jk.
to
3. The imminent forcible repatriation of Vietnamese boat people
ietnam from countries of first asylum in Asia illustrates the urgency of the challenge to safeguard fundamental human rights of those who have left their own country and are seeking shelter in another country. Without the involvement of the international community, the current situation threatens to result in refoulement of genuine refugees and persons who reasonably fear deprivation of liberty or other punishment upon return for having left.
↳ Human Rights Advocates believes that the British crown colony of Hong Kong has already breached its international obligations in this area, and that the countries of first asylum in Southeast Asia will be led to do likewise. The United Kingdom and its colony Hong Kong have agreed in principle with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) to proceed with nonvoluntary repatriation of Vietnamese boat people whom Hong Kong has determined do not qualify as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol.
5.In this context, there is aprobability that, in light of current refugee status determination procedures, genuine refugees will be repatriated forcibly to the country of persecution in violation of the recognized principle of non-refoulement. The evidence shows that, in many cases, Hong Kong procedures for determination of refugee status are not carried out in good faith. Immigration officers and interpreters regularly use intimidation tactics during interviews, and attempt to ensnare interviewees on recollection of minor facts. Some government-supplied interpreters are of questionable competence. Initial reviews of cases by Hong Kong officials are conducted with great speed, and the UNHCR is unable to provide adequate monitoring due to the speed and number of hearings each day. In addition, on appeal there is no opportunity to be heard orally, and no reasons are required for appeal decisions, leading to conflicting results in similar situations. All such conditions greatly increase the likelihood that genuine refugee claims will not be paid adequate attention, and that genuine refugees will be refouled. Similarly, in Marafidou v. Sweden, the Human Rights Committee pronounced that expulsion of aliens lawfully present in the territory violated Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) where the interpretation or application of domestic law was not in good faith or constituted an abuse of power.
ז'
6.
which provides for voluntary repatriation
Another major ground for concern arises from the fact that no assurances or mechanisms for protection of forcibly repatriated Vietnamese exist at this time. In contrast, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the SRV contains a waiver by the SRV of prosecu- | tion and punitive and discriminatory measures against returning
individuals for having left illegally. However, the SRV has stated publicly its intent to punish those who do not opt for voluntary repatriation and remain illegally in overseas countries, and those who help organize illegal departures. In addition, those who are considered to have fled with the intention of opposing the SRV government face between three years and life in prison under the SRV Code of Criminal Law.' Furthermore, there is no provision for U.N. protection of forcibly returned boat people. No effective mechanism, such as international monitoring, exists because no international consensus has been achieved. Because of the SRV's threats
'For a fuller discussion of the SRV penal measures and other points, see J. Diller, In Search of Asylum (Indochina Resource Action Center, 1988), with addenda, available from Human Rights Advocates.
2