|
THE PROCESS LEADING TO DETENTION55
Reception Conditions at the National Police Facilities
Another young man told Human Rights Watch how he arrived on Fuerteventura with twenty-two other sub-Saharan Africans who were taken to the police station and divided into groups. His group was put into a small police detention cell at the police station in Fuerteventura where they "slept one night, fourteen of us all crouched down without even enough room to lie down."57 Similarly, Joseph F.58 from Togo told Human Rights Watch how he and sixteen others from sub-Saharan African countries arrived on the coast of Lanzarote and went looking for the police for help:
Access to Lawyers, Translators, and Information
Similarly, international and European standards governing the conditions of detention require that communication (oral and written) with detainees be in a language they understand and prohibits the detention of persons without an effective and prompt opportunity to be heard by a judicial or other authority and an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of detention, including access to the assistance of legal counsel.65 Notwithstanding these requirements, very few of the migrants Human Rights Watch interviewed could recall having been provided with an interpreter or a translator. Moreover, at no point in the process-in the presence of the Civil Guard, at the national police station, or in the airport facilities-were the migrants with whom Human Rights Watch and our Spanish NGO colleagues spoke presented with a version of the documents they signed in a language other than Spanish. Nor were they ever given standard information-oral or written-on their rights in Spain, either in Spanish or in a language they could understand. According to numerous accounts, this type of information is not even available in the airport facilities in the form of a bulletin or notice posted on the wall. Eric S.,66 a thirty-one-year-old man from Cameroon, described his experience to Human Rights Watch:
A young nineteen-year-old man from Togo reported a similar experience, telling Human Rights Watch:
For many migrants it was only at the airport facilities, where there were a few Red Cross staff members and a couple of police officers who could speak broken English or French, that they were able to gain a slightly better understanding of what was happening, even if just an explanation that they would be detained for forty days. Kalou B.,69 a forty-five-year old Nigerian migrant, told Human Rights Watch that he never saw a lawyer or went to a courtroom. Only when he "went to the camp [airport]" was he "told it [the detention] would be forty days."70 The guarantee of legal representation does little to remedy the situation. To satisfy the obligation to provide foreigners with a lawyer, the Spanish national police call the Bar Association lawyer on duty71 when migrants arrive at the station. The lawyer remains at the station during brief interviews with the migrants, meant to ascertain how and why they came to Spain, and how much they paid for transport. The lawyer is also generally present during the signing of paperwork. Notwithstanding these safeguards, Human Rights Watch's investigation suggests that in practice, most migrants arriving to the Canaries by patera know neither that they have a right to a lawyer nor that they have actually been assigned a lawyer. Most had no understanding that what they had signed was a document for their deportation.72 When Human Rights Watch asked migrants what their documents said, a large number of them indicated that they believed they were identification or registration papers that granted semi-legal status to the individual holding them. In fact, the documents indicated that the migrants were in Spain illegally and were subject to deportation. The following account by a young Nigerian man as to whether he had a lawyer is representative of the experience of many migrants Human Rights Watch interviewed:
Gabriel A.,74 a twenty-nine-year-old man from Cameroon, explained that "[t]he problem is that we didn't know what our rights were and what we must do. So it was impossible to imagine having a lawyer. We were [just] afraid of being deported."75 Other migrants told Human Rights Watch that they did have lawyers. However, their descriptions of the roles their lawyers played raise very serious concerns about the quality of legal representation provided. François S.,76 a thirty-three-year-old man from Cameroon, for example, told Human Rights Watch that when he and eighteen other migrants arrived on the island of Lanzarote they were taken to the police station. He recalled that while there was no translator, a lawyer was presented, but "[s]he didn't talk to us at all. She and the police just told us to sign."77 Abderahman K.,78 also from Cameroon, relayed a similar story:
Amadou O.,80 a thirty-nine-year-old man from Guinea Conakry, described the following interaction with his lawyer:
Amadou signed a document from the court ordering his and twenty-seven other men's detention for a period of up to forty days in an official detention center in Spain. Similarly, Georges F.,82 a young man from Togo, told Human Rights Watch that he and a number of other migrants were brought to a court where there was a judge, a lawyer, and an interpreter:
Access to counsel implies more than merely having a lawyer physically present. The Spanish authorities have incorporated a right to counsel in Spanish law,84 and in fact rely on counsel to inform migrants of their rights. In a meeting with Human Rights Watch, Manuel Prieto, head of the Office of Foreigners and Documentation (Ministry of Interior, Spanish National Police headquarters), repeatedly assured us that whatever shortfalls there might be in the government's communication of rights to migrants were remedied by their lawyers.85 Unfortunately, though, for migrants arriving in Spain by patera to the islands of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, lawyers do little to inform them of their rights or promote their interests. A Bar Association lawyer in Fuerteventura described the role she plays in migrants' cases:
When asked if she or the police also give information on asylum or the law on foreigners, the lawyer told Human Rights Watch, "No, never. Nobody can inform about that."87 Spanish law specifies that migrants should have access to counsel not only during legal procedures, but also during prolonged administrative detention.88 Yet, in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, there are no lawyers stationed in the airport detention facilities, nor are there lawyers who come to the facilities on a rotational basis to ensure that migrants who need their services can access them. The only lawyer available to migrants is the duty lawyer that was first assigned at the police station. In order to have contact with their lawyers, migrants must ask (and know they can ask) the police to phone him or her on their behalf. Non-assigned lawyers such as those working for nongovernmental organizations are prohibited from visiting or providing legal advice or representation to migrants detained in the airport facilities, even upon a specific request for such services by a detainee. This is equally true of detainees wishing to exercise their right to seek asylum. (See below section on the detention of asylum-seekers.) Migrants and representatives of nongovernmental organizations who met with Human Rights Watch said they were unaware of cases in which lawyers had appealed an order for detention or the initiation of expulsion proceedings on behalf of his or her migrant client. One of the sixteen Bar Association lawyers working with migrants in Fuerteventura told Human Rights Watch that even though migrants could appeal through her representation, "they never want to." When we asked if migrants know that they have the right to appeal, she further explained, "[w]e tell them [but] they don't ask because we say you can ask but it won't stop the deportation."89 While an appeal on the issue of court-ordered detention might not prevent repatriation, it could prevent detention in one of the airport facilities and the immediate initiation of expulsion proceedings, which, as distinct from repatriation proceedings, result in the issuance of an expulsion order by which the migrant is deported and which has the effect of officially placing the migrant on the Schengen list, thus barring future attempts to regularize in Spain or other Schengen countries.90 In cases where judges in the Canary Islands have ordered the detention of migrants pending their deportation or repatriation by devolución, a timely appeal against both prolonged detention and the initiation of expulsion proceedings can be of critical importance. Devolución is a form of repatriation set forth in the most recent Spanish foreigners' law91 defined as the return within seventy-two hours of persons found illegally entering Spain (such as migrants arriving by patera) to the country from which they departed or transited (frequently Morocco or Mauritania in the case of the Canary Islands).92 The Court of Instruction Number Five based in Algeciras has held that foreigners for whom devolución is applicable cannot legally be held in detention centers pending deportation.93 Rather, courts may only order the transfer of migrants to detention centers in cases where expulsion proceedings, as distinct from the process of deportation by devolución, have been initiated.94 Yet, a number of the migrants Human Rights Watch interviewed showed us court orders for their detention, which indicated that the return of the identified illegal foreigner would be done in accordance with the process of devolución.95 Moreover, as the Office of the Ombudsman noted in its annual report to Parliament in October 2001, the initiation of expulsion proceedings for the return of persons trying to illegally enter the country (such as those arriving by patera to the Canary Islands) "is not in line with the law in force, as these foreign citizens were detained at the very moment they were trying to enter the country, and not once they already found themselves in national territory."96 Thus, technically, the immediate detention and initiation of expulsion proceedings against migrants arriving to the Canary Islands by patera is a misapplication of Spanish law. Migrants improperly detained immediately after they attempted to enter Spanish territory illegally along the Andalucían coast have obtained court-ordered release on these grounds.97 It is disturbing that lawyers in the Canary Islands are failing not only to fully inform migrants of Spanish law and their rights, but are also neglecting to raise such issues and otherwise advocate on behalf of their clients. As discussed, Human Rights Watch did not find a single case in the Canaries in which a lawyer filed an appeal against the prolonged detention of a client, either on the basis of the inapplicability of such detention in cases applicable to devolución or the extremely poor conditions of detention in the airport detention facilities. This second point is critical given that court-ordered detention is not mandatory and is governed by clear guidelines that are violated at the old airport detention facilities. 98 To summarize, the quality of legal, translation, and interpretation services as well as the information available to migrants arriving in the Canaries is alarmingly poor. Where authorities are failing, nongovernmental organizations are unable to step in. Several NGO and humanitarian organization representatives complained to Human Rights Watch that they were not permitted to provide legal or translation services or information to migrants being detained at the police station, that the lawyers the police insisted on using changed every day and had no legal training on immigration or asylum issues, and that the translators and interpreters being used were not independent from Spanish authorities.99 When Human Rights Watch addressed these issues in meetings with officials of the Ministry of Interior, representatives of the Foreigners and Documentation Department of the Spanish National Police headquarters insisted that interpretation and translation services are being provided.100 Asked to show Human Rights Watch investigators copies of statements provided to migrants about their rights, National Police representatives produced a list of rights printed in several languages. However, the list delineated the rights of criminal defendants and contained no information specifically relevant to migrants. Moreover, after interviews with more than thirty migrants, six lawyers, and a number of migrants' and humanitarian organization representatives in the Canary Islands, Human Rights Watch concluded that such printed statements are not provided to migrants. When Human Rights Watch asked if it was possible that the information was simply not being distributed or that there had been a miscommunication, Spanish authorities again assured us that this is not the case and that, in any case, migrants have an interpreter at their disposal.101 Government officials further informed Human Rights Watch that the lawyers understand their function and share the responsibility of providing information to arriving migrants.102 Moreover, they insisted that the lawyers and translators being used "are professionals and that is a guarantee."103 As evidenced by the accounts of migrants gathered by Human Rights Watch, this confidence is misplaced. Most migrants arriving in the Canary Islands receive neither helpful information nor effective representation. In this procedural vacuum, the authorities reach expulsion and detention decisions that profoundly effect the migrants' subsequent treatment in Spain-subjecting them to prolonged detention in substandard conditions, prohibitive constraints on their abilities to work or reunite with family, and permanent restrictions on regularizing their status. It is critical that the Spanish government act immediately to ensure that migrants' rights to effective legal representation and interpretation and translation, identified both in Spanish and international law, are fully realized. Judicial Oversight
According to several lawyers and migrants we interviewed, the court review prior to ordering prolonged detention differs between Lanzarote and Fuerteventura. Migrants who arrived in Lanzarote said that although they were brought before a judge, these proceedings provided little opportunity for individualized consideration of their different cases. They were generally presented to the judge in large groups. Frequently, the judge said nothing to them and they felt unable to tell their stories.106 While in Lanzarote detention is ordered after a cursory judicial review, a new streamlined procedure in Fuerteventura makes a live hearing with a judge a rarity. As one lawyer described the process to Human Rights Watch representatives:
It does not appear that the courts on either island are providing an individualized judicial assessment of the necessity for detention or any form of judicial oversight of the detention process. Rather, migrants are placed in the airport facilities under prolonged detention as a matter of course, and the judiciary serves as a rubber stamp to authorize it. Despite repeated inquiries, Human Rights Watch learned of no case in which the courts had refused to order the detention of a migrant. Objections to detentions ordered without proper judicial review are only heightened by the appalling state of conditions in the airport facilities. In addition, Human Rights Watch is concerned that there do not appear to be clear guidelines governing how long migrants are detained in the airport facilities (within the forty-day period). We spoke with migrants who had been detained in one of the airport facilities for as little as six days as well as with migrants who had been detained nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, twenty, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-six, twenty-eight, forty days, and forty-one days.108 While some were deported to their countries of origin, others were transferred to the official detention center in Las Palmas and still others were released onto the streets. The lack of accurate information at the airport facilities about what will actually happen procedurally, coupled with the varying treatment of migrants upon the conclusion of the detention period, creates a high degree of uncertainty among the migrants about their situation and what rights they have to challenge detention and deportation.
Even if this explanation were an accurate interpretation of how the law is applied, Human Rights Watch interviews did not confirm that judicial decisions ordering prolonged detention were so consistent. First, consistent reports from migrants, lawyers, and nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations indicate that all migrants arriving in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote are detained and soon after transferred to one of the airport facilities for a period of detention. No migrants are "released immediately." Moreover, we interviewed numerous migrants who were picked up at sea and not released immediately or even within a couple of days from the airport facilities, as well as a number of migrants who made it to land and were released from the airport detention facility without completing their forty days (and who were not required to spend time in detention in the Las Palmas Internment Center). No particular circumstances in their cases could objectively explain the distinctions in their treatment. Regardless of the type of order a migrant has conditioning detention, it is unclear to nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations, doctors, lawyers, and migrants whether an individual migrant's stay in the airport facility will result in deportation to his or her country of origin, transfer to the official detention center for foreigners located in Las Palmas, or release onto the streets of Las Palmas. It is equally unclear which factors affect a migrant's fate. The only discernible pattern seems to be that when there are enough Moroccans, and small planes (fourteen-person-capacity) can be sent to the Canaries, Moroccans and Sahrawis are generally flown back to Melilla and then sent through the land border to Morocco. Similarly, when there is a plane available and there are enough Nigerians, Nigerians are deported to Nigeria from the detention facility.111 Because these conditions-the critical mass of Nigerian citizens and the availability of a plane-are not always met, and there are a number of non-Nigerian sub-Saharan African migrant detainees, a significant number of the sub-Saharan Africans detained in the Fuerteventura or Lanzarote facilities are eventually released onto the streets of Las Palmas, where they are expected to survive on NGO aid while awaiting deportation. In short, Human Rights Watch's investigation found that the Spanish legal requirement that there be judicial oversight of prolonged administrative detention is not operating effectively in the Canary Islands. There appears to be neither individualized review of cases nor assessment of the necessity of internment. Similarly, there appears to be a complete lack of judicial monitoring or standard guidelines to determine the type of orders to be issued to individual migrants, the length of individual migrants' detention, or the status they obtain upon release from one of the airport facilities. 55 The Spanish term for prolonged detention (up to forty days) of migrants awaiting the processing of their expulsion orders and/or deportation is internamiento (internment). Human Rights Watch uses the terms court-ordered detention and prolonged detention in lieu of "internment" for the purpose of this report. Detention of migrants in police station facilities immediately following arrest is distinct from court-ordered and prolonged detention and is only discussed in the first subsection of this section (Reception Conditions at the National Police Facilities). 56 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 57 Human Rights Watch interview, twenty-two-year-old migrant from Sierra Leone, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 59 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 60 Article 22(1) of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration) states:
See also Section 5.a, Articles 137(2) and 138(2) of the Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. 61 Article 62 of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration) in combination with Section 2.a (Internment Centers for Foreigners), Article 127(1) of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. 62 There are six "internment centers" for foreigners in Spain. These centers are regulated by a separate law on internment centers and are equivalent to administrative detention facilities for migrants in other countries. This report refers to internment centers or facilities as detention centers. 63 Article 63(2) of Law No. 4/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration), amended by Law No. 8/2000, in combination with Section 2.a (Internment Centers for Foreigners), Article 127(7) of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. See also Spanish law on internment centers (published in Boletín Oficial del Estado [Official Bulletin of the Spanish State], no. 47, pp. 7681-7688), February 24, 1999. 64 Article 62 of Law No. 4/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration), amended by Law No. 8/2000, in combination with Section 2.a (Internment Centers for Foreigners), Article 129 of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. See also Spanish law on internment centers (published in Boletín Oficial del Estado, no. 47, pp. 7681-7688), February 24, 1999. 65 See section on International and Regional Standards. 67 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 68 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 70 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, October 30, 2001. 71 See explanatory note in footnote 1. Every province in Spain has a Colegio de Abogados, or Bar Association, that provides pro bono-free-legal services to migrants as required by Spanish law. Within the Colegios there are particular lawyers who participate in providing migrants service on a rotational basis. In Fuerteventura there are sixteen lawyers who provide pro bono legal services to arriving migrants on a rotational basis. Every sixteen days the lawyer is on duty and responsible for providing legal services to all migrants arriving that day, regardless of how many migrants arrive. 72 In the Canary Islands, the majority of the orders for deportation are drafted such that deportations should be carried out by either the process of retorno or of devolución, two forms of repatriation identified in the most recent Spanish foreigners' law. Retorno is applicable to migrants who are considered to have not yet entered Spanish territory (such as migrants arriving in airports) while devolución is applicable to migrants found illegally entering Spain or who have previously been expelled from Spain with an expulsion order. See Articles 58 and 60 of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration) in combination with Section 5.a, Articles 137 and 138 of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. 73 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, October 29, 2001. 75 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, October 30, 2001. 77 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 79 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 81 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 83 Human Rights Watch interview, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 84 Article 22(1) of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration). 85 Human Rights Watch met with Head of Foreigners and Documentation Department Manuel Prieto, Chief of Central Foreigners Unit of the Foreigners and Documentation Department José García Santalla, and Chief of Statistics José Ramón Pérez García at the Spanish National Police headquarters in Madrid on November 14, 2001. 86 Human Rights Watch interview, lawyer from the Colegio de Abogados (Fuerteventura), Puerto del Rosario, October 30, 2001. 88 See Article 63(2) of Law No. 4/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration), amended by Law No. 8/2000, in combination with Section 2.a (Internment Centers for Foreigners), Article 128(1) of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. See also Spanish law on internment centers (published in Boletín Oficial del Estado, no. 47, pp. 7681-7688), February 24, 1999. While the airport facilities are not officially "internment centers" as described under Spanish law, it is clear that the intention of the legislature in drafting the guidelines for the legal functioning of "internment centers" was to set forth minimum procedural safeguards for migrants being held in detention while awaiting the processing of their expulsion orders or to be deported. Human Rights Watch interview, Colegio de Abogados (Madrid), Madrid, October 24, 2001. Detention in ad hoc facilities, such as those at the airports in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, which is limited by the forty-day period prescribed in the law for official internment (prolonged detention) centers and is frequently combined with a period of detention in one of these formal detention facilities, should be protected by the same guarantees set out in the Spanish law on internment centers. 90 In 1985, five European states (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) signed an agreement creating a border-free territory within their external borders. A further convention, which was drafted and signed on 19 January 1990 and came into effect in 1995, abolished the internal borders of the signatory states and created a single external border where immigration checks are carried out in accordance with a single set of rules. In the late 1990's, this border-free zone, "the Schengen area" (named for the town in which the agreement was concluded), expanded to include all the European Union members states, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland. One of the core features of the creation of the Schengen system is the establishment of an automatic network that allows all police stations and consular agents from Schengen group member states to access common data. Placement into the Schengen Information System (SIS) on the basis of the denial of entry to territory or for the purpose of recording the issuance of an expulsion order from a member state effectively bars future entry of such persons into the same and all other Schengen member states' territory. For more detailed information, refer to: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33020.htm, (accessed February 6, 2002). 91 See Article 58(2) of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration). 92 As highlighted above, devolución also applies to the expedited repatriation of migrants who have previously been expelled by expulsion order from Spain. See Article 58 of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration) in combination with Section 5.a, Articles 138 of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. 93 Juzgado de Instrucción, Número Cinco, Algeciras, August 31, 2001. According to José Luis Rodíguez, lawyer and President of Andalucía Acoge, a Spanish legal aid organization for migrants, the decision of this court is applicable across Spain. Human Rights Watch telephone interview, José Luis Rodíguez, February 6, 2002. 94 Juzgado de Instrucción, Número Cinco, Algeciras, August 31, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Guervós, Deputy Director of Immigration, Ministry of Interior, Madrid, November 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, José Luis Rodríguez, President of Andalucía Acoge and lawyer for migrants in the Málaga Internment Center, October 17, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Cristina Olmedo, Red Acoge (Legal Department), Madrid, October 11, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Rafael González, lawyer for migrants in the Málaga Internment Center, Málaga, October 22, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Alava, Legal Director, Médicos Sin Fronteras, January 18, 2002. See also Article 58(5) of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration). Migrants held on the basis of retorno, as distinct from devolución, may also be placed in internment if, after seventy-two hours, a judge makes the order. See Article 60 of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration). While some authorities in the Canary Islands argue that devolución should be viewed as retorno in order to legitimize the detention of migrants after the initial seventy-two-hour period, both judges and lawyers working on the islands have expressed their disagreement with this interpretation. Human Rights Watch interview, CEAR (Las Palmas), Las Palmas, November 2, 2001. 95 Human Rights Watch interviews with migrants, Las Palmas, October 29-November 3, 2001. 96 Ombudsman Annual Report, presented before the Spanish Parliament on October 8, 2001, Section 3.1.2.4, pp. 65-66. The Ombudsman Report further explains that the initiation of expulsion proceedings (that result in the issuance of an expulsion order) would act as a form of double sanction for one act and that for many of these migrants the expulsion order may never be realized, having "[t]herefore, the only practical effect of . . . obstruct[ing] the regularization of these persons via the appropriate administrative authorization, leading them to become marginalized in society." Ibid. 97 On September 2, 2001, Court of Instruction Number Five in Algeciras released thirty-one Nigerians who had been detained in Capuchinos Internment Center (Málaga) for fourteen days. Leonor García, "A Judicial Order Finds the Detention of Immigrants Arriving in Pateras Illegal," El País, September 2, 2001. 98 See Article 62(2) of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration), which states "The judicial decision authorizing it [prolonged detention or "internment"], in light of the circumstances in each case, may fix a maximum period for the internment's [detention] duration inferior to that already cited." See also Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Blanca Ruiz, Coordinator, Red Acoge, January 23, 2002; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Raúl Báez, lawyer, January 18, 2002; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Carlos Alava, Legal Director, Médicos Sin Fronteras, January 18, 2002. 99 Human Rights Watch interview, Spanish Red Cross (Gran Canaria), Las Palmas, October 30, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, CEAR (Fuerteventura), Puerto del Rosario, October 31, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Spanish Red Cross (Fuerteventura), Puerto del Rosario, October 31, 2001. 100 Human Rights Watch interview, Manuel Prieto, Head of Foreigners and Documentation Department, José García Santalla, Chief of Central Foreigners Unit (Foreigners and Documentation Department), and José Ramón Pérez García, Chief of Statistics, Spanish National Police (within the Ministry of Interior), Madrid, November 14, 2001. 104 Article 62 of Law No. 8/2000 (Regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals Living in Spain and their Social Integration) in combination with Section 2.a (Internment Centers for Foreigners), Article 127(1) of the law's Regulations for the Application of Spanish Law on Foreign Nationals. 106 Human Rights Watch interviews with seven migrants who had been detained in the Lanzarote airport facility, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 107 Human Rights Watch interview, lawyer from the Colegio de Abogados (Fuerteventura), Puerto del Rosario, October 30, 2001. 108 Human Rights Watch interview, migrant from Sierra Leone, Madrid, October 27, 2001; Human Rights Watch interviews with migrants, Las Palmas, October 29-30, 2001; Human Rights Watch interviews with migrants, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. 109 Human Rights Watch interview, Spanish Red Cross and CEAR (lawyer in the Las Palmas office), Las Palmas, October 30, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Guervós, Deputy Director of Immigration, Ministry of Interior, Madrid, November 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Manuel Prieto, Head of Foreigners and Documentation Department, José García Santalla, Chief of Central Foreigners Unit (Foreigners and Documentation Department), and José Ramón Pérez García, Chief of Statistics, Spanish National Police (within the Ministry of Interior), Madrid, November 14, 2001. 110 Human Rights Watch interview, twenty-nine-year-old migrant from the Ivory Coast, Las Palmas, November 3, 2001. This man arrived in Fuerteventura by patera with another thirty migrants; they all made it to land where the Civil Guard arrested them and then transferred them to the custody of the national police. After twenty-eight days those who had not already been deported from the airport detention facility were transferred to the internment center in Las Palmas where they spent an additional eleven days. 111 Migrants and NGO and aid organization representatives also indicated that there have been a few flights to Cameroon and Senegal, but that these flights are much more rare. Human Rights Watch interviews with migrants, Las Palmas, October 29-November 3, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Spanish Red Cross, Puerto del Rosario, October 31, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, CEAR (Fuerteventura), Puerto del Rosario, October 31, 2001.
|
