<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VIII. Failings in the Asylum and Deportation Systems Leading to Refoulement of Zimbabweans

Overview

In late 2005 Human Rights Watch reported on the failings of South Africa’s asylum system.²¹³ The report described how the system prevents many asylum seekers from lodging their claims, how it fails to efficiently and fairly adjudicate claims, and how its failure to respect asylum seekers’ rights to documentation confirming their status creates a general sense of insecurity and leads to arbitrary arrest, detention, and unlawful deportation.

Throughout 2006 and 2007 South African civil society closely monitored, advocated, negotiated, and litigated to try to improve various aspects of the struggling asylum system. Despite these efforts, the South African government continues to violate asylum seekers’ procedural rights, including their right to adequate documentation confirming their status, and their right to have their substantive claims properly adjudicated.²¹⁴

An important part of the ongoing challenges faced by the system is the continuous massive backlog of cases. Despite two initiatives which have attempted to reduce this number, any progress made risks being rendered meaningless by the number of recent new applications and the asylum system’s incapacity to process them. With a new backlog of over 100,000 cases, there is little hope that the asylum system will be able to respond to the significant challenges it faces.

Under South African and international law it is unlawful to deport anyone who has expressed an intention to claim asylum or anyone who has already made an asylum claim. Deporting asylum seekers violates the most fundamental principle of refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement. A person’s right not to be refouled is the right not to be forcibly returned to a place where she would face a threat of persecution or a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.²¹⁵

In 2005 UNHCR told Human Rights Watch that asylum seekers and refugees had been deported out of the Lindela Repatriation Centre because staff working there were unaware of procedures and standards that govern the legal status of refugees and asylum seekers.²¹⁶

A leading South African report of 2007 concluded that the South African deportation system continued to be dysfunctional, violating a wide range of procedural rights and leading to the unlawful detention and deportation of asylum seekers.²¹⁷ Many of the deportation system’s failings can be traced back directly to the failings of the asylum system.²¹⁸ Little has changed since then.

Ongoing Failings in South Africa’s Asylum System Contributing to a Generalized High Risk of Refoulement

Entry into South Africa and risk of refoulement from the border areas

Zimbabwe shares 225 kilometers of porous border with South Africa. The vast majority of Zimbabweans claiming asylum in South Africa enter the country overland. Because of the limited choice of roads, they mostly enter through or near the Beitbridge-Musina border post, passing either through the official border post or through an informal border crossing. In both cases Zimbabweans prefer not to claim asylum at the border,²¹⁹ but instead lodge their claims directly at one of South Africa’s five Refugee Reception Offices (offices) in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg,²²⁰ Port Elizabeth, or Pretoria.²²¹

South African law provides that asylum seekers can apply for asylum by claiming asylum either at a border post or after apprehension by police, military, or immigration authorities,²²² in which case immigration officials should issue them with a non-renewable 14-day asylum transit permit,²²³ during which time they should officially register their claim at one of the five offices in-country. Alternatively, the law allows border crossers who have not claimed at the border and who are not apprehended to apply “without delay” directly at one of the five offices.²²⁴

This system is designed to ensure that people wishing to claim asylum, whether entering the country through a formal border post or not, are given an official document (the 14-day asylum transit permit) which protects them against arrest and deportation until they have lodged their asylum claim at one of the five offices.

Despite this system, recent reports have documented that Zimbabweans in the border areas, particularly in and around Musina, who intend to claim asylum in-country face serious violations of their rights, including arbitrary arrest, detention, and unlawful deportation constituting refoulement.²²⁵

Zimbabweans’ efforts to seek asylum are sometimes thwarted because many immigration officials and the police are insufficiently trained in basic refugee law and related procedures; ad hoc,fast-track deportations in the border region also limit Zimbabweans’ opportunities to claim asylum.²²⁶ Border police sometimes view legal procedures as too cumbersome and time-consuming or irrelevant given what they consider to be the more pressing priority of protecting the border.²²⁷

This climate is undoubtedly reinforced by government language, as reflected in the comments made by border officials at the border noted earlier,²²⁸ that Zimbabweans cannot possibly have valid asylum claims.

Absent proper training and clear directions to officials working in the border areas on basic refugee law and on how Zimbabweans can lodge asylum claims, such unlawful arrest, detention, and deportation in the border areas will continue. Given that many Zimbabweans wishing to claim asylum in-country—including thousands targeted by Operation Murambatsvina—have potentially valid refugee claims, current deportation practices in the border areas will inevitably involve numerous violations of the principle of non-refoulement.

Obstacles to Gaining Access to the Asylum Procedure and Risk of Refoulement In-Country

Obstacles to gaining initial access to Refugee Reception Offices

Once in-country, asylum seekers should register their claim without delay at one of the five Refugee Reception Offices. If, as explained above, a border guard or immigration official has issued them with an asylum transit permit , they should apply for asylum at one of these offices within 14 days.

Refugee Reception Officers (RROs) who work in the five offices issue “asylum seeker permits.”²²⁹ Valid for renewable three month periods,²³⁰ these permits are far more than just a piece of paper: they give asylum seekers legal status in South Africa, protecting them from arbitrary arrest, detention, and deportation, and entitling them to work and study in South Africa.²³¹

However, many Zimbabweans find it impossible to obtain their asylum seeker permit within the allotted time period of the 14-day asylum transit permit. This is because of the lengthy queues and other difficulties they face when trying to enter Refugee Reception Offices, problems that have existed and have not improved for a number of years.²³² Access is particularly difficult in the Pretoria and Johannesburg offices, where Zimbabweans are only admitted on Thursdays and Fridays.²³³ If the 14 days have expired and they do not have an asylum seeker permit, they become undocumented and, therefore, “illegal foreigners.” They are then liable to arrest and deportation.²³⁴ Similarly, if a person has entered the country through an informal border crossing, manages to reach one of the five offices without being stopped by the police (and, therefore, does not have a 14-day asylum transit permit) but is then unable to get inside the office, they also become an “illegal foreigner,” liable to arrest and deportation.

As in the case of Zimbabweans wishing to claim asylum being deported from the border areas soon after they have entered the country, the same happens to Zimbabweans who manage to reach the gates of the Refugee Reception Offices but are unable to get inside to register their claims; the police then arrest them for being “undocumented.”

A Department of Home Affairs (DHA)-funded study estimated in September 2007 that 470 asylum seekers were being “turned away” every day at the five Refugee Reception Offices.²³⁵

The South African authorities are bound to ensure that asylum seekers can access the documentation to which they are entitled under the Refugees Act. The South African Constitution provides that everyone has the right to access administrative procedures that are “reasonable and procedurally fair,” and that national legislation, in this case the Refugees Act, must give effect to this right.²³⁶ However, as explained above, the procedures in (and adopted under) the Refugees Act are not being enforced. In failing to enforce applicable procedures the South African authorities are directly responsible for heightening the risk of refoulement of Zimbabwean asylum seekers.

Obstacles to receiving an asylum seeker permit even after lodging an asylum claim

The law provides that an RRO “must” issue an asylum seeker with an asylum seeker permit.²³⁷ For a number of years the Refugee Directorate failed in many cases to issue these permits, but rather issued “appointment slips” which required the person to return to the same office after anything from a few days to six months.²³⁸ This practice was successfully challenged in court,²³⁹ but was replaced by an even more questionable practice of “verbal appointments,” which are given to the vast majority of applicants in place of the asylum seeker permit to which they are entitled by law.²⁴⁰

Currently, South Africa has one official detention center, The Lindela Repatriation Center, where “illegal foreigners” are detained while awaiting deportation.²⁴¹ Officials at the center, located 30 kilometers from Johannesburg, have said that they do not recognize the validity of any document other than the asylum seeker permit.²⁴² Therefore, an asylum seeker with only a “verbal appointment” who is transferred to Lindela will likely be deported, an act that violates the prohibition on refoulement.²⁴³

Obstacles to gaining subsequent access to Refugee Reception Offices

When asylum seekers are given an asylum seeker’s permit with an expiration date (usually after three months) or a “verbal appointment” to return, they must return to any of the five Refugee Reception Offices on the correct date. If they do not do so, they become undocumented and liable to arrest and deportation. However, instead of gaining rapid access to the offices, they must once again stand in the standard queues, together with new claimants. Human Rights Watch heard from numerous Zimbabweans that they had repeatedly tried to renew their permits, but that because of the length of queues they had been unable to get into the offices, even after standing and sleeping in line for 24 hours or more.²⁴⁴

Aside from the cost and time involved in reaching one of the offices, many Zimbabweans cannot afford to lose a precious day’s work or even a job because of being absent from work for an entire day, especially if there is no guarantee that they will gain access to the office at the end of the wait. In such cases they become undocumented and through no fault of their own run the risk of arrest and deportation.

The South African authorities have an obligation to ensure that asylum seekers can renew their documentation without facing unfair procedural obstacles. By failing to put in place efficient procedures, they heighten the risk of refoulement of Zimbabwean asylum seekers.

Obstacles to Gaining Access to Refugee Status Determination: Delays in Processing Claims, Low Quality Decision-Making, and Limits to Appeals System Resulting in Risk of Refoulement

The 1998 Refugees Act provides that a Refugee Status Determination Officer (RSDO) will promptly review an asylum claim lodged with an RRO. However, there is an ongoing shortage of RSDOs; the DHA-funded study said that the government needed at least another 100 RSDOs in 2007 for its asylum system to function properly whilst a separate independent study accepted by the DHA says a further 180 are needed.²⁴⁵ This shortage continues to lead to long delays—measured in years rather than months—before an RSDO reviews an asylum claim.²⁴⁶ While the claim is pending, asylum seekers with asylum seeker permits or with verbal appointments must return regularly to the office to renew their permit or verbal appointment. On each occasion they face the same obstacles, constantly running the risk of becoming undocumented because of difficulties in gaining access to the office.

Refugee law is complex and requires well-trained officials who are able to judge the applicant’s story against applicable refugee and human rights law. Because South Africa’s asylum system does not provide asylum seekers with legal aid, the vast majority of asylum seekers do not have a lawyer. Without a lawyer to help focus their client’s testimony, all asylum seekers, including Zimbabweans targeted by Operation Murambatsvina wishing to claim asylum, are fully reliant on well-trained RSDOs who should ask the correct questions to understand whether or not the asylum seeker can qualify for refugee status. RSDOs also need complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on the conditions in the asylum seeker’s country to help them assess whether the individual’s statements fit with the political, social, and economic conditions in the claimant’s country of origin. UNHCR confirmed that in November 2007 RSDOs still had no systematic access to reliable country information.²⁴⁷

The quality of RSDO decisions is poor. Applicants are often interviewed with badly trained or no interpreters present. Many decisions are taken hastily with written reasons for rejection of the claim using irrelevant, arbitrary, and pro-forma language or reasoning with no basis in law. There continue to be reports of third parties taking money in the queues outside the offices and paying bribes to RSDOs to accept claims.²⁴⁸

The Chair of the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that the quality of RSDO decisions is very low with most RSDOs having at most a law degree and a two-week crash course in refugee law.²⁴⁹ UNHCR confirmed that RSDOs do not receive regular training, which contributes to questionable decision-making, and that the very few RSDOs with good skills rapidly move on to other jobs.²⁵⁰

Human Rights Watch randomly reviewed four RSDO decisions from 2007 and confirmed that they were of extremely low quality with almost no use of law.²⁵¹ RSDOs are presently unable to deal with even the most straightforward of cases involving, for example, claims of torture or other forms of ill-treatment motivated by political reasons such as membership of opposition parties. Even more challenging are cases involving more complex claims, such as those that can be made by Zimbabweans targeted by Operation Murambatsvina. In the absence of lawyers and competent and well-supported RSDOs, claims such as those relating to Murambatsvina will almost certainly be rejected.²⁵²

The South African asylum system has a functioning appeals system.²⁵³ However, for two reasons few asylum applicants with rejected cases are able to meaningfully access the system or to access it at all.

First, few applicants are able to find a lawyer to help them with an appeal.²⁵⁴ This is because there is no functioning government-funded legal aid system in place for asylum applications and there are only a limited number of asylum law practitioners who provide free or low-cost legal aid services.²⁵⁵ This will either dissuade asylum seekers from lodging an appeal or, if they do appeal, will lead to them representing their own case. Not being lawyers, such appeals will inevitably be extremely weak.²⁵⁶

Second, a combination of the high number of rejected claims combined with the low capacity of the Refugee Appeals Board means that cases take a long time to be heard, leaving the asylum applicant in a situation of long-term legal insecurity.²⁵⁷ This again deters people from lodging an appeal.

The combination of low-quality decision-making leading to mistaken rejection of claims and the barriers to lodging an appeal mean that there is a considerable risk that Zimbabweans with valid asylum claims end up rejected and deported to Zimbabwe, thus constituting refoulement.

Clearing the Backlog and Coping with New Applications: the Asylum System under Continuous Stress

The Second²⁵⁸ Backlog Project

The ongoing dysfunction of South Africa’s asylum system is exacerbated by the increasing number of cases the system is struggling to process. With the recent influx of Zimbabweans entering South Africa and a parallel increase in Zimbabwean asylum applications, the system has been even more strained. Until the asylum system is able to find a way of dealing more efficiently with its caseload, the obstacles faced by Zimbabwean asylum seekers and the related risk of refoulement will continue.

In March 2006 the DHA announced the creation of a second “Backlog Project” designed to clear 111,153 cases that had accumulated in the asylum system before August 1, 2005.²⁵⁹ The project has been running separately from the main asylum system which has continued to receive new applications lodged on or after August 1, 2005.

In September 2007 the DHA announced that 76,400 pre-August 1, 2005 cases remained to be dealt under the Second Backlog Project.²⁶⁰ Human Rights Watch obtained statistics showing that the Second Backlog Project adjudicated 43,116 cases between September 1, 2005, and March 31, 2008. Since then the DHA has made no further formal statement on progress made in reducing this backlog.²⁶¹ However, on April 16, 2008, the South African delegation at the UN’s Human Rights Council’s review of South Africa’s human rights record stated that, “[t]he backlog has been reduced to 8,000 at present.”²⁶² And on May 29, 2008, the minister of home affairs informed a legal aid NGO that all applications dealt with under the Second Backlog Project “have been dealt with except for the appeals against decisions of the Refugee Status Determination Officers.”²⁶³

The challenge of new asylum applications and a new backlog

In addition to the challenges faced by the asylum system in clearing the pre-August 1, 2005 cases in the Second Backlog Project, the rest of South Africa’s asylum system is struggling to cope with the number of asylum applications lodged on or after August 1, 2005. This has been openly acknowledged by the DHA’s Director-General.²⁶⁴

Between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, approximately 19,715 new asylum applications were lodged. Of these, 1,960 were dealt with at the initial (RSDO) stage, leaving 17,775 cases pending at year’s end.²⁶⁵ Between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006, 53,361 new asylum applications were lodged with 5,432 initial decisions made during the same period.²⁶⁶ There were 45,673 new asylum applications in 2007. That year, 5,879 cases were processed at the initial stage.²⁶⁷

This means that between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, 118,749 new asylum applications were lodged and 13,271 initial decisions taken, leaving a total of 105,478 asylum cases that were lodged on or after 1 August 2005 pending at the end of 2007.

The number of Zimbabweans claiming asylum

A total of 44,423 Zimbabweans claimed asylum in South Africa between 2005 and 2007 (In 2004, 2005, and 2006, 241 Zimbabweans were recognized to be refugees).²⁶⁸ Zimbabweans comprised one-third of all applications in 2006 and 2007.²⁶⁹

Interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch revealed that many Zimbabweans claim asylum as the only way to regularize their stay and work legally in South Africa.²⁷⁰ If the South African authorities were to adopt Human Rights Watch’s proposal in Chapter IX of this report to introduce a “temporary immigration exemption status for Zimbabweans,” many of these claims would no longer be made, thus freeing up capacity within the asylum system. This would enable Zimbabweans targeted by Operation Murambatsvina to make their claims for asylum. The number of such claims might be high, but many such claimants might choose not to lodge asylum claims if the South African authorities provided them with a form of temporary status.

Effect of numbers on the asylum system

The pressure created by the numbers affects the entire asylum system. It affects procedural matters such as asylum seeker permits and access to the five offices. It also affects the speed and quality with which the small number of RROs and RSDOs process claims. Consequently, many Zimbabwean asylum seekers are currently at risk of refoulement.

The DHA’s “Turnaround Strategy” and Improving the Asylum System

In 2004 the DHA launched a “Turnaround Strategy” designed to improve service delivery in all of the DHA’s departments, including the National Immigration Branch’s five directorates. One of these is the Refugee Affairs Directorate.²⁷¹

In November 2005 the Pretoria High Court ordered the DHA to commission an independent review of the asylum system and to report back to the Court on its progress in implementing any recommendations made by the review. A draft report was issued in February 2007 and recommended far-reaching reforms in all areas including staffing, information technology capacity, infrastructure, and processes.²⁷² Most notably it recommended that the DHA recruit an additional 180 Refugee Status Determination Officers and 24 Refugee Reception Officers to ensure that the government complies with its national and international legal obligations.

In September 2007 the company leading the Turnaround Strategy reported that the DHA Minister had accepted the recommendations made and set out a broad plan for implementing them.²⁷³ The report noted that as of September 2007 extremely little progress had been made.²⁷⁴ According to the most recent public update by the DHA, minor improvements have been made to the asylum system.²⁷⁵ A number of RSDOs have been recruited, though they have yet to be trained,²⁷⁶ and 17 new senior staff appointments have been made.²⁷⁷ Unless the strategy makes significant and unexpectedly rapid progress in the second half of 2008, the asylum system will continue to expose Zimbabwean asylum seekers to a high risk of being subjected to refoulement.

Deportation Practice Leading to Generalized Risk of Refoulement

The law relating to detention and deportation of suspected “illegal foreigners”

Under South African law, immigration officials have the right to arrest, detain, and deport “illegal foreigners.”²⁷⁸ People are “illegal foreigners” if they are “in contravention” of the 2002 Immigration Act.²⁷⁹ Foreign nationals “contravene” the act if they do not have a valid permit to be in South Africa.²⁸⁰

A person who has expressed a wish to apply for asylum or who has already applied for asylum cannot be an “illegal foreigner.” The law guarantees all individuals expressing a wish to apply for asylum the right to be given time to gain access to one of the five Refugee Reception Offices.²⁸¹ The law also explicitly protects those who have already applied for asylum: “[N]o proceedings may be instituted or continued against any person in respect of his or her unlawful entry into or presence within the Republic if… suchperson has applied for asylum… until a decision has been made on the application.”²⁸²

Immigration officials and police officers are authorized to require anyone in South Africa to identify himself as a citizen, permanent resident, or non-national. If they have “reasonable grounds” to conclude that the person is not entitled to be in South Africa, they “may take [the] person into custody without a warrant and if necessary may detain him… until…. [his] status… is ascertained.”²⁸³

Because asylum seekers cannot lawfully be deported, they must be released immediately if the questioning establishes that they are asylum seekers.

If the immigration officials decide that the person is an “illegal foreigner” they must arrest the person and may detain her pending deportation.²⁸⁴ While awaiting deportation South African law provides that detainees have a number of rights, including the right to receive a written decision confirming the planned deportation, the right to appeal against the decision, the right to ask for a court to confirm the validity of the decision, and the right to be informed of these rights.²⁸⁵ If after 30 days the person is still in detention only a court can authorize a further period of detention, which cannot exceed 60 days (i.e. a maximum total of 90 days).²⁸⁶ There are clear minimum standards that regulate the living conditions of “illegal foreigners” detained pending deportation.²⁸⁷

Detention and deportation practice relating to suspected “illegal foreigners”

In 2005 Human Rights Watch reported on a number of violations of the law. These included unlawful detention of asylum seekers by police officers beyond the maximum 48-hour period, often caused by a failure of communication between police officers and immigration officials who failed to establish the asylum seekers’ status; unnecessary detention of asylum seekers at Lindela caused by police having no option but to take suspected “illegal foreigners” to Lindela in the absence of cooperation from immigration officials;²⁸⁸ unlawful detention of asylum seekers beyond the 30 day limit; and instances, confirmed by UNHCR, of refoulement of asylum seekers and refugees from Lindela.²⁸⁹

In 2006 and 2007 the situation did not improve, with numerous legal-aid service providers reporting the following:

refugees and asylum seekers being held in detention facilities for having expired permits which they had tried, unsuccessfully, to renew;

despite being in possession of valid documents, asylum-seekers being unlawfully arrested and detained;

asylum seekers with “appointment slips” (now replaced by “verbal appointments”) being detained because police and immigration officials did not recognize such slips as valid documents;

detainees being asked to pay bribes in order to secure their release;

detainees not being adequately informed of their basic procedural basic rights;²⁹⁰ and

suspected “illegal foreigners” being unnecessarily transferred because of ineffective verification procedures due to the absence of a comprehensive electronic database recording the name and personal details of people who have claimed asylum in South Africa.²⁹¹

In addition to the regularly documented breach of minimum living standards at Lindela,²⁹² the UN Human Rights Council received a report from the UN in April 2008 setting out numerous consistent allegations of ongoing rights violations taking place at Lindela, including refoulement. These include “allegations of ill-treatment, including extortion of documented and undocumented non-citizens by law enforcement officials.”²⁹³ The UN report noted that in 2006 the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that:

Many foreigners were deprived of their liberty: some with legal residence papers, some seeking asylum and claiming they had been arbitrarily arrested by police officers, ill-treated, not able to contest the validity of their detention and that they could subsequently be expelled from the country with no form of review or recourse... It was also concerned with the numerous cases of police arresting legally established foreigners, throwing out their residence papers and putting them in custody or even handing them to immigration authorities for forced deportation. ²⁹⁴

The UN Working Group’s reference to police officers “throwing out” residence papers is echoed in a 2006 survey which reported that of 59 interviewees, 65 percent said that having showed their asylum seeker permits to police who had stopped them, they were told to pay a bribe to ensure that their papers would not be torn up.²⁹⁵

Most serious of all are reports that in 2007 many Zimbabweans in the immediate border areas were being taken to a detention facility in Musina, on the South Africa-Zimbabwe border. The facility is located on a military base previously used by the South African National Defense Forces (SANDF), and is being run by the South African Police Services (SAPS).²⁹⁶ Most Zimbabweans were deported within hours or days by the police without immigration officials verifying their legal status and without being informed of their rights to appeal the decision to deport them,²⁹⁷ a clear breach of the Immigration and Refugee Acts.²⁹⁸ These practices have reportedly continued in 2008.²⁹⁹ Numerous civil society organizations have been refused access to the detention facility.³⁰⁰ UNHCR has also repeatedly been refused access.³⁰¹

The lawyers reporting on these violations hear about them through their regular contact with detained clients. When they are able to identify individuals who wish to claim asylum and, therefore, have been unlawfully arrested and detained, they have usually been able to secure their release relatively easily. However, given the small number of legal service providers, the large number of detainees, and the insufficient access to detention facilities to monitor detention and deportation practice, there is serious concern that the vast majority of people who are unlawfully detained are not detected and, therefore, end up being unlawfully deported.³⁰² In the case of refugees and asylum seekers, such deportation constitutes refoulement.

Likely Number of Zimbabwean Deportees in 2007

The number of Zimbabweans deported from South Africa in 2006 and 2007 is high. There are no official statistics available and even official statistics do not reflect the true picture, given the amount of rapid informal deportation that takes place between South Africa (Musina) and Zimbabwe (Beitbridge).³⁰³

Human Rights Watch has informally obtained DHA statistics for the calendar year 2006 which state that of the 165,270 deportations officially carried out by the South African authorities, a little less than half, 81,289, were of Zimbabweans.

Other statistics indicate that in 2007 this number doubled. Between June 1, 2006, and May 31, 2007, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) office in Beitbridge, Zimbabwe, registered 163,240 Zimbabwean deportees.³⁰⁴ Between 1 January and 3o June 2007, the IOM registered 102,413 deportees.³⁰⁵ The South African Police’s Communications Officer in Musina told the Red Cross that between March and July 2007 the number of deportees had tripled (from 6,500 a month in the months before March 2007) to 18,000 a month.³⁰⁶ Over 12 months this would lead to a total of 216,000 deportations. The 18,000 figure matches almost exactly the figures made public by the IOM Beitbridge office in Zimbabwe across the border from Musina, which stated in July 2007 that it had been receiving 17,000 deportees a month.³⁰⁷

In October-November 2007 many Zimbabweans told Human Rights Watch that they had been deported more than once in the past year. Such deportees are counted at least twice in the statistics.³⁰⁸