, skall överväga om gällande regler är ändamålsenligt utformade. En analys skall vidare utföras av om förfarandet möter de krav på effektivitet och rättssäkerhet som måste ställas. Om det är påkallat skall förslag till författningsändringar eller andra åtgärder läggas fram. I uppdraget ingår förutom att se över bestämmelserna om verkställighet av avvisnings- och utvisningsbeslut, vari inkluderas regleringen kring användningen av tvångsmedel, även att belysa nuvarande praxis och rutiner hos berörda myndigheter. Slutligen anges i direktiven att utredningen skall klarlägga hur arbetet med verkställigheter redovisas inom , bl. a. vilken statistik som förs och att förslag till förbättringar vid behov skall läggas fram. Av tilläggsdirektiven, bilaga 2, framgår att utredningen också skall utreda om gällande sekretessreglering skapar oacceptabla hinder i samarbetet mellan berörda myndigheter i ärenden avseende verkställighet av avvisnings- eller utvisningsbeslut. Vid behov skall regeländringar föreslås. Utredningen har sammanträtt med de förordnade experterna samt den sakkunnige vid åtta tillfällen. Även arbetet i övrigt har bedrivits i nära samråd med experterna och den sakkunnige. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete För att undersöka bl.a. hur stort problemet är med utlänningar vars identitet är oklar, vilka problem som finns vad gäller verkställighet av avvisnings- och utvisningsbeslut och hur samarbetet mellan flera av de inblandade aktörerna fungerar har utredningen gjort en enkätundersökning hos landets samtliga polismyndigheter. Per har samman- ställt och analyserat denna undersökning. En mindre enkätunder- sökning har även sänts ut till olika regioner. Utredningen har i samråd med Kriminalvårdens transporttjänst (TPT) gått igenom verkställighetsrapporter för att få en uppfattning om bl.a. användningen av tvångs- medel. Jur. kand. har varit utredningen behjälplig med denna genomgång samt med en sammanställning och analys av informationen. Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har sammanträffat med advokaterna , tillika ordförande i , samt med , professor vid , , kanslichef vid för asyl- sökande och flyktingar, , generalsekreterare i svenska sektion, , numera vid , , medborgarnas flyktingombudsman och , ordförande i gruppernas och asylkommittéernas riksråd (FARR). Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har vidare träffat , och på i samt och på (Eqvator). Den särskilde utredaren har även samtalat med advokaterna samt med på (). Den särskilde utredaren har vidare talat med några språkanalytiker som arbetar för Eqvator och SPRAKAB. Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har gemensamt besökt i samt dess regioner , syd och väst samt haft samtal med verkets general- direktör och med företrädare för verket på olika nivåer. Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har vidare gemensamt besökt , , i Utlänningsrotel i , TPT i samt haft flera Utredningens uppdrag och arbete samtal med tjänstemän på olika nivåer inom Utrikes- och Justitiedepartementen. Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har dessutom samtalat med generaldirektör och dess ställföreträdande generaldirektör . Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har samrått dels med Utredningen om översyn av mottagande av och introduktion för flyktingar (N 2001:11) samt Utredningen om mottagandevillkor för asylsökande (UD 2002:05) såvitt gäller de föreslagna ändring- arna i mottagningssystemet, dels med lagmannen vid , , och Offentlighets- och sekretess- kommittén (Ju 1999:06) såvitt gäller utredningens överväganden och förslag som rör sekretessfrågor. Den särskilde utredaren har gjort studiebesök i , , , , och samt besökt i . Sekreteraren har gjort studiebesök i . Den särskilde utredaren har vidare deltagit vid en s.k. verkställighetsresa till . Den särskilde utredaren och sekreteraren har tagit del av förundersökningsmaterial från åklagarkamrarna i och samt en rad beslut fattade av både och . Enligt 8 kap. 11 § första stycket utlänningslagen (1989:529;UtlL) är den myndighet som enligt huvudregeln verkställer avvisnings- och utvisningsbeslut. Migrationsverket1 fick huvudansvaret för verkställighet av beslut om avvisning och utvisning (prop. 1997/98:173, bet. 1998/99:SfU4, rskr. 1998/99:28). Före detta datum låg verkställighetsansvaret på polismyndigheten. Det fanns flera orsaker till att huvudansvaret för verksamheten fördes över till . En av orsakerna var önskemålet att renodla myndigheternas ansvarsområden. En annan viktig orsak var att man ville lägga tyngdpunkten på att förmå personer som avvisats eller utvisats ur landet att återvända självmant i stället för att man skall behöva tillgripa tvångsåtgärder, vilket bedömdes kunna ske bäst i regi.