Madam, - I applaud Carol Coulter's dogged persistence in highlighting the Refugee Appeals Tribunal's standard of determination procedures for refugee status in Ireland and her excellent series of articles on the new Immigration,Residency and Protection Bill. Her work is especially laudable in view of the scandalous revelations of the workings of the tribunal over the past few years, with rejection rates of asylum cases of close to 100 per cent by some members.
Your Editorial (March 10th) quite rightly calls for the new Protection Review Tribunal to be a complete break with the old system with its lack of accountability, transparency and fair procedures.
The Legal Aid Board representative's rather chilling observations that the rescinding of the controversial tribunal decisions might not be possible as "many of the people concerned have been sent back to their countries" comes to the crux of the matter. Tribunal misjudgments are not victimless.
There is evidence from all stages of the asylum process here that asylum seekers with very serious protection needs can have their cases dismissed on grounds which fly in the face of country of origin material, disregard expert psychological and other relevant testimony, and are judged on the most flimsy credibility criteria.
Bearing in mind the lack of confidence of even some of the tribunal's own members, it is curious that only now has the UNHCR seen fit to comment on the handling of asylum cases here in their recent critique of the new Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill (March 13th).
Their lack of criticism of the system up until now - in fact their ringing endorsement of it - often quoted by the former minister for justice, made for painful reading, during, for example, the Afghan hunger strike in 2006. The UNHCR handbook on determination of refugee status states: "Since the examiner's conclusion on the facts of the case and his personal impression of the applicant will lead to a decision that affects human lives, he must apply the criteria in a spirit of justice and understanding and his judgment should not, of course, be influenced by the personal consideration that the applicant may be an 'undeserving case'."
Too often, the main driving policy in refugee determination throughout the EU would seem to be the restriction of numbers of refugee status recipients, regardless of the merits of their case for protection.
This can result in a mechanical and routine listing of reasons not to give refugee status, at all levels of the adjudication procedure, which can show a shocking disregard for available country of origin evidence, lack of understanding of the particular situation of the applicant and of the human factors involved - qualities specifically highlighted in the UN handbook.
Some very questionable deportation decisions are being made here, unknown and unpublicised for the most part, which should receive the most serious scrutiny.
A strong and consistent system of safeguards against the brutalisation of extremely vulnerable asylum seekers whose cases warrant serious protection and humanitarian consideration needs to be built into the new Bill. The appointment of an independent monitoring group to ensure that such safeguards are being adhered to throughout the decision-making process here should be prioritised in the new Bill. - Yours, etc,
VALERIE HUGHES, Cabra, Dublin 7.