Rule of Law Clinic submitted an amicus curiae brief to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia (application no. 42165/21).
The case concerns the events in the vicinity of the Latvian‑Belarus border that took place between 10 August 2021 and March 2022. The applicants are twenty-six Iraqi nationals of Kurdish origin who crossed the Latvian-Belarusian border on foot outside official border crossing points. They submit that their requests for asylum were not registered and reviewed by the Latvian authorities, they became subjected by constant pushbacks, exercised by both Latvian and Belarusian authorities, and were effectively stranded near the border in inhuman conditions. All the applicants (with one exception) were eventually removed from Latvia to Iraq after having been forced to remain in the forest for prolonged periods of time (from several weeks to seven months).
In in its intervention, Rule of Law Clinic argued that Latvian domestic legislation, introduced in response to the rise in irregular border crossings from Belarus, allowed to forcefully return people to a third country without formal return procedures and individual assessment of their asylum claims. Such practices are incompatible with the non-derogable principle of non-refoulement, deriving from Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens).
Drawing on extensive data, collected by Dr Aleksandra Ancite-Jepifánova, Senior Research Fellow at Rule of Law Clinic, the intervention showed that the relevant measures have resulted in protection seekers being forced to remain in the forest in life-threatening conditions. It specifically focused on the practices of refoulment, coercion, physical and psychological violence, as well as the lack of access to basic amenities on the Latvian side of the border.
The intervention also offered a critical perspective on the concept of ‘migrant instrumentalisation’, relied on by Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and, more recently, Finnish authorities to justify restrictions on the right to seek asylum. The intervention showed that the ‘migrant instrumentalisation’ concept is vaguely defined, highly problematic on a variety of levels, does not accurately reflect the realities on the ground and undermines the Rule of Law. Among other things, it argued that individuals crossing from Belarus make up a highly heterogeneous group, find themselves in diverse situations and do not necessarily have any connection with the Belarusian or Russian authorities.
The submission was prepared by Dr Aleksandra Ancite-Jepifánova, Senior Research Fellow at the Rule of Law Clinic.
