UNHCR-Position zur internationalen Schutzbedürftigkeit von im

Der Hohe Flüchtlingskommissar der Vereinten Nationen
Regionalvertretung für Deutschland, Österreich und die
Tschechische Republik
Regional Representation for Austria, the Czech Republic
and Germany
Wallstrasse 9 – 13
10179 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 202 202 0
Fax: +49 30 202 202 20
Email: gfrbe@unhcr.org
UNHCR-Position zur internationalen Schutzbedürftigkeit von im Zusammenhang mit dem jüngsten Konflikt im Libanon vertriebenen Asylsuchenden
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
wir möchten Sie hiermit auf die jüngste “UNHCR Position on the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Lebanon Displaced as a Result of the Recent
Conflict”1 vom 15. November 2006 aufmerksam machen, die wir diesem Schreiben
mit der Bitte um Kenntnisnahme und freundliche Beachtung beigefügt haben. Die Position ersetzt die „UNHCR Considerations on the Protection Needs of Persons Displaced Due to the Conflict in Lebanon and on Potential Responses“ vom 3. August
2006.2
Dem Papier können Sie entnehmen, dass der überwiegende Teil der im Zusammenhang mit den bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen im Libanon vertriebenen Personen
nach weitgehender Einstellung der bewaffneten Kampfhandlungen im Herbst dieses
Jahres wieder in den Libanon zurückgekehrt ist. Gleichwohl befinden sich nach Einschätzung von UNHCR noch immer etwa 200.000 Personen innerhalb und außerhalb
des Libanon auf der Flucht. Einer Rückkehr dieser Personen stehen derzeit insbesondere die durch die Bombardierungen verursachten verheerenden Schäden an der
Infrastruktur einschließlich Wohngebieten, aber auch das weitflächige Vorhandensein
von Blindgängern entgegen. Der Wiederaufbau und signifikante Verbesserungen der
Gesamtsituation im Libanon kommen ungeachtet der Bemühungen der libanesischen
Regierung und der Unterstützung durch die internationale Gemeinschaft nur langsam
voran; insbesondere ist der am 14. August 2006 ausgehandelte Waffenstillstand noch
immer fragil und die mit der Sicherung der Waffenruhe beauftragte United Nations
Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) hat bislang nicht ihre endgültige Stärke von 15.000
Mann erreicht.
Vor dem Hintergrund der jüngsten Entwicklungen im Libanon hält UNHCR nicht mehr
länger an seiner Position vom 3. August 2006 fest, wonach libanesische Staatsangehörige und andere Personen mit gewöhnlichem Aufenthalt im Libanon wegen des bewaffneten Konfliktes generell als schutzbedürftig anzusehen waren. UNHCR appelliert
gleichwohl an die Aufnahmestaaten, fortbestehende Bedürfnisse libanesischer Flüchtlinge nach internationalem Schutz unter Beachtung der im Abkommen von 1951 und
dem Protokoll von 1967 über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge niedergelegten Krite1
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Position on the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Lebanon Displaced as a Result of the Recent Conflict (15. November 2006), http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDLEGAL/4561c1db4.pdf.
2
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Considerations on the Protection
Needs of Persons Displaced Due to the Conflict in Lebanon and on Potential Responses (3. August
2006), http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDLEGAL/44d707c44.pdf.
The UN Refugee Agency L'Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés
2
rien im Rahmen einer sorgfältigen Einzelfallprüfung festzustellen. Besondere Beachtung sollte hierbei der politischen Ausrichtung oder den politischen Aktivitäten der
Schutzsuchenden sowie deren religiöser Überzeugung geschenkt werden. Spezifischen Verfolgungsrisiken können vor allem Personen unterliegen, die im Rahmen der
bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen im Sommer 2006 Israel unterstützt haben oder
einer solchen Unterstützung verdächtigt werden. Daneben kann aber auch die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Bevölkerungsgruppe, die entweder eine genuine oder eine durch
Vertreibungen entstandene lokale Minderheit bildet, Grund für Verfolgung sein und
deshalb im Einzelfall ein Bedürfnis nach internationalem Schutz begründen. Vor diesem Hintergrund sollte die aktuelle Situation in den Herkunfts- bzw. Zielorten der Betroffenen in die Prüfung mit einbezogen werden. Bei der Anwendung des Konzepts
der internen Schutz- oder Neuansiedlungsalternative bittet UNHCR die Aufnahmestaaten um strikte Beachtung der in den Richtlinien zum internationalen Schutz3 niedergelegten Grundsätze einschließlich der umfassenden Prüfung der Relevanz und
der Zumutbarkeit einer solchen internen Schutzalternative.
Mit Blick auf die infolge der bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen aus dem Libanon geflüchteten Palästinenserinnen und Palästinenser weist UNHCR darauf hin, dass diese
Personen nach dem Verlassen des Mandatsgebietes der United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) vorbehaltlich des
Vorliegens von Beendigungs- oder Ausschlussgründen gemäß Art. 1 D des Abkommens von 1951 über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge automatisch in den Anwendungsbereich des Abkommens von 1951 bzw. des Protokolls von 1967 über die
Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge fallen. Dabei ist nunmehr auch zu beachten, dass der
ipso facto-Schutz im Sinne von Artikel 1 D Absatz 2 Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention
auch den Flüchtlingsstatus im Sinne der Richtlinie 2004/83/EG (sog. Qualifikationsoder Statusrichtlinie) und die damit verbundene Rechtsposition nach sich zieht, wie in
Artikel 12 Absatz 1 lit. a der Richtlinie bestimmt ist.
Im Umgang der Aufnahmestaaten mit Personen, die keinen internationalen Flüchtlingsschutz benötigen und deshalb als ausreisepflichtig gelten, empfiehlt UNHCR
dringend die Berücksichtigung humanitärer Rückkehrhindernisse einschließlich im
Einzelfall bestehender medizinischer und/oder psychologischer Bedürfnisse sowie der
praktischen Rückkehrmöglichkeiten und der Aufnahmekapazitäten im Libanon, die vor
allem aufgrund der Kriegsfolgen erheblich eingeschränkt sind.
Wir möchten Sie freundlichst darum bitten, das beiliegende Positionspapier im Rahmen Ihrer Entscheidungen über die Zuerkennung des Flüchtlingsschutzes oder anderer, humanitärer Abschiebungshindernisse für libanesische Flüchtlinge zu beachten.
Darüber hinaus sollte angesichts der jüngsten Spannungen die weitere Entwicklung
im Libanon sorgfältig auf das Entstehen neuer Schutzbedürfnisse hin beobachtet
werden.
UNHCR Berlin,
7. Dezember 2006
3
UNHCR, RICHTLINIEN ZUM INTERNATIONALEN SCHUTZ: „Interne Flucht- oder Neuansiedlungsalternative” im Zusammenhang mit Artikel 1 A (2) des Abkommens von 1951 bzw. des Protokolls von 1967
über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge, HCR/GIP/03/04 (23. Juli 2003),
http://www.unhcr.de/unhcr.php/cat/81/aid/1059.
The UN Refugee Agency L'Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés
UNHCR POSITION ON THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION NEEDS
OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS FROM LEBANON DISPLACED AS A RESULT
OF THE RECENT CONFLICT
A.
Introduction
1.
The hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel between 12 July and 14 August
2006 resulted in the displacement of an estimated one million Lebanese.1 Around
750,000 were displaced within Lebanon and some 250,000 outside, the latter
primarily in Syria. A number of third-country nationals were also displaced from
Lebanon during this period.
2.
On 3 August 2006, UNHCR issued preliminary considerations on the
protection needs of persons displaced due to the conflict. 2 The present paper
replaces these considerations and sets out a number of protection and
humanitarian concerns which may arise for individuals who have fled the country
due to the conflict and may not be willing to return, as well as for those who may
seek asylum abroad.
B.
Update on the situation in Lebanon
3.
Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) 3 , adopted on 11 August 2006,
resulted in a cessation of hostilities between the warring parties on 14 August
2006. The parties have “largely complied with the cessation of hostilities” with
some minor infractions, although it remains fragile. 4 This cessation of hostilities
triggered a massive and rapid return of refugees and the internally displaced. The
1
2
3
4
United Nations Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of
Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) (hereinafter “Report of the Secretary-General”),
S/2006/730, 12 September 2006, para. 3, available at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/sgrep06.htm.
The situation in Israel is not relevant to this paper.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Considerations on the
Protection Needs of Persons Displaced Due to the Conflict in Lebanon and on Potential
Responses, 3 August 2006, available at http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDLEGAL/
44d707c44.pdf.
United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1701 (2006) – The Situation in the Middle East,
adopted by the Security Council at its 5511th meeting, on 11 August 2006, available at
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm.
Report of the Secretary-General, see above footnote 1, paras. 12–13.
1
majority have been able to return to their areas of origin, although not necessarily
to their homes if the latter have been destroyed. UNHCR estimates that as of 1
November 2006 up to 200,000 people could still be displaced within Lebanon. 5
For the reasons outlined below, this displacement is expected to continue for at
least 18 to 24 months following the cessation of hostilities.
4.
Due to the heavy bombardment, infrastructure has suffered widespread
destruction, especially in southern Lebanon, southern Beirut and parts of the
Beka’a Valley. It has yet to be restored to a level adequate to support the
populations in affected areas. Hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, fuel storage
depots, airports and seaports have sustained major damage, leaving many towns
and villages without electricity, running water and the basics for survival. In
addition, harvests have been destroyed and farmland remains contaminated by
cluster munitions in these areas, making the reestablishment of livelihoods
difficult. The situation as regards access to healthcare remains particularly acute
in communities in the south that were badly damaged during the conflict. 6 The
coming winter will present particular challenges for those whose homes were
destroyed and/or who continue to be displaced within the country.
5.
The prevalence of unexploded ordnances (UXOs), especially cluster submunitions in residential areas, public spaces and farmlands, represents a
significant threat to civilians, although these are restricted mainly to the southern
regions of Lebanon. The presence of such explosive devices severely restricts
freedom of movement within the south and hampers the re-establishment of
livelihoods there. The UN Mine Action Coordination Centre (UNMACC)
estimates that it will take between 12 and 15 months to clear what are estimated to
be between 170,000 and 340,000 unexploded cluster bomblets from southern
Lebanon. 7 Towns and villages south of the Litani River (and immediately to the
north) remain particularly unsafe. As the Secretary-General has noted: “In
addition to the threat to human lives, UXOs present an obstacle to the return of
displaced families, access to housing and agriculture activities affecting
livelihoods of the population of southern Lebanon.” 8
6.
The authorities have as a result mounted immense efforts, with the support
of the international community, to implement recovery plans, particularly in the
areas of housing, clearance of UXOs, restoration of livelihoods and basic rights.
Massive financial commitments have been made by the international community
5
6
7
8
IRIN Middle East, Lebanon: Up to 200,000 still displaced after war, UN says, 9 November
2006, quoting the UNHCR regional representative in Lebanon, available at
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=56142.
United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston; the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
Paul Hunt; the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally
displaced persons, Walter Kälin; and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, Mission to Lebanon
and Israel (hereinafter “Report of the Special Rapporteurs”), A/HRC/2/7, 2 October 2006,
para. 89, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/2session/documents.htm
#reports.
Report of the Special Rapporteurs, see above footnote 6, paras. 54 and 87.
Report of the Secretary-General, see above footnote 1, para. 39.
2
and good progress is being made towards early recovery and reconstruction.
Nevertheless, reconstruction efforts in response to the heavy destruction of
residential areas in south Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut will take
many years to complete. The scale of the destruction means that, at least in the
short term, the country has limited absorption capacity. As the report of the
mission by a number of Special Rapporteurs to Lebanon and Israel notes: “In
Lebanon, the major obstacles to resumption of normal life in the affected areas are
the violations of the right to adequate housing and health, including the
destruction of housing, lack of access to water, electricity and sanitation, and the
dangers of unexploded ordnance.” 9
7.
More generally, the situation in Lebanon is gradually improving, although
the coming months will be critical given that the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) has yet to reach its planned full strength of 15,000 troops and
implement its mandate, and Hezbollah has stated that it does not plan to disarm
for the moment. After the cessation of hostilities, there were also numerous minor
incidents. 10 The numerous sectarian, communal and political divides existing in
the country remain strong, and since the war, they appear to have grown even
stronger.
8.
The loss of traditional community support structures means that some
families and groups may be left to cope on their own as minority groups. Older
persons, single women and children without support, the chronically ill and the
disabled are in a particularly dire situation.
C.
Assessing international protection needs
9.
In light of the cessation of hostilities and the resulting improvement in the
security situation, UNHCR’s paper of 3 August 2006 referred to in paragraph 2
above is no longer applicable.
10.
UNHCR’s current position is that, given the cessation of hostilities and
efforts being made toward recovery and reconstruction, Lebanese and individuals
who fled Lebanon due to the armed conflict should no longer be presumed
automatically to be in need of international protection because of the conflict.
Any international protection needs should be examined individually based on the
merits of the case, taking into account the update of the situation provided in this
document. In States parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol, the criteria set out in the Convention should be
applied and claims examined in fair and efficient asylum procedures to determine
refugee status.
9
10
Report of the Special Rapporteurs, see above footnote 6, para. 84.
Report of the Secretary-General, see above footnote 1, paras. 12–13, referring, inter alia, to
a military operation on 19 August 2006, which was carried out by the Israeli Defence Force
(IDF) in the Beka’a Valley. On 31 October 2006, the Secretary-General’s Personal
Representative for Lebanon, Mr. Gier Pedersen, also expressed serious concern at continuing
Israeli over-flights of Lebanon, including intensive mock air raids over Beirut. See “Senior UN
Envoy for Lebanon ‘particularly disturbed’ by Israeli over-flights of Beirut”, UN News Centre,
31 October 2006, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20432.
3
11.
Particular attention should be given to the political views or activities of
the individual claimant, as well as to his or her religious or communal affiliations
as appropriate and to the place to which the individual is expected to be returned.
Depending on the individual circumstances, these factors are likely to be
particularly relevant to determining international protection needs, even in a
situation where most have been able to return safely. The international protection
needs of individuals who are members of communities living in areas where they
represent the minority – whether because they have been internally displaced or
were already in a minority – should also be carefully assessed. Whether any
discrimination or inequitable treatment faced rises to the level of persecution will
depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the consequences that
such discriminatory treatment will have on the individuals concerned.
12.
In addition, there may be individuals, including members of the South
Lebanese Army (SLA), who are suspected of having or who have collaborated
with Israel, whether before or during the recent conflict. There may also be
individuals perceived to be a voice of dissent against particular majority
communities in which they are located. Such persons could be particularly at risk
of targeted reprisals, in particular from non-state actors.
13.
In the context of determining whether an internal flight or relocation
alternative may exist within Lebanon, an assessment of the relevance and
reasonableness of any proposed area of relocation needs to be made. 11 If, for
instance, the area of relocation is not practically, safely and legally accessible to
the individual, or if the individual concerned would be exposed to persecution or
other serious harm upon relocation, then consideration of an alternative location
within Lebanon would not be relevant. If the individual concerned would not be
able, in the context of the country concerned, to lead a relatively normal life
without facing undue hardship, then it would not be reasonable to expect him or
her to move there.
14.
In making this assessment of the relevance and reasonableness of any
proposed internal relocation alternative, an area where the individual would be in
a minority situation and at risk of discrimination, denial of assistance or other
serious harm would render such relocation irrelevant and therefore would not
constitute an internal flight alternative. In this respect, it is necessary to consider
the internal coping mechanisms of communities in the Beka’a Valley, in the area
south of the Litani River and in southern Beirut which have deteriorated and may
worsen in the coming months, not least because of the approaching winter.
Consideration should also be given to the prevalence of UXOs and minefields in
parts of Lebanon, which could render these areas inaccessible and/or a normal life
there unreasonable, even impossible. Where such factors do not come into play,
internal relocation may, however, apply.
11
See generally, UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: “Internal Flight or
Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or
1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/03/04, 23 July 2003, available at
http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDLEGAL/3f2791a44.pdf.
4
D.
The situation of Palestinians who have fled Lebanon
15.
Concerns may also arise with regard to Palestinians displaced from
Lebanon as a result of the conflict. When Palestine refugees previously receiving
protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) flee outside that organization’s
area of operations (i.e. outside Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip), they no longer enjoy the protection or assistance of UNRWA and are
therefore automatically entitled to the benefits of the 1951 Convention, providing
of course that Articles 1C, 1E and 1F do not apply. For further details, see
UNHCR’s position on Palestinian refugees set out in its 2002 Note on the
Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention. 12
E.
Humanitarian considerations affecting possible forced returns
16.
Where individuals are found to have no international protection needs and
are being considered for return to Lebanon, UNHCR recommends that the
feasibility and timing of any return be taken into account and that States consider
humanitarian reasons for permitting individuals to stay until the situation
improves further.
17.
Factors to be borne in mind include the high contamination of cluster submunitions and other UXOs, the massive destruction of homes and infrastructure in
large parts of the country, as well as the time the reconstruction effort will take.
These factors all restrict the absorption capacity of the country. There may also be
individuals who have been traumatized as a result of the war who could, if
returned, be left without adequate care. Similarly, the humanitarian situation of
older persons, single women and children without support, the chronically ill and
the disabled should especially be considered.
18.
Returns should be undertaken only with caution and taking due account of
these humanitarian considerations. As UNHCR’s Executive Committee has
stressed, it is important to ensure “the sustainability of returns and … avoid …
further displacements in countries emerging from conflict”. 13
UNHCR, Geneva
15 November 2006
12
13
UNHCR, Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status
of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees, October 2002, available at http://www.unhcr.org/home/
RSDLEGAL/3da192be4.pdf. It should be noted that there are also several thousand
Palestinians living in Lebanon who were not receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA.
If they have fled the country, even within UNRWA’s area of operation, they cannot be
considered as receiving protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations
other than UNHCR, as per Article 1D of the 1951 Convention.
Executive Committee Conclusion No. 96 (LIV) of 2003 on the return of persons found not to
be in need of international protection, 10 October 2003, para. (l), available at http://www.
unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/3f93b1ca4.html.
5