sou · GRB325d1 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — Även hos TPT råder sekretess för uppgifter om den enskildes personliga förhållanden. Utredningen har trots detta, mot bakgrund av att behovet inte bedöms vara lika stort för denna myndighets personal att få tillgång till samtliga uppgifter om en utlänning som de skall eskortera ut ur landet, funnit att det är tillräckligt med en mer begränsad uppgiftsskyldighet i detta fall. Utredningen föreslår således att och åläggs en generell uppgiftsskyldighet i fall där en polismyndighet begär uppgifter om en utlänning i ett ärende om verkställighet av ett beslut om avvisning eller utvisning (11 kap. 6 a § UtlL). Även polismyndigheten åläggs, enligt utredningens förslag, en uppgiftsskyldighet gentemot TPT. Denna skyldighet är emellertid begränsad till de uppgifter som TPT behöver för att kunna fullgöra sitt uppdrag. Utredningen har funnit att det dels är svårt att få fram relevant statistik för att kunna göra en fullständig utvärdering av myndig- heternas verkställighetsarbete dels att det finns brister i den statistik som förs. Utredningen anser därför att främst , men även i viss mån TPT, bör se över vilken statistik som förs i detta avseende. Vidare bör samordningen av statistik mellan Migrations- verket och RPS förbättras. Slutligen bör fortsätta att undersöka möjligheterna till förbättring av IT-stödet samt förbättra personalens utbildning i att använda sig av detta (avsnitt 13.6). Flera av utredningens förslag grundar sig direkt på överväganden i anda. Utredningen finner att alla förslag som lämnas står i överensstämmelse med (avsnitt 14.2). Legislation proposed by the commission in brief 1)In any refusal-of-entry or expulsion order they issue, the authorities must indicate the country to which the alien is to be returned (The Aliens Act, Chapter 4, Section 12 (a)). 2)The possibility of sending the alien to some other country when enforcing a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order will be eliminated. Instead, the destination for enforcement of administrative refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders shall be the country indicated in the decision by the authorities. The destination for enforcement of an expulsion order issued by a court shall be the aliens country of origin or, if possible, the country from which he or she came to . Finally, enforcement is always permissible to a country named by the alien, if he or she shows that that country can accept him or her (The Aliens Act, Chapter 8, Section 5). 3)It shall be stated directly in the text of the law that refusal- of-entry and expulsion orders may not be issued if there are permanent impediments to enforcement. A refusal-of-entry or expulsion order may, however, be issued if the impediment to enforcement is temporary. In cases involving temporary impediments to enforcement, the authorities shall indicate when the order may be enforced (The Aliens Act, Chapter 4, Section 12). 4)Asylum-seekers who lack identity documents and who fail to cooperate in establishing their identity shall not enjoy the possibility of exemption from the obligation to have a work permit. There shall also be a possibility of their daily allowance and housing allowance being reduced due to their inadequate assistance in establishing their identity. It shall no longer be possible to reduce the daily allowance for single 16–18-year-olds (The Aliens Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 3 (a) and The Act concerning the Reception of Asylum- Seekers, Section 10). 5)The requirement that a child must first have been subject to a supervision order in order to be taken into detention pending enforcement will be eliminated. Instead, the requirement for a detention order to be issued shall be that there is an obvious risk that the child will otherwise go into hiding. The fundamental condition that a detention decision may not be taken at all if a supervision order is deemed to be sufficient will remain in place (The Aliens Act, Chapter 6, Section 3). 6)At present exceptional grounds are required for a child under the age of 16 to be taken into detention at all under the Act concerning Special Controls in Respect of Aliens. The commission proposes that this age limit should be raised to 18. The provisions of the Aliens Act on the limited period a child can be held in detention shall also apply to children taken into detention under the Act concerning Special Controls in Respect of Aliens, unless there are exceptional grounds for the child in detention for a longer period. It shall not be possible to place non-Swedish children under the age of 18 in a correctional institution, remand centre or arrest, unless there are exceptional grounds for doing so (The Act concerning Special Controls in Respect of Aliens, Sections 5, 8 and 8 (a)). 7)The responsibility for enforcing certain detention orders will be transferred from to the authority. This shall apply both to cases under the jurisdiction of the authority itself and to cases involving security, where in practice it will be the that is responsible for enforcing detention orders. In cases where the Swedish has responsibility, the authority shall also determine whether there are grounds for placing the person kept in detention in a correctional institution, remand centre or arrest instead of the customary detention facilities (The Aliens Act, Chapter 6, Sections 16 and 19). 8)A general duty to provide information to the authority shall be imposed on and in cases involving enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order. The authority shall be subject to a limited duty to provide information to the Swedish Prison and (The Aliens Act, Chapter 11, Section 6 (a)). The commission of inquiry has been given the assignment of investigating the regulations on enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders, particularly in the case of aliens whose identity is unclear. Apart from reviewing the formal provisions on enforcement of refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders, including regulations on the use of coercive measures, the commission has examined the practice and routines of the authorities concerned as regards matters related to enforcement. The commission has also looked over the statistics kept by the authorities concerned. The commissions assignment has finally included an analysis of whether the current regulations on secrecy put unacceptable obstacles in the way of cooperation between the authorities concerned in cases relating to the enforcement of refusal-of-entry or expulsion orders. Enforcement authorities and their enforcement activities The authorities that enforce refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders are mainly and the authorities. , more particularly the , enforces orders in cases where security is at issue. When a authority is the enforcing authority, the Swedish Prison and normally takes care of the practical implementation of enforcement-related . The commission has found that there are certain ambiguities in the existing guidelines issued by and the responsibility for a case shall be transferred from to the authority under Chapter 8, Section 17 of the Aliens Act. In the view of the commission, the guidelines would gain from clarification, and this may also have a positive effect on the effectiveness of enforcement activities (section 3.5.3). The commission has established that legislation is needed to support the transfer by the authorities of responsibility for the practical implementation of enforcement to the , and the use of coercion by the . Since these issues do not just affect matters related to aliens and should be reviewed in a broader context, no draft legislation is presented here. The commission has also found that there is a need for guidelines as to when officers shall accompany aliens on enforcement-related journeys and regarding the division of responsibilities that shall apply in situations where staff from both the authority and the are present during the journey (section 3.6.3). The commission has noted that the average time required for to process cases relating to the return of aliens to their country of origin has increased sharply in recent years, as has the number of aliens subject to enforceable refusal-of- entry or expulsion orders (section 4.1). In the view of the commission, the fact that people not deemed to have grounds for protection and therefore required to return to their country of origin do not leave within the time specified in the Aliens Act but instead remain in the country for longer and longer periods, is unfortunate both for the individual aliens concerned and from the point of view of the countrys economy. If a refusal-of- entry or expulsion order is not enforced in due time, this may inspire false hopes in an individual that he or she will be allowed to stay. When the order is later finally enforced, this often entails severe mental strain, not least for children. Moreover, very substantial costs to society are involved. In a number of different areas, the commission makes the assessment that measures can be taken to improve the effectiveness of enforcement activities. There is no simple answer to the question of how the process of return can be conducted more successfully; action is needed in many quarters simultaneously. The commission endorses the proposals made within that asylum processes should be more clearly divided into fast-track and normal processes and that personnel with expertise in enforcement should be available even in the initial phase (section 4.6.1). In addition, the important role played by the Reception Officers should be stressed and they should receive better support in the form of education and training and more detailed guidelines for the motivation interviews they conduct (section 4.6.2). In the view of the commission, better coordination is needed within both and the Swedish . , to be sure, does have coordinated operations for contacts with embassies, etc., but it would also benefit from more consistent practice on the part of other personnel working on the return of aliens. The 21 authorities that make up the Swedish operate independently of one another, which results in a loss of effectiveness (section 4.6.3). Another important issue is the need for efficient cooperation between the authorities concerned. One way to achieve this is to create more interfaces, e.g. in the form of regular meetings where officials at different levels can exchange information and experience (section 4.6.4). Destination and timing of enforcement The commission found in its review of current provisions and practice that the legislation is in need of amendment (section 5.2). The provision proposed by the commission (The Aliens Act, Chapter 4, Section 12 (a)) clarifies the responsibility of the Government, and to indicate the country of destination for enforcement when taking decisions to order refusal-of-entry or expulsion. The proposal further entails that the decision by the authorities may only specify more than one country of destination if there are special grounds for doing so. Such special grounds may be, for example, that the alien has dual citizenship, that he or she has a permit for a country other than the country of origin or is married to a person from another country where his or her reception would be possible. As regards enforcement of the refusal-of-entry or expulsion order issued by the Government, or , it is made clear that this should be implemented by sending the alien to the country, or in exceptional cases one of the countries, specified in the decision. In the case of enforcement of a judgment or decision on expulsion made by a court, where the country of destination is not indicated, it shall only be possible to send the alien to his or her country of origin, or, if possible, the country from which he or she came to . The possibility always exists, however, to make the destination for enforcement of a decision a country where the alien shows that he or she can be received (The Aliens Act, Chapter 8, Section 5). The commission also proposes a clarification in the Aliens Ordinance (Chapter 7, Section 2), to the effect that the enforcement authority may in future only determine how enforcement shall be carried out in purely practical terms, such as time of departure, itinerary and means of transport. For situations where for one reason or another an alien cannot be sent directly to the place of destination and instead has to pass through a neighbouring country in transit, the commission deems there to be a need to issue guidelines on the exact procedures to be followed, so as to avoid the alien remaining in the neighbouring country for some reason. Further, guidelines should be issued to clarify the practice to be followed in the case of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by accompanying personnel, so that it can be completely ruled out that an official has used bribes in order to have a person received by the country of destination. The commission has found that no change should be made to the time periods that are currently allowed between an alien receiving a legally binding refusal-of-entry or expulsion order and the date of departure from the country (section 6.2). The commission considers that better compliance with current regulations can be achieved by means of its other proposals and observations. Taking into account impediments to enforcement The commission considers that the present regulations are difficult to interpret (section 7.6). The commission therefore proposes that it should be stated directly in the text of the legislation that refusal- of-entry or expulsion orders may not be issued if an alien cannot be sent to a certain country on account of the provisions on impediments to enforcement in Chapter 8, Section 1, 2 or 4 or for some other special reason (The Aliens Act, Chapter 4, Section 12). The commissions proposal also entails that a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order may be issued if the impediment to enforcement is deemed to be temporary. In such cases, however, the Government, or shall indicate when the order may be enforced. The terms permanent and temporary impediments to enforcement will be introduced in the text of the law. Measures to reduce the increasing proportion of asylum-seekers without necessary identity documents The commission has found that a lack of clarity about the identity of persons seeking asylum in is a major and growing problem. The commission has presented a number of proposals for attempting to tackle the problems in this area, or at least some of them. The commission considers that should continue take a proactive role in the EU on the issue of introducing a possibility of biometric control of visas issued (section 9.5.1). The commission supports the proposal to appoint a special commissioner to look over border control issues (section 9.5.2). The commission underlines the importance of making an extensive investigation of identity at as early a stage of the asylum process as possible (section 9.5.3). The commission proposes that asylum-seekers who lack identity documents and who do not cooperate when it comes to establishing their identity or obtaining new documents should not fully enjoy the same benefits as other persons seeking asylum (section 9.5.4). One expression of this measure is that these people should not enjoy the possibility of exemption from the obligation to have a work permit. The commission proposes further that it should be possible to reduce the daily allowance and housing allowance at an earlier stage than is possible under the arrangements now applying to persons in this category. Under the proposal, the possibility of reducing the daily allowance for single children between 16 and 18 years of age will be eliminated. The commission considers that the matter of the forms in which persons in the category in question are to participate in organised activities should be reviewed. The commission also draws attention to the existing possibilities of reducing the daily allowance and housing allowance in the event of inadequate cooperation, and to the possibility of detention. The commission encourages to continue its use of returnee programmes and to seek interaction with NGOs aimed at prompting aliens to return to their country of origin of their own accord (section 9.5.5). The commission advocates an Swedish policy where readmission agreements are concerned, in close cooperation with other EU countries (section 9.5.6). Furthermore, the commission advocates an increased commitment to bilateral contacts at senior diplomatic level with receiving countries that fail to live up to their obligation under international law to accept citizens of their own country (section 9.5.7). The commission considers, finally, that there must be a possibility of enforcing a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order even if the alien lacks necessary documents (section 9.3.5). In its review of current regulations and practice, the commission has found that there is a need for more detailed guidelines for escorting personnel on enforcement-related journeys, clarifying the point that they are responsible for ensuring that the person they are escorting is treated in a humane and dignified even beyond borders and that they should interrupt the journey in the event of serious disregard for the requirements of humanity and dignity, e.g. in connection with transit (section 10.5). The commission is of the opinion that present arrangements for the detention of children pending enforcement are unsatisfactory. In cases where an order for immediate enforcement is not at issue, there is currently an absolute requirement that any children must first have been subject to a supervision order (sections 10.6 and 14.2). The present arrangement thus means that a family located after running away to avoid enforcement cannot be taken directly into detention, even if the assessment is made that detention is required for enforcement to be possible; instead, a supervision order must first be issued. This arrangement gives the family a new opportunity to abscond. In view of the mental strain that a life in hiding entails, particularly for children, a system that allows additional opportunities to hide should not persist. this kind the commission therefore proposes eliminating the absolute requirement that a child must first have been subject to a supervision order before a detention order can be issued (The Aliens Act, Chapter 6, Section 3, first paragraph). Instead, the requirement for a detention order to be issued shall be that there is an obvious risk that the child will otherwise go into hiding. Naturally the fundamental condition remains that a detention order may not be taken at all if a supervision order is deemed to be sufficient. The commission proposes that the regulations given in the Act concerning Special Controls in Respect of Aliens should be amended in several respects to make them more consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (sections 10.6 and 14.2). Firstly, the age limit for limited possibilities of taking a child into detention should be raised from 16 to 18, and secondly, unless there are exceptional grounds for doing so, it should not be possible to place children taken into detention in a correctional institution, remand centre or arrest. Further, there should be regulation of the length of time that a child taken into detention under this act can be kept in detention; there is no such regulation at present. The commission has found that there is a need in certain cases to transfer responsibility for enforcing detention orders, including decisions on where the detainee shall be placed (section 10.8). In this connection, the commission proposes that the authority shall be responsible for enforcement in the cases that come under its jurisdiction. In cases where security is at issue, the commissions proposal entails that the final responsibility for enforcing detention orders will rest with the . Where the Act concerning Special Controls in Respect of Aliens is concerned, the commission proposes a clarifying provision (Section 8 (a)) to make it clear that it is , i.e. in these cases the , that is to enforce detention orders. In the same provision, the commission proposes a clarification of the point that aliens over the age of 18 shall not be placed in the Swedish Migration Boards detention facilities. The commission considers that it is not appropriate to propose any form of duty for the authorities concerned to submit reports after successful enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order (section 11.3). The commission has found that the current secrecy regulations involve obstacles to enforcement activities, above all for the authorities, but also to some extent for the . They also cause extra work for , whose personnel work under high pressure (section 12.3). In the light of the sharp rise in the number of aliens remaining in the country in spite of being subject to legally binding refusal-of- entry or expulsion orders, the commission considers that it is of great importance that all obstacles to effective enforcement operations are removed. The commission has weighed the interest in more effective enforcement procedures against the interests protected by the secrecy regulations, namely, the individual integrity of aliens. In view of the fact that the authority is also subject to secrecy regulations and that this authority, not so long ago, also had access to the very sensitive information involved in aliens cases, the commission has arrived at the assessment that it must be regarded as a limited infringement of the individual integrity of an alien to release existing information about that individual to the authority in an enforcement case. is likewise subject to secrecy regarding information about the personal circumstances of the individual. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that there is deemed to be less of a need for personnel at this authority to have access to all available information about an alien they are to escort out of the country, the commission has found that in this case, a more limited duty to release information is sufficient. The commission thus proposes that a general duty to provide information be imposed on and in cases where a authority requests information about an alien in a case involving enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order (The Aliens Act, Chapter 11, Section 6 (a)). On the proposal of the commission, the authority will also be subject to a duty towards the to provide information. This duty, however, will be limited to the particulars the needs in order to fulfil its assignment. The commission has found, firstly, that it is difficult to obtain relevant statistics to enable a full evaluation to be made of the enforcement operations undertaken by the authorities, and secondly, that there are shortcomings in the statistics that are kept. The commission therefore considers that , principally, but also to some extent the , should look over the statistics kept in this area. In addition, there should be better coordination between and where statistics are concerned. Finally, should continue to examine the possibility of improving IT support and giving personnel better education and training in IT use (section 13.6). Several of the proposals made by the commission are based directly on considerations arising out of the spirit of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The commission finds that all the proposals made are consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (section 14.2). the Committee Against Torture (FN:s and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Europeiska gemenskapens officiella tidning, fr.o.m. den Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, Föreskrifter och allmänna råd för polisväsendet lagen (1994:137) om mottagande av asylsökande m.fl. Kommittén om ny instans- och processordning i Sekretesslagen (1980:100)