Escape to Repatriation
RAPHAEL VASSALLO takes a look at Eritrea: Voices of Torture… one film the MTA will not be using as part of its Brand Malta campaign.
It is arguably one of the most consistently successful motif in the history of film. Think Papillon, The Great Escape, Cool Hand Luke, The Shawshank Redemption… even Malta’s own contribution to the genre, Midnight Express. There is something cathartic in the well-told story of a daring jailbreak: something which appeals to the viewer’s subconscious yearnings for justice and liberty, and which can only be accentuated if the protagonist is an unjustly imprisoned, or grossly mistreated, victim. But not all escape movies are intended to entertain; and not all “escapes to victory” come complete with a happy ending.
For those who were closely involved in the proceedings of September 2002 – when 223 Eritrean immigrants were forcibly repatriated from Malta, many of them to be tortured on their return – the recent emergence of a documentary on the subject will not have come as a great surprise. Its director, London-based human rights activist Elsa Chyrum, was among the frontliners in the campaign against the deportation at the time, and has since vociferously condemned Malta’s handling of the affair on local and foreign media alike. She was also the first to alert Amnesty International (AI) to the situation, and it is largely thanks to AI’s involvement in the case that the subsequent fate of many of these deportees eventually came to light.
In Eritrea: Voices of Torture, two of the survivors, Habtom Teclab and Semis Mohamed Gaid, relive their treatment at the hands of Eritrean prison guards after their repatriation. Admittedly, many of the shocking details included in the film were already made public by The Times after the AI report in May 2004: how the prisoners were regularly tied up and beaten, forced to walk barefoot on thorns and sharp stones, and deprived of water in temperatures of up to 47 degrees, among other degrading practices. It is clear from individual accounts that some of the detainees, especially those who had fled forced conscription, would never leave their prison camp alive. After a second failed attempt to escape from the notorious Dakhla penal colony, Habtom himself was beaten, bound, and suspended in the scorching sun for 55 days and nights. “We did not look like human beings at that time,” he recalls today from his home in Canada, where he now lives after a third (this time successful) escape. At least three of the other Malta deportees – Robel Goniche, Alazar Gebrendrias and Mussie (Amiche) – have since died after suffering similar treatment is the prisons of Asmara and Dakhla.
“We will probably never know”
Apart from revealing the gruesome realities of war-torn Eritrea, the 20-minute documentary only raises questions about Malta’s role in this humanitarian nightmare. At its most generous, Voices of Torture suggests that the government of Malta “seriously misjudged” the situation in Eritrea. But Chyrum’s narration goes one step further, arguing that the deportation itself was illegal, in that it took place “in direct contravention of the International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.”
More upsetting still are the allegations of mistreatment by Maltese authorities during the repatriation process. Habtom Teclab recalls the night of September 22, 2002 with visible bitterness: “It was one or two in the morning and we were asleep in our beds with our night clothes. Suddenly lots of Maltese soldiers entered the camp with sprays, sticks and guns. They surrounded us, two soldiers to one, and forcibly handcuffed us and took us out.”Semis Gaid supplies additional details: “Some 300 soldiers came to our detention centre to arrest about 150 people. Each prisoner was beaten and handcuffed by two soldiers and taken outside.”In actual fact, the above operation was carried out by the police, although the armed forces were indeed called in to provide support.
Local authorities have so far been reluctant to comment on the alleged beating of detainees before repatriation. AFM Commander Brig. Carmelo Vassallo referred me to the inquiry carried out in May 2005 by magistrate Abigail Lofaro, which roundly exonerated the authorities of all blame. But the report’s conclusions, while dwelling at length on legal, technical and procedural issues, fail to address any specific individual mistreatment allegation against the local police or armed forces.
Meanwhile, the question of whether the deportation was legal or not continues to elude any clear answer to this day. In defence of its actions, the Maltese Government has consistently argued that the decision was taken in consultation with UNHCR, which had itself declared Eritrea a “safe destination” prior to the deportation. More significantly, none of the 223 deportees had applied for refugee status while in Malta, despite having being given ample time and opportunity to do so. For her part, Elsa Chyrum believes the Maltese government had misinterpreted the UNHCR, which at the time was involved in a programme of voluntary repatriation of Eritrean refugees from Sudan: “Soon after the 1998-2000 war… UNHCR published a cessation of status that was wrongly interpreted by the Maltese government,” she told Canadian based organization AfricaFiles. “UNHCR stated those who were displaced during the revolutionary years, that is prior to 1991, could safely return to Eritrea.” It was on the basis of this document, which was clearly inapplicable to immigrants arriving in 2002, that the deportation was later justified.
The issue of refugee status application, on the other hand, is not touched upon in Chyrum’s documentary. Considering that the role of counsellor to asylum seekers generally falls to NGOs, among them UNHCR, it is at best unclear why the Eritrean migrants refused to comply with standard immigration procedures at the Hal Far detention centre. This anomaly assumes weighty implications in the context of the 1951 International Refugee Convention, which has often been criticised as too vague, especially in its definitions of the word ‘refugee’. Were the Eritrean migrants informed of the possible consequences of their refusal to comply? And if so, by whom?
Speaking to me in confidence, one witness to the proceedings said simply: “We will probably never know”… adding that the UNHCR’s own internal procedures had prevented its Malta official from testifying before the inquiring magistrate. In the end, then, at least part of the entire deportation fiasco may well boil down to a simple, albeit tragic, communication failure.
“Impossible to seek asylum”
On another level, Voices Of Torture also speaks volumes about the dire circumstances faced by asylum seekers on the long trek to Europe. While voices in Malta continue to argue that Sub-Saharan Africans travel across two, three, even four ‘stable’ countries before coming here, Habtom’s ordeal suggests that in reality, there are no safe havens south of the Mediterranean littoral.
For reasons of geography, Eritrean asylum seekers have little choice but to cross the frontier into Sudan. The expression must be understood figuratively, for the two countries have been mired in a border controversy since the early 1990s. Matters are further complicated by the fact that Sudan ostensibly forms part of an alliance which also includes Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, Eritrea’s traditional enemy. But the country also depends on the Eritrean government for mediation between the various factions in its own ongoing civil war. The resulting scenario is that Eritrean government agents operate freely in Sudan, and escaped ‘prisoners of war’, as Eritrea’s conscientious objectors are invariably classified, can expect little protection from their immediate neighbours. From the documentary, it transpires that the guards responsible for Robel Goniche’s death were in fact members of the Sudanese border police, and not Eritrean soldiers as elsewhere reported.
Libya, too, is singled out as a ‘black spot’ for asylum seekers. As Habtom puts it, “Sudan’s and Libya’s human rights records are as bad as Eritrea’s. It’s almost impossible to seek asylum in those countries.” This impression is confirmed by international agencies such as Human Rights Watch, which observed in its September 2006 report that “migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers reported physical abuse by Libyan police and prison guards, sometimes allegedly resulting in deaths.” Furthermore, Libya has no asylum law or procedure, has not signed the 1951 Refugees Convention, and refuses to enter into any kind of formal agreement with UNHCR.These revelations may have uncomfortable implications for the European Commission’s current immigration strategy, which involves co-operation with Libya to a large degree. As a result of European pressure, Libya has recently overturned its “open-door policy” on irregular migrants: a move which has done little to prevent thousands of asylum seekers from pouring into the country through its border with Chad, but which may have had the effect of immediately criminalising the estimated three million immigrants already in the country. Ironically, in the final analysis it can be argued that by persuading Libya to “stem the tide” of immigration, the European Union may have indirectly created a further reason for asylum seekers to risk the perilous Mediterranean crossing in the first place. From this perspective, it seems likely that the Eritrean experience will one day be repeated.
Eritrea: Voices Of Torture can be viewed on http://youtube.com. The film has been flagged on account of its disturbing content, and can only be accessed by registered YouTube users. So far, by mid-January, it has been viewed 42,962 times.
It is arguably one of the most consistently successful motif in the history of film. Think Papillon, The Great Escape, Cool Hand Luke, The Shawshank Redemption… even Malta’s own contribution to the genre, Midnight Express. There is something cathartic in the well-told story of a daring jailbreak: something which appeals to the viewer’s subconscious yearnings for justice and liberty, and which can only be accentuated if the protagonist is an unjustly imprisoned, or grossly mistreated, victim. But not all escape movies are intended to entertain; and not all “escapes to victory” come complete with a happy ending.
For those who were closely involved in the proceedings of September 2002 – when 223 Eritrean immigrants were forcibly repatriated from Malta, many of them to be tortured on their return – the recent emergence of a documentary on the subject will not have come as a great surprise. Its director, London-based human rights activist Elsa Chyrum, was among the frontliners in the campaign against the deportation at the time, and has since vociferously condemned Malta’s handling of the affair on local and foreign media alike. She was also the first to alert Amnesty International (AI) to the situation, and it is largely thanks to AI’s involvement in the case that the subsequent fate of many of these deportees eventually came to light.
In Eritrea: Voices of Torture, two of the survivors, Habtom Teclab and Semis Mohamed Gaid, relive their treatment at the hands of Eritrean prison guards after their repatriation. Admittedly, many of the shocking details included in the film were already made public by The Times after the AI report in May 2004: how the prisoners were regularly tied up and beaten, forced to walk barefoot on thorns and sharp stones, and deprived of water in temperatures of up to 47 degrees, among other degrading practices. It is clear from individual accounts that some of the detainees, especially those who had fled forced conscription, would never leave their prison camp alive. After a second failed attempt to escape from the notorious Dakhla penal colony, Habtom himself was beaten, bound, and suspended in the scorching sun for 55 days and nights. “We did not look like human beings at that time,” he recalls today from his home in Canada, where he now lives after a third (this time successful) escape. At least three of the other Malta deportees – Robel Goniche, Alazar Gebrendrias and Mussie (Amiche) – have since died after suffering similar treatment is the prisons of Asmara and Dakhla.
“We will probably never know”
Apart from revealing the gruesome realities of war-torn Eritrea, the 20-minute documentary only raises questions about Malta’s role in this humanitarian nightmare. At its most generous, Voices of Torture suggests that the government of Malta “seriously misjudged” the situation in Eritrea. But Chyrum’s narration goes one step further, arguing that the deportation itself was illegal, in that it took place “in direct contravention of the International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.”
More upsetting still are the allegations of mistreatment by Maltese authorities during the repatriation process. Habtom Teclab recalls the night of September 22, 2002 with visible bitterness: “It was one or two in the morning and we were asleep in our beds with our night clothes. Suddenly lots of Maltese soldiers entered the camp with sprays, sticks and guns. They surrounded us, two soldiers to one, and forcibly handcuffed us and took us out.”Semis Gaid supplies additional details: “Some 300 soldiers came to our detention centre to arrest about 150 people. Each prisoner was beaten and handcuffed by two soldiers and taken outside.”In actual fact, the above operation was carried out by the police, although the armed forces were indeed called in to provide support.
Local authorities have so far been reluctant to comment on the alleged beating of detainees before repatriation. AFM Commander Brig. Carmelo Vassallo referred me to the inquiry carried out in May 2005 by magistrate Abigail Lofaro, which roundly exonerated the authorities of all blame. But the report’s conclusions, while dwelling at length on legal, technical and procedural issues, fail to address any specific individual mistreatment allegation against the local police or armed forces.
Meanwhile, the question of whether the deportation was legal or not continues to elude any clear answer to this day. In defence of its actions, the Maltese Government has consistently argued that the decision was taken in consultation with UNHCR, which had itself declared Eritrea a “safe destination” prior to the deportation. More significantly, none of the 223 deportees had applied for refugee status while in Malta, despite having being given ample time and opportunity to do so. For her part, Elsa Chyrum believes the Maltese government had misinterpreted the UNHCR, which at the time was involved in a programme of voluntary repatriation of Eritrean refugees from Sudan: “Soon after the 1998-2000 war… UNHCR published a cessation of status that was wrongly interpreted by the Maltese government,” she told Canadian based organization AfricaFiles. “UNHCR stated those who were displaced during the revolutionary years, that is prior to 1991, could safely return to Eritrea.” It was on the basis of this document, which was clearly inapplicable to immigrants arriving in 2002, that the deportation was later justified.
The issue of refugee status application, on the other hand, is not touched upon in Chyrum’s documentary. Considering that the role of counsellor to asylum seekers generally falls to NGOs, among them UNHCR, it is at best unclear why the Eritrean migrants refused to comply with standard immigration procedures at the Hal Far detention centre. This anomaly assumes weighty implications in the context of the 1951 International Refugee Convention, which has often been criticised as too vague, especially in its definitions of the word ‘refugee’. Were the Eritrean migrants informed of the possible consequences of their refusal to comply? And if so, by whom?
Speaking to me in confidence, one witness to the proceedings said simply: “We will probably never know”… adding that the UNHCR’s own internal procedures had prevented its Malta official from testifying before the inquiring magistrate. In the end, then, at least part of the entire deportation fiasco may well boil down to a simple, albeit tragic, communication failure.
“Impossible to seek asylum”
On another level, Voices Of Torture also speaks volumes about the dire circumstances faced by asylum seekers on the long trek to Europe. While voices in Malta continue to argue that Sub-Saharan Africans travel across two, three, even four ‘stable’ countries before coming here, Habtom’s ordeal suggests that in reality, there are no safe havens south of the Mediterranean littoral.
For reasons of geography, Eritrean asylum seekers have little choice but to cross the frontier into Sudan. The expression must be understood figuratively, for the two countries have been mired in a border controversy since the early 1990s. Matters are further complicated by the fact that Sudan ostensibly forms part of an alliance which also includes Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, Eritrea’s traditional enemy. But the country also depends on the Eritrean government for mediation between the various factions in its own ongoing civil war. The resulting scenario is that Eritrean government agents operate freely in Sudan, and escaped ‘prisoners of war’, as Eritrea’s conscientious objectors are invariably classified, can expect little protection from their immediate neighbours. From the documentary, it transpires that the guards responsible for Robel Goniche’s death were in fact members of the Sudanese border police, and not Eritrean soldiers as elsewhere reported.
Libya, too, is singled out as a ‘black spot’ for asylum seekers. As Habtom puts it, “Sudan’s and Libya’s human rights records are as bad as Eritrea’s. It’s almost impossible to seek asylum in those countries.” This impression is confirmed by international agencies such as Human Rights Watch, which observed in its September 2006 report that “migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers reported physical abuse by Libyan police and prison guards, sometimes allegedly resulting in deaths.” Furthermore, Libya has no asylum law or procedure, has not signed the 1951 Refugees Convention, and refuses to enter into any kind of formal agreement with UNHCR.These revelations may have uncomfortable implications for the European Commission’s current immigration strategy, which involves co-operation with Libya to a large degree. As a result of European pressure, Libya has recently overturned its “open-door policy” on irregular migrants: a move which has done little to prevent thousands of asylum seekers from pouring into the country through its border with Chad, but which may have had the effect of immediately criminalising the estimated three million immigrants already in the country. Ironically, in the final analysis it can be argued that by persuading Libya to “stem the tide” of immigration, the European Union may have indirectly created a further reason for asylum seekers to risk the perilous Mediterranean crossing in the first place. From this perspective, it seems likely that the Eritrean experience will one day be repeated.
Eritrea: Voices Of Torture can be viewed on http://youtube.com. The film has been flagged on account of its disturbing content, and can only be accessed by registered YouTube users. So far, by mid-January, it has been viewed 42,962 times.
