Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 249: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason his Department has continued to insist on the transfer of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin to Belgium in view of the existence of clear proof of illness arising from torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that information previously given by way of reply to a parliamentary question incorrectly indicated that this person failed to submit a relevant appeal; if he will authorise an extended period of residency on medical, humanitarian and safety grounds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6253/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer the Deputy to my replies to Question No. 149 of Thursday, 26 January 2006, and Question No. 181 of Thursday, 9 February 2006. In response to Question No. 149 of Thursday, 26 January last, I indicated that an appeal against the determination of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to transfer the asylum applicant to Belgium had not been received by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. In fact, an appeal had been made on 23 January but that information was not available to me when the answer in question was drafted. I regret that I unintentionally misled the Deputy on this point. In any event, the appeal was rejected by the appeals tribunal and the original determination to transfer was upheld. The applicant and her legal representatives have been informed of the outcome by the tribunal.

The applicant in question is not being removed to the Democratic Republic of Congo but to Belgium, where her claim will be considered. Like Ireland, Belgium is a party to and thus bound by international obligations and human rights instruments prohibiting refoulement. The current development of a common EU asylum policy is predicated on the full and inclusive application by member states of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 New York protocol maintaining the principle of non-refoulement. Council Regulation (EC) No 432/2003 is based on this common policy and all regulation states are considered safe for returning third country nationals.

Having regard to these considerations and the fact that Belgium is responsible under the regulation for the examination of the woman's asylum application, which includes refoulement considerations, the transfer cannot be deemed to give rise to refoulement. I repeat that the transfer will be dealt with in a sympathetic and humane way and the woman's medical needs will be made known to the Belgian authorities. If necessary, medical escorts to accompany her on the flight will be provided.