Three-year waiting period violates human rights

It is a violation of human rights, if refugees must wait three years to be reunited with their families. That is the conclusion in a hearing statement from The Danish Institute for Human Rights in response to the Danish government’s proposed changes to the Danish Aliens Act. The Institute recommends that the parliament does not adopt the new rules for family reunification.

The bill includes several changes, but the proposal to introduce a three-year waiting period for family reunification for persons with temporary protection status is particularly problematic.

"It is a small part of the asylum seekers coming to Denmark, who will be affected by the new rules on family reunification, but it is a significant violation of the rights of those people. We are talking about children who have to wait three years to be taken to safety and see their father or mother again. Three years is an unreasonably long time in a child's life," says Jonas Christoffersen.

Family reunification to be fast and efficient

The right of refugees to be reunited with their families are protected by several international conventions ratified by Denmark. But the draft law states that the government is not aware of any case law from the European Court of Human Rights concerning people who are not eligible for family reunification for the first three years in a country. The institute has, in turn, found a number of relevant rulings from the Court.

"The rulings provides a comprehensive picture showing that the processing of family reunification cases must be expeditious, flexible and efficient with special attention and care. This is not consistent with a three-year waiting period. We therefore believe that we have a very safe basis for saying that it is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights to defer family reunification for three years," says Jonas Christoffersen.

New Danish stance leads to domino effect

The bill challenges the existing framework for human rights to such a degree that the institute opens its hearing statement with a general comment on the tightening of the immigration legislation which the government has introduced in the recent months. The institute also refers to the Danish Prime Minister's recent announcement that the government would like to change the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

"Usually, we relate strictly to the legal aspect of a bill when we hand in a hearing statement. However, this time we have felt compelled to also relate to the current debate on human rights. With the three-year rule, the government is taking their proposal further than the civil service can vouch for. At the same time, we hear signals that the government is toying with the idea of changing the playing field – so to say – and thus the content of human rights," says Jonas Christoffersen. He adds:

"The legislature obviously has a mandate to reduce and change the rights of foreigners, but usually Denmark keeps within the boundaries of human rights. The new Danish stance will attract the attention both inside and outside Denmark. "

According to Jonas Christoffersen, the Danish actions are already leading to a domino effect in our neighbouring countries where both Sweden and Norway are implementing restrictions on the rights of foreigners.

"Several countries in Europe are starting to make themselves less attractive in order to avoid a greater burden than necessary. It is understandable from each country's immediate point of view, but it is a slippery slope towards less protection," says Jonas Christoffersen.

Inaccurate law on the confiscation of valuables

In the hearing statement, the institute also refers to the rest of the bill. Although there are several elements that give rise to practical and principled concerns, they will probably not lead to violations of human rights.

"There has – among other things – been an extensive debate on the proposal for the police to be able to take valuables from asylum seekers and include them in the payment of the asylum seekers’ stay in Denmark. However, looking at it purely from a human rights law perspective, there are no immediate problems with this proposal because all seizures can be contested in court. The judge will make an assessment of the reasonability of the seizure in each individual situation, "says Jonas Christoffersen.

However, the institute points to the fact that the law text should have included more details on which items with special personal significance the police are allowed to confiscate. Also, it is not clearly formulated what assets abroad or in their home country asylum seekers must disclose when signing the compulsory solemn declaration.

"It is vital that it is clear to all asylum seekers what they have to disclose as it may be punishable if the applicant has not given correct information. An error in the declaration can be an obstacle for the person to be allowed to stay in Denmark," explains Jonas Christoffersen.