UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 LJUBLJANA 000397

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/NCE AND DRL/CRA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREF PGOV SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA'S ASYLUM POLICY: TOWARDS A MORE BALANCED
VIEW

REF: A. LJUBLJANA 109


B. LJUBLJANA 252

LJUBLJANA 00000397 001.2 OF 002



1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Mindful that refs A and B present two
divergent views on Slovenia's asylum policy (representing the
NGO community and GOS, respectively), the following cable
seeks to strike a middle ground and explain why these two
groups see things so differently. On the one side, most of
the NGO community and the UNHCR believe that Slovenia's
recent amendments to the asylum law, which have been stayed
by the Constitutional Court pending judicial review, give the
border police far too much latitude in making prima facie
determinations of the legitimacy of asylum claims. Such
latitude, they argue, opens up the possibility for abuse and
does not adequately safeguard the rights of refugees. On the
other side of the debate, the GOS claims that the
overwhelming majority of "asylum seekers" in Slovenia are
illegal migrants who have been coached to make false claims
by smugglers and traffickers seeking to get their clients
across the border. The GOS therefore contends that an
initial screening by the border police is both a necessary
and legitimate way to curb illegal migration. A balanced
view would acknowledge that the pre-procedure could lead to
abuse if not properly managed, but also recognizes that there
is a loophole in the existing system that needs to be closed.
END SUMMARY.

--------------
Slovenia's Asylum Statistics for 2005
--------------


2. (U) According to Slovenia's asylum statistics, only 1.6
percent of 1,600 asylum seekers were granted refugee status
in 2005 (by comparison, the rate was 3 percent for Slovakia,
7 percent for Poland, and 10.2 percent for Hungary). Most of
these asylum seekers come from the region of the former
Yugoslavia: 32 percent from Serbia and Montenegro, including
many ethnic Roma, 13.6 percent from Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and 4 percent from Macedonia. Other significant groups are
Turkish nationals (14.1 percent) and Albanians (8.8 percent).
In comparison with other countries in the region, Slovenia
also had a relatively high rate of "otherwise closed cases,"
or cases in which the authorities lose contact with th

e
asylum seeker during the course of the procedure. In
Slovenia, 61 percent of all cases were "otherwise closed,"
whereas in Poland the figure was 50 percent, in Hungary 39
percent, and in Slovakia 78 percent. (NOTE: Statistics
were provided by UNHCR. END NOTE).

--------------
The View from the Asylum Center
--------------


3. (SBU) On June 7, Poloff and FSN Political Specialist
visited the Asylum Center in Ljubljana and met with Director
Dominika Marolt. Marolt, who was instrumental in drafting
the amendments to the asylum law passed earlier this year,
told us that illegal migrants have been abusing the system
and using the word "asylum" to ensure that they have a free
and safe passage from the border to the Asylum Center in
Ljubljana. After enjoying a good night's rest, a shower and
a meal, they often leave to go work in the seasonal labor
market or to continue their illegal migration to other
countries. Marolt claimed that this is why 80 percent of all
asylum determinations were made according to the "manifestly
unfounded" (accelerated) procedure. Marolt admitted that
Article 6 of the amended asylum law was causing controversy,
but argued that it was perfectly legitimate for police to
make a determination whether someone was a genuine asylum
seeker. Marolt also told us that the Ministry of Interior
was currently in the process of adapting to the Common
European Asylum System by transposing the necessary EU
directives to Slovenian law. The deadline for this process
is December 1, 2007. She insisted that the amended asylum
law in no way contravened these EU regulations.

--------------
The View from UNHCR
--------------


4. (SBU) On June 21, Poloff spoke with the Regional UNHCR
Director for Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland (based
in Budapest) Lloyd Dakin. Dakin was familiar with the GOS's
arguments and rebutted them on all counts. Dakin argued that
tampering with asylum procedures was not the proper way to
deal with an illegal migration problem. Dakin also noted
that if an applicant was not a genuine refugee, they should
still go through the system and have a chance to be
interviewed by a trained asylum caseworker. That is what the

LJUBLJANA 00000397 002.2 OF 002


system is there for. Dakin argued that 1,600 asylum
applications was not that many, and that the system should be
able to cope with such numbers. While Dakin admitted that
the evidence showed there was connivance between smugglers
and employers in the gray labor market, he argued that the
whole point of the system was to sit down with individuals
and see if there was any merit to their claim. Slovenia had
other instruments at its disposal to deal with illegal
migration. He also noted that by turning away most
applicants as "manifestly unfounded," the GOS was sending a
message that refugees were not welcome in Slovenia.

--------------
Comment
--------------


5. (SBU) The statistics cited above indicate that many of
Slovenia's asylum applicants are likely to be illegal
migrants. The high number of asylum seekers from countries
like Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
Macedonia, and the high number of applicants who disappear
during the course of the asylum procedure all point to an
illegal migration/gray labor market problem. At the same
time, however, Slovenia's homogeneous and at times insular
culture, its difficult language, and the perception that it
is virtually impossible to receive asylum in Slovenia are
also significant factors that may contribute to the high
number of abandoned asylum applications.


6. (SBU) UNHCR has criticized the amendments to the asylum
law because its mission is to ensure that no one in need of
international refugee protection is ever turned away. The
GOS, on the other hand, sees the large number of illegal
migrants crossing its borders as a strain on its budget and a
waste of tax-payer resources. There is merit to both claims.
Any judgment of Slovenia's asylum law will ultimately depend
on the behavior of the border police. Currently, the police
have begun to receive training to ascertain whether someone
is making a bona fide asylum claim. However, because the
Constitutional Court has stayed the amendments to the law
pending judicial review, the police are still barred from
making such determinations. If the amendments eventually
pass judicial review and the police abuse the power of the
pre-procedure to deny potentially legitimate refugees from
entering Slovenia, then the amendments will be proved to be
contrary to international norms. If, on the other hand, the
police manage to deter illegal migration and allow asylum
caseworkers to adjudicate indeterminate cases, then the
amendments to the asylum law will have helped to fix a system
currently being abused by smugglers and traffickers.
ROBERTSON