SLOVENIA'S ASYLUM POLICY: TOWARDS A MORE BALANCED

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 the 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