Roma from Slovakia seek asylum in the United Kingdom
10 September 1998
On April 30 of this year, four young Romani men from eastern Slovakia were granted asylum in the United Kingdom at an appeal hearing in London before adjudicator A. McGeachy. All four, along with their wives and eleven children, were subsequently awarded the status of refugees. The ruling repudiated statements by British press and public officials that the claims of Roma from Slovakia that they are persecuted in that country are 'bogus' (see Roma Rights, Winter 1998).
Persons seeking asylum in the United Kingdom must make their claim immediately, and at the point of arrival. Having done this, they are held until they are invited to an initial interview by an immigration officer; at this interview they receive an interpreter, and are entitled to the presence of a lawyer. In theory, the interview should be detailed and substantial; in practice, many of those interviewed have complained that the interview is superficial and the interpretation provided inadequate. In the case of Roma from the former Czechoslovakia, Slovaks often get Czech interpreters, and vice versa. Applicants are entitled to housing, education and welfare from the British state. Some time after the interview, the Home Office issues a reasoned decision on the asylum claim. In practice, these decisions are usually negative. Asylum-seekers may then either leave the country immediately or appeal the refusal. If they appeal, they are allowed to remain, but they lose their right to benefits and are entitled only to emergency funds from local authorities.
All four of the Romani refugees concerned in the April 30 decision are men in their thirties who arrived in Britain between August and October 1997 and claimed asylum immediately. They were refused by the Home Office in November and December, but all appealed. They were grouped together for their appeal and the hearing, which lasted three days, took place in March 1998.
All four men spoke at the appeal hearing, and their testimony was similar. Mr B.M., for example, said "I was attacked on at least eight occasions by skinheads. Once I was attacked when I was with my child, who was in a pram, and they pulled my wife's hair, too. In 1994, they even broke into our flat and told us we should go back to India." Mr B.M. stated that when he got behind on his rent payments, he was evicted, and went to live with his parents-in-law, but he and his wife were unable to obtain residence permits in the new town. He went on to describe the discrimination he had experienced with employers: "I tried to find work. I registered at the employment centre and they gave me letters to take to two employers. Both said that they only employed whites. Then I did get a job in a brewery, but I was sacked the same day because other workers complained that a Gypsy had been given a job. When I went back to the employment centre after that, they told me that they would not give me any more jobs because there was no point."
Mr D.L. made allegations of abuse by both skinheads and police. "Once, in March 1997, I was in the post office when I saw four skinheads attacking my wife and children outside. My son was knocked down and cut his head open on the pavement." When the applicant tried to file a complaint with the police, he was accused of being a trouble-maker. "They took me to the station, where I was beaten and handcuffed to the bars of a window with my arms raised for an hour. They told me that Gypsies were to blame for all the problems in the town, and that it would be better if we were all locked up. I was beaten all over my body, then forced to kneel and beaten on the soles of my feet with truncheons. The next day, I was released without charge. I did not complain about this incident, because I knew it would be a waste of time for a Romani man to complain about the police."
Both Mr K.V. and Mr B.J. also complained about skinhead abuse, problems with the police and problems with housing and employment. Mr K.V. additionally expressed fears about his daughter's education: "My daughter was bullied at school, and when I complained to the teacher they tried to send her to a special school." He did not think that his daughter needed a special school education, which is for children with learning disabilities. He complained that such schools are full of Roma. The adjudicator then heard testimony from the four applicants and other expert witnesses of a long history of discrimination against Roma in Slovakia and increasing skinhead violence against Roma since the political changes in 1989, as well as allegations of police complicity in this violence.
According to international law, individuals are granted asylum if they have a reasonable fear of persecution in their country of origin, under terms set down in the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The four Slovak Roma claimed that skinheads attack them and that the Slovak authorities fail, or do not want, to protect them against skinheads. Adjudicator McGeachy found this claim to be valid.
In arguing that Slovak authorities fail to protect Roma from racist violence, adjudicator McGeachy quoted a statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: "Police [in Slovakia] have often failed to investigate and detain the perpetrators of racially motivated acts [...] and police in practice rarely add the charge of racial motivation, even in connection with a skinhead attack against Roma." He acknowledged that reports by many Romani and other NGOs that racially-motivated violence is tolerated in Slovakia are credible and accepted evidence of police abuse of Roma. He concluded that "such attacks on Roma are persistent and racist attitudes by the police are pervasive in Slovakia and condoned by the higher authorities."
Adjudicator McGeachy went further, however, in assessing the status of skinheads. Referring to a number of recent murders of Roma by skinheads, as well as to the notorious statement by Mr Ján Slota that the burning to death of Mr Mario Goral (see Roma Rights, Spring 1998) was a 'reaction to high Gypsy criminality', adjudicator McGeachy stated, "Attacks on Roma by skinheads do reflect the anti-Roma feeling shown by a number of members of the Government and in particular Ján Slota, head of the Slovak National Party, and Prime Minister Mečiar." Mr McGeachy cited Mr Mečiar's references to high Romani birth rates (see ERRC report Time of the Skinheads: Denial and Exclusion of Roma in Slovakia).
Under international law, persecution may also arise through the cumulative effects of discrimination. Adjudicator McGeachy assessed the men's claims of discrimination in employment, housing and education, and found their claims to be consistent with reports about the human rights situation of Roma in Slovakia. He concluded, "Discrimination against Roma in Slovakia is rife among all sections of society, from individuals such as employers or shopkeepers to officials such as hospital managers, local authority personnel or local mayors." On balance, he did not find that this discrimination reached the threshold required to be considered persecution; he did, however, accept the idea that persecution is cumulative, and therefore he 'added' the effects of discrimination to the seriousness of the violence the four Roma had suffered.
In its original refusal of the four men's claims, the Home Office had pointed to the existence of constitutional guarantees against discrimination in Slovakia. Adjudicator McGeachy decided, however, that "The evidence before me [...] is that the rights embodied in the constitution have not flourished and indeed, democracy is being stifled. De jure rights are not reflected in practice. [...] Slovakia may be lurching towards totalitarianism. I therefore consider that there is a reasonable likelihood that the situation of Roma in Slovakia will deteriorate."
The Home Office did not challenge the decision and the four men and their dependents were awarded refugee status. The decisions make it more probable that many of the hundreds of Slovak Roma still waiting for their asylum decisions in the United Kingdom will have their claims accepted. The British government's fear of this possibility has even led to suggestions that a visa requirement may be reintroduced for Slovak citizens visiting the country.
Information concerning the asylum decisions was published in an article appearing in the July 8 edition of the Slovak weekly Domino Forum. Two days following its publication, authorities from the Slovak Foreign Ministry responded to questions by members of the press, who accused officials of hiding important information pertaining to Slovakia's foreign relations. The press conference was reportedly "a shouting match".
In late August and the first half of September, dozens of Roma from Slovakia arrived at British entry points and applied for asylum. Since the beginning of 1998, over 1,000 Roma from Slovakia have requested asylum in the UK.
(Domino Forum, ERRC, Refugee Legal Centre)
