What does NRC think | Official reports on safety in countries must be published

It was in the outline agreement that the coalition closed last April. The concept of ‘Safe Land’ would be ‘broadened to safe parts of countries on the basis of official reports; official reports will in principle not be made public.

A small phrase with potentially major consequences. Official messages, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years, form the basis on which asylum seekers are admitted or deported. They are objective, expert reports on safety and human rights in a country, made on the basis of information from embassies, care providers, media and other sources on the spot.

The Minister of Asylum and Migration bases its country policy on those messages, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) uses them to make a decision. The House of Representatives needs the official reports to check the policy of the minister – although last year the current minister already said that official reports ‘are not holy’ and that it also relies on ‘other sources’. Which, she did not want to say, media reported then.

It also stated in the outline agreement that the coalition sees a government that stands for legal certainty and good governance. This makes the fact that official reports have not been public for some time, in contradiction. People need to know – have the right to know – what the government bases its decisions.

The fact that the messages are no longer ‘actively published’ became pass clear then after asking from NRC earlier this week The representation of the people per parliamentary letter was informed. Unnoticed, official reports on Yemen (still in 2024 had already appeared « high degree of random violence ») and Eritrea (2024: « very worrying political and human rights situation »).

The report on Syria would be published at the end of this month. After the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad, it was unclear how safe the country would be, the asylum procedures of Syrians were paused in December. With that, more than 28,000 of them have been in uncertainty for half a year: not admitted to the procedure or rejected. The office report was therefore awaited in tension.

But, says the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is « no legal obligation » to reveal it. In doing so, he ignores Article 68 of the Constitution, which states that ministers are obliged to provide information to the parliament. The only exception is if that is contrary to the importance of the state.

The government’s reasoning is that asylum lawyers and human smugglers abuse the official reports. Asylum seekers would tailor their flight story to the official message. Let the ministers, both those of Foreign Affairs and asylum and migration, then demonstrate. Or is the opposite the case? That the story about insecurity and violation of human rights corresponds to that it is simply unsafe in certain countries, and human rights are being violated.

Everyone who asks for protection and who does not get the right to know why. By not sharing the messages, someone cannot defend himself. A lawyer has no information to defend his client. The right to a fair trial means that all the evidence that the court is handed over must be accessible to both parties.

Publicity is not a bonus in this regard, not a favor. It is the condition in a constitutional state.

To share

Mail the editors