He was removed from Germany to Belgium and from Belgium to Togo and the date of removal was 5 July 1994. The conclusion reads "Returned to country of origin, now in hiding in Benin." The document continues:
A Togolese national left Togo on 4 July and claimed asylum at Munich Airport in Germany on 5 July.
The German border police refused to entertain his claim on third country grounds as the asylum seeker had previously spent a few hours in transit at Brussels airport.
This is very relevant because one of the rules under the Dublin Convention is that where a person has travelled through a convention country to their ultimate country of asylum application, they will, under the Dublin Convention, be sent back to the first European country they entered and it is in that country that their asylum application will be considered. The case history continues:
Despite having a relative in Germany he was subsequently returned to Belgium where he applied for asylum on 5/6 July 1994.
His application for asylum was refused on the grounds that his claim had previously been examined in Germany, combined with the evaluation that the asylum seeker had left Togo "for economic reasons".
An expulsion order issued by the Belgian authorities on 29 July stipulated that the asylum seeker should be removed to his country of origin immediately.
According to a statement by a cousin of the asylum seeker, who is resident in Lome, the asylum seeker, upon his arrival in Togo, fled to Benin where he is now in hiding.
I have details of a similar case which relates to somebody who came from Algeria through Belgium into Denmark. The last line reads: "After intervention by his relatives in Algeria, the applicant was released two days later and is now in hiding in Algeria."
The Minister failed to provide one whiff of evidence that there is any wording in the Dublin Convention which says it is subordinate to the Geneva Convention. I can only anticipate that she will deal with the wording of the Dublin Convention and the rules contained in it. Having read it, I believe there are essentially five different rules or criteria under which persons subject to it will be examined. When its rules are examined — this is completely pertinent to my amendment — it is easy to see not only that there is a possible conflict between it and the Geneva Convention but that in certain cases the exercise of the former will have the effect of making it superior to the latter.
Article 4 of the Dublin Convention states that:
Where the applicant for asylum has a member of his family who has been recognised as having refugee status within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, as amended by the New York Protocol, in a Member State and is legally resident there, that State shall be responsible for examining the application, provided that the persons concerned so desire.
The family member in question may not be other than the spouse of the applicant for asylum or his or her unmarried child who is a minor of under eighteen years, or his or her father or mother where the applicant for asylum is himself or herself an unmarried child who is a minor of under eighteen years.
The words "provided that the persons concerned so desire" would be the only safeguard which might protect persons from being effectively deported to another Dublin Convention member state where they had a relative who had been processed under the Geneva Convention. However, from the earlier examples I gave it is obvious that under this Bill, if the Minister decides, the person loses on appeal and is sent back to Greece where a relative already has the protection of the Geneva Convention, that person might not get a proper hearing in Greece and may end up being transferred to an unsafe third country.
Article 5 of the Dublin Convention states that:
Where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a valid residence permit, the Member State which issued the permit shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.
If a person was temporarily in one of the countries which signed the convention but do not operate correct procedures with regard to refugee applications and that person obtains a residence permit, he or she could be transported from Ireland back to that country and, as per the examples I have already given, be deported to an unsafe country.
Article 6 is even more dangerous and has no mirror or cognisant part in the Geneva Convention. It states that:
When it can be proved that an applicant for asylum has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-member State of the European Communities, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.
If somebody from Hungary irregularly crosses the border into Greece and then comes to Ireland and the Minister returns that person to Greece——