This film is about the true story of a man who has spent 18 years at the airport trying to escape. Similar things are happening at Incheon International Airport. African A, who has been avoiding political persecution, has remained in the transfer terminal for more than four months without even asking for refugees. A lawsuit was filed in response to the immigration authorities saying "I haven't even got to the immigration office, so I don't have the right to apply."
Recently, as the immigration authorities under the Ministry of Justice appealed to the court, Mr. A's life at the airport has been lengthened without any promises.
▶ [2020.06.05 8 News] [Exclusive] Living at Incheon Airport for four months… 'Refugee screening' road opened
● Mr. A who didn't receive a refugee application "I'm here to live" Mr. A,
who left Southeast Asian countries in February and got off at the Incheon International Airport transit terminal, went to the arrival hall and was sent to the transit area, then told the airport security personnel that he was willing to apply for refugee status. Did not receive. They were'entrance cut' without any procedures to determine whether they were eligible for refugee screening. The Ministry of Justice advocated that "according to Article 6 of the Refugee Act, a refugee application must be submitted when entering the immigration process."
Mr. A said that the political persecution was so severe that his family could lose his life, so he could not return to his home country. They eat about a meal a day with the help of tourists, but when they fill their stomachs with sweets, they suffer from stomachache and constipation. I wash in the bathroom, sleep in an airport chair, and even last a few weeks with a single mask even in danger of corona19.
"I can't sleep for four months, I don't have any medicine, I don't have any clothes. I can't eat, so I feel bad." "I came to save my life. It is impossible to return to my home country. I would rather go to jail." (Mr. A)
● A court that raised Mr. A's hand "You have to give a chance to apply for refugees"
Mr. A, who filed a lawsuit against immigration authorities with the help of the "Public Appeal Center Appeal," was sentenced to win the first trial in Incheon District Court on the 4th. The court decided that it was illegal to ignore the refugee claim because they did not come to a specific place called the Immigration Office.
"There is no way to physically go back to the immigration office if the plaintiff who entered the entry hall goes to the transfer area as in this case, but it is quite unreasonable to consider whether or not to apply for refugee status depending on the external situation." "It is against Article 6 of the Refugee Act that the defendant who does not have any assistance to fill out and file an application for refugee recognition" (Incheon District Law)
Of course, this ruling does not mean that Mr. A should be recognized as a refugee. The refugee claimants who come to the border and ask for help are given the opportunity to judge whether they are eligible to be considered as refugees. The use of tricks in the absence of an application was considered to be against international conventions and the aims of domestic law, saying that "refugees should not be forced to return refugee claimants to their home countries."
● European Court of Human Rights "Reward to long-term asylum seekers" The
Justice Department's response is far from international human rights standards. In November of last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Moscow to transfer tens of millions of won to Russia for neglecting four asylum seekers from Iraq, Palestine, Somalia and Syria for at least 5 months and up to 1 year and 9 months. Russia tried to evade responsibility because they did not come straight from their home country or filed for asylum in other countries, but the European Court of Human Rights pointed out that Russia was depriving them of their freedoms on the grounds of excessive stays and delays in asylum.
In the case of Mr. A's lawsuit, the Ministry of Justice, which has made a similar claim to Russia as saying, "It is a selective refugee application in South Korea where only a transfer has been made," we need to consider the following ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. It is inconsistent with the current government's philosophy of state administration to counter international conventions and domestic law designed to guarantee the universal value of humanity.
"The prohibition of inhumane and degrading treatment is a fundamental value of democratic society. It is also the value of civilization, which is closely related to respect for human dignity." "The claimants had to sleep on the floor of a complex and noisy airport transit area that was constantly lit for months, had access to showers or cooking facilities, had no outdoor exercise opportunities, no access to medical and social assistance. This does not even meet the minimum standards of respect for human dignity." (European Human Rights Court)
● Appeal even if the chances of winning are low?
In a similar case to Mr. A, it is worth mentioning the case of Lurendo family from Angola. After the Lurendo family was denied entry at Incheon International Airport, they were left for 287 days in the transit area after requesting refugees while waiting for repatriation, and they were given the opportunity to judge by the Supreme Court ruling in December last year. Mr. A's case is even worse than the Lurendo family in that he has not even received a refugee application. Considering the purpose of the Refugee Law and the Refugee Convention based on the judgment of the first trial, it is unlikely that the judgment will be overturned in the second trial.
In this situation, it is pointed out that the Ministry of Justice's submission of the appeal is not due to the consideration of law and human rights, but rather of policy considerations that somehow narrow the door to refugee screening. Rather than'mechanically appealing' to refugee claimants in poor conditions, it's about taking steps to ensure that they are eligible for refugee screening and then acting quickly. However, even after the judgment of the first trial, the Ministry of Justice continued to admit that "transfer passengers can only temporarily transit through the transit area, but cannot be subject to immigration in principle." . The second trial is held in the Seoul High Court.
※ A short one-time article is not enough to capture the voices of marginalized people. Let's take a look at how human society responded after appealing for the loss of basic rights through the'Human Rights AS' report file.