Asylum Requested for 3 Year Old For Fear of Croats

A Serbian mother from Croatia is seeking political asylum for her three year old child, because it would be abused in Croatia

The mother, who is from Croatia but has Serbian heritage, requested political asylum for her three year old son, with the statement that she and the boy’s father were forced to leave Croatia in 2005. They fled, they claim, because they were faced with exiles that were based on their ethnic heritage, and claim that their family did not receive the requested adequate police protection.

Because of these “personal experiences”, the mother, in the name of the boy who was born in Ireland, but has Croatian citizenship, requested that her son be granted refugee status, justifying the move with “justified fear that her son will experience abuse and exile upon arriving to Croatia”.

So the case that deals with a minor refugee, born on January 2, 2006 in the Rotunda hospital in Ireland, brought into question the status of human rights in Croatia, and the whole story was carried published in the Irish daily newspaper, the Irish Times.

Discrimination of Serbian children

The request for refugee status in the name of the child was first sent in June 2006. The mother carried out an interview in the boy’s name on August 1, 2006, in which she complained of the potential discrimination of Serbian children in the education system, especially because the child will not be able to learn its mother tongue. She mentioned her beliefs, reports the Irish Times, that Croatian nationalists will verbally and physically abuse her son if he lives in the country, and that he would not have the same rights as his peers.

The notes from that interview confirmed that a number of documents were delivered from the country to officials from the boy’s lawyer. Excerpts from those documents attracted attention of the responsible institutions there, because they showed the serious weakening of human rights in Croatia, in 2005.

Error in process

Before preparing a report, the boy’s lawyer wrote to the official’s office who was leading the procedure, complaining that during the interview, they were not allowed to describe how it was like for her and her family to be exiled in Croatia for their ethnic heritage. The mother was told to limit her answers to the experiences of her son, even though she considered her experiences to be important so that the questioner could understand the reasons for filing a request for the status of refugee, for her and her son.

The family claimed that the official made a mistake on the law by violating article 12 on the law on refugees, which relates to the security in the country of origin. She complained that when a country was declared as safe, there are no criteria for making such declarations. The problem occurred because Croatia was declared as a “safe” country in 1996 according to the law on refugees. Because of that, the family did not have the right to the an oral hearing before the appeal court for refugees, because the refugee commissioner evaluated that the boy’s case cannot be placed in that category.

The family disputed the denial of an oral hearing when the country is declared to be safe, considering that the personal circumstances in this case can only be determined via an oral hearing.

Irish court decision bad for Croatia

After the appeal was filed, the court in Ireland concluded that if the family is denied a request to revise the case, they will lose the right to present oral evidence, evaluating that the critical evidence is her mother’s testimony about her own exile, the exile of the father and their wider family.

The judge that is leading the case concluded that the official that worked on the request had to take into account the latest, accurate and checked data on the country of origin, and if there is contradictory information, the official is bound to justify the reasons his decision was made, brought from such conflicting information.

The family based their request on the documentation that worked with the human rights of ethnic minorities in Croatia from: the Human Rights Watch in 2006, an Amnesty International report from 2005, a State Department report from 2005, and an International Helsinki Federation from 2006. According to an evaluation from the judge, all of those documents show that the situation in Croatia (as far as ethnic minority rights are concerned), significantly worsened in 2005.

The official that decided on the request could also hear evidence on the exile of the refugee status seeker, their mother and wider family.

However, according to the judge’s decision, in his report he was “in strong contradiction to the oral and documented evidence, concluding that the request based on fear of exile and ethnic discrimination was not sufficiently founded”.

In order to justify his decision, the official used documentation for 2004 which the Croatian Cabinet sent to the European Council, which the judge characterised as “significantly less accurate (up to date) than the documentation that the status requester offered”.

Judge Irvine then concluded that the family had a strong enough foundation that the official did not weigh all of the evidence enough linked to the country of origin and that his decision was not suitable when you face the “convincing and respectable evidence”.

The judge then brought the decision according to which the family delivered enough evidence which disputes the official’s decision, who did not offer enough arguments and explanations for rejecting the request.

Dragun: They did not contact us

Finally, the judge “recognized the fact that the family was denied the right to offer evidence, on the basis of which she will be able to file an appeal on the final decision for refugee status, if the decision it not good for the family”.

On the other hand, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integrations did not know about the case any more than they could read from the media.

“Nothing was ever requested from the Croatian embassy in Ireland, nor did that family ever contact us” said the ministry spokesperson Mario Dragun.

Dragun confirmed that the current situation, according to the results from international organizations, is totally different.

The whole court decision is available at www.courts.ie.