III. Abuses by Border Police

The first contact between an unaccompanied migrant child and a government official is a decisive moment that sets the tone for the relationship between the child and authorities. An initial encounter that reassures the child and enhances the child’s trust in authorities positively contributes to children’s stability and ability to assert their rights. It also enables authorities to better assess and understand the child’s situation including the possible risks children may face.

The first encounter between children and authorities at Roissy airport, however, falls far short of creating a positive environment. Almost all children interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that initial contacts with French authorities have been marked by threats, humiliations, and coercion which destabilize and frighten children and are possibly designed to induce children to renounce their entitlements and agree to voluntary deportation.

Humiliating and Degrading Treatment

Airport border police have subjected children to humiliating and degrading treatment. Many children said they had to strip naked during the police search, which they felt was humiliating. Police officers of the same sex generally carried out the search with the exception of one boy, age 17, who said that two female officers were in the same room when he was searched:

One group [of officers] came to search me.... There were four police officers, one searched me—I had to take off all my clothes, and one searched my suitcase. One woman and another officer were there just to watch. It was very humiliating to be naked before the woman. Their manner of searching me was humiliating. The black police officer made fun of me. I felt like I was treated like an idiot and I felt intimidated.[34]

Several children told us that border police at the airport terminals kept them locked in a room shared with adults for an entire day before taking them to the detention center. In some cases, authorities restricted their access to the toilet: “I waited all afternoon in a place. I was taken to a place that was like a prison with the door locked; persons inside wanted to go to the toilet [but couldn’t] so they urinated on the floor,” a 17-year-old boy told us.[35]A 16-year-old girl similarly said:

They first locked me inside a room. I was with several other people in one room, including men; maybe eight or ten in total. I tried to call the police to go to the toilet but nobody was there.... I could not go to the toilet.[36]

Although such acts may not be intimidating for adults, children are generally less able to withstand intimidation and pressure, especially in an environment that is new and confusing for them and where they are left in uncertainty about what will happen next. Authorities therefore should consider the impact of applying standard procedures to unaccompanied children and refrain from action that potentially destabilizes children. 

Although not typical, two boys told us that even though they approached the police several times they were told to wait for two days inside the airport terminal before police agreed to process their cases. Although children are entitled to representation by an ad hoc administrator immediately after their first contact with police, the experience of these two boys highlights that such representation may not be granted when there is insufficient supervision of police action.[37]

The smuggler told us to wait when we arrived to Roissy airport. We didn’t understand that we were in France. The smuggler left us there, he never came back. We waited until four in the morning then we went to the police. The police told us to sit on chairs and to wait. The police didn’t really understand English. We went to the police around 4 a.m. They told us to sit down and wait. We waited for two days.

We didn’t understand whether it was morning or night when we waited for the police. Each time the police came out of the office we went up to them and asked but each time we were told to sit and wait again. Once an officer came and asked for our names and nationality but then told us to wait again. After two days we asked for something to eat. One police officer got us some fries.[38]

Unwarranted Pressure Placed on Children

The vast majority of children told us that border police heavily pressured or misled them into signing documents without explaining what they were signing, effectively taking advantage of children being intimidated and not knowing their rights.[39] In at least three instances of which Human Rights Watch is aware, authorities did not provide children with an interpreter, as required by law.[40]

Unaccompanied migrant children refused entry into France are by law entitled to a 24-hour protection from deportation, the so-called jour franc.[41] The child’s wish (or refusal) to benefit from the jour franc is marked on the entry refusal paper that children have to sign. Human Rights Watch found that in at least three instances, authorities did not grant children their right to a jour franc, marked on the entry refusal paper that the child wished to depart “as soon as possible,” and immediately tried to deport the child against the child’s wishes.[42] In late 2008, police marked on behalf of a 5-year-old unaccompanied boy that he wanted to “depart as soon as possible.”[43]

In addition to the three cases we documented in March and May 2009, the real figure of children not granted their jour franc is likely to be much higher. According to police records, between January and May 2009, out of 265 unaccompanied children who were refused entry, 24 were removed before the expiration of a jour franc.[44] Airport border police told Human Rights Watch that when the jour franc is not granted it is because children want to depart.[45] In light of confirmed cases that children who did not want to depart in fact had “depart as soon as possible” marked on the entry refusal paper, there must be serious doubt if all or any of the 24 children removed before the expiration of a jour franc actually did want to depart.

The police officer simply asked us to sign here, here, and here. And we just did. We were scared and just signed. The police didn’t explain anything to us.... We hardly looked at what we signed.... [Three days later] we signed something-else. It was two papers. We were a bit scared that they would deport us. They police told us ‘no problem—just sign’. There was no interpreter, not even by phone.”[46]

A 12-year-old girl told us how police pressured her and a 6-year-old girl to sign the entry refusal papers.

They asked me to sign papers. I said I won’t sign and then [the other girl] also refused to sign. They insisted once more and said ‘sign.’ I said I won’t sign. Then they gave up. They asked us to sign at the bottom without explaining.[47]

A 17-year-old boy told us that he did not know what he had signed: “I was scared to be sent back. Because one of my family members came to France and had been sent back. I was scared that maybe I signed a paper that allowed my deportation.”[48]

Threats to Deport Children

Unaccompanied children may also be subject to threats of deportation by border police. The majority of children Human Rights Watch spoke to said that border police had threatened them with deportation. The 12-year-old girl mentioned above told us how police threatened her and a six-year-old girl who was with her.

They said, ‘we don’t know whether you will see your parents again.’ I started to cry and so did [name withheld]. Then I told [name withheld] that they were lying so she calmed down. The police said they will punish my parents so that this won’t happen again.... Where we were playing [during the day] one police officer told us, ‘You will depart again.’ I didn’t cry but my heart ached.[49]

A 12-year-old boy from the Ivory Coast was threatened with deportation after he refused to sign papers he did not understand. It is possible that these threats were made to coerce the boy into signing his refusal to the jour franc.

They told me to sign papers. I did not sign. Then the police officer said she will show it to her boss. They said my passport was fake and that they will send me back to Ivory Coast. ‘We will send you back to Ivory Coast,’ and ‘you will leave again,’ they said.[50]

These threats are likely to be especially effective as they take place at a moment when children are confused, exhausted, and most in need of assistance and trustworthy information from authorities. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urges authorities to determine a child’s protection needs following a first contact, and to carry out such an assessment in a fair and child-sensitive manner, giving due respect to the child’s human dignity.[51]

Unnecessary and Flawed Medical Examinations to Determine Age

In 2008, approximately 90 out of 1,092 migrants who said they were underage were declared adults following a medical examination. From January to May 2009, this was the case for 9 out of 265 persons. These examinations, which consist of physical assessments only, are fairly imprecise, with margins of error of up to five years.[52] In addition, they appear to be used excessively and in overly restrictive conditions that do little to screen out adults but are nevertheless intimidating.

Medical examinations to determine age are based solely on a physical assessment that includes an x-ray scan of the wrist-bone, the counting of teeth, and a measuring of a child’s height and weight.[53] With very few exceptions, children told us they received no information about the purpose of the medical examination and had not been asked for consent, despite this being legally required under French and European Union legislation.[54] Two children told Human Rights Watch:

The next day we went to the hospital. There was no interpreter at the hospital. Four or five police officers took us there. We were handcuffed when we were taken to the hospital, but not anymore on the way back. We didn’t know where we were going. At the hospital we didn’t receive any explanations. They made an x-ray, checked our teeth, size, and weight. The doctor afterwards showed us his thumb up. We understood that this sign means something positive but we didn’t know what it was about.[55]

In addition to their imprecision, pediatricians have further criticized the fact that some exams expose children to X-ray for non-medical purposes.[56] Legal avenues to immediately challenge an erroneous age assessment on behalf of a child do not exist.[57]

According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, children should be informed about the purpose and the implications of an age assessment and be given effective representation by a guardian and lawyer.Such exams should not rely exclusively on physical appearances but should take into account a child’s psychological maturity, demeanor, ability to interact with adults, social and educational history, and life experiences.[58] It should also be possibility to legally challenge the result of an erroneous assessment.

Police routinely request medical age examinations even when there is no doubt that a child is underage.[59] According to one ad hoc administrator, police even ordered an age exam for a six-year-old girl in early 2009 but were stopped after he intervened.[60] Age exams should only be conducted in case of doubt about a person’s age.

Furthermore, children as young as 12 told us that they were taken to and from the hospital in handcuffs or strapped to the car seat, and squeezed in-between police officers. “They took me in handcuffs to the hospital. We were two boys and five police officers. They took the handcuffs off before we arrived to the hospital. On the way back they handcuffed me again,” a 12-year old boy told us.

Abuses and Risks in Detention

French law permits unaccompanied migrant children to be detained for a maximum of 20 days at the airport transit zone. Police order the first four days of detention through an administrative decision but a judge must validate any extension.[61] In practice, only a small minority of children are detained for 20 days. The majority leave the airport transit zone either within the first four days because they are deported or at four days when a judge reviews their detention and orders their release. 

Within the course of three weeks in April and May 2009, Human Rights Watch documented five incidents in which children faced harm in detention.[62] In two instances children experienced mental health problems, suggesting that they needed specialized services and attention unavailable in detention: one child attempted to commit suicide and another child had a psychological breakdown. In a third incident, a boy told us that an adult inmate with whom he was detained sexually harassed him: “I was scared because there was one guy who was interested in me. He told me to follow him. I said ‘no.’ I stayed inside the room all day. I was scared and stayed inside the room. I could not talk to anybody.”[63]

In a fourth incident, border police permitted a trafficker to visit a girl in detention. When that girl’s detention was reviewed before the liberty and detention judge, the government lawyer acknowledged she was a trafficking victim and argued for her continued detention because she would abscond if released.  The judge extended her detention.[64] Despite this awareness on the government’s side, insufficient safeguards were in place to stop her trafficker from visiting her in detention shortly afterwards (her case is further discussed in Chapter V).  According to her ad hoc administrator, she was so distressed after 12 days in detention that she could not stop trembling.[65] A fifth child, a girl, suffered from anxieties and sleeping disorders after 12 days in detention, and her ad hoc administrator was going to alert the children’s judge had she not been released by the liberty and detention judge.[66]

Children are also subject to solitary confinement in the airport transit zone. Anafé, an organization that provides legal aid at the airport detention center, documented in 2007 the placement of a 16-year-old girl in an isolation cell after she attempted to commit suicide.[67] While the segregation of a suicidal person can be justified for safety reasons, in this case the authorities should have considered that her continued detention at the airport, in particular in solitary confinement, might have caused additional harm and did not provide her with the specialized services she required. 

As these examples illustrate, detention can put children at increased risk of self-harm, mental distress, and abuse from fellow inmates or outsiders. Joint detention of children and adults for any lengths of time is prohibited under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the detention of children generally should be a measure of last resort.[68]

At Roissy, women, men, girls and boys are held in one single facility and are not physically separated from one another. Children, age 13 and older are detained with adults in the airport detention center; younger children are generally held in hotels near the airport, although in some instances children younger than 13 are also detained jointly with adults.[69] A 12-year-old boy with a fake passport attesting his age was 17 was held for four days jointly with adults.[70]

Beginning in spring 2010, airport border police plan to hold children under age 13 inside the airport detention center in separate quarters. The space is to have six beds and be under constant supervision by French Red Cross employees. However, teenagers may still be held with adults if space is insufficient or if there are very young children who should be separated from older children.[71]

Joint detention of children with unrelated adults puts them at risk of abuse, including sexual violence, particularly in settings with insufficient supervision.[72] While airport border police run the detention facility, children told us that police almost never come to the first floor of the airport detention center where detainees’ rooms are located and supervision appears to be exercised primarily through camera monitoring and through small teams of French Red Cross employees who provide humanitarian assistance in the facility.[73]

The transit zones are the only places under French law where the detention of children with adults is allowed. It is difficult to understand why France recognizes the requirement to implement the basic child protection measure of separating detained children from adults in all circumstances but this one. The Paris appeals court held that the detention of unaccompanied migrant children in an airport transit zone does not violate France’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court argues that unaccojmpanied children’s detention is permissible because it is limited in time, because the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had never objected to French law permitting children’s detention, and because the child “has not yet entered French territory.”[74]

This ruling contravenes basic international standards, including in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit the detention of children with adults for any length of time.[75] The fact that the Committee on the Rights of the Child has not specifically criticized a provision in French law does not signify a tacit endorsement. In terms of practical harm, the example of Paco M., who was detained for one day and night only, illustrates how an adult inmate can immediately place a child at serious risk. The European Court held in Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, with particular reference to unaccompanied children, that the detention of an unaccompanied child jointly with adults may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.[76]