WILLEMSTAD - Through a letter entitled: 'Voluntary repatriation or forced deportation?', Human Rights Defense Curaçao (HRDC) expressed its surprise and dissatisfaction with the statements made by Dutch Undersecretary Raymond Knops of the Interior and Kingdom Relations in the Dutch Parliament with regard to Venezuelan refugees and crisis migrants in Curaçao. The letter is signed by Ieteke Witteveen, of the organization.
On December 8, Dutch Member of Parliament Antje Diertens asked Knops a number of questions about the report: 'Seventeen illegal immigrants escaped from detention in Curaçao' of November 18 last year.
Diertens wanted to know how many Venezuelan refugees are still in detention and how many of them have access to legal assistance. Diertens also wanted to know about the plane that was ready on December 1, 2020 to return Venezuelan migrants and refugees to Venezuela, after agreements with the Venezuelan consulate. And to what extent these people, whether or not under pressure, have signed a voluntary departure statement in Dutch.
Finally, the Member of Parliament wanted to know to what extent the refugees had been made aware of their right to legal assistance or the right to request protection under Article 3.
During a meeting on January 8, Knops answered the questions asked. In his statements he indicated that asylum, reception and return policy, including providing legal assistance to foreign nationals, is a matter for the country of Curaçao.
Knops has also said that the authorities of Curaçao have informed him that 28 of the foreign nationals placed in custody approached their lawyer on their own initiative and stated in writing in their own language that they wanted to use the December 1 flight to return to Venezuela.
According to the authorities in Curaçao, they have refrained from continuing the application procedure for protection under Article 3 ECHR. The other passengers of the repatriation flight of December 1, namely 84 persons, remained illegally in Curaçao, according to the authorities, without having been detained. According to the local authorities, these persons paid for the ticket on their own initiative to voluntarily return to Venezuela.
According to HRDC, these kinds of answers give a distorted picture of the real situation. HRDC is of the opinion that Knops paints a picture that is only partly consistent with the experiences and facts, as known to the human rights organization. For that reason, HRDC feels called to make a few comments and to cite examples of the still, by international standards, unacceptable treatment of Venezuelans who seek refuge in Curaçao.
This vulnerable group does not benefit from half-truths and politically correct descriptions of the regrettable situation in which many of them find themselves, both inside and outside the immigration barracks, says Witteveen of HRDC.
"Those who seek our help are faced with questionable and non-transparent procedures," said Witteveen. “Our legal assistant is denied access. The psychological pressures constantly arguing that legal proceedings are pointless and that they will have to stay in the barracks for a long time are an important part of their reality."
"Against this background, a group that was in hopeless and unsanitary conditions and with no perspective to be able to do anything for the relatives left behind in Venezuela, did not exactly 'choose' voluntarily to be deported, but out of desperation," says Witteveen. .
In her letter Witeveen gives a number of practical examples:
A large number of the repatriated refugees and crisis migrants have appealed for legal assistance through Human Rights Defense Curaçao. Human Rights Defense Curaçao was denied access to its clients in the SDKK barracks to verify whether they wanted to return or whether they were being pressured.
A minor boy has been put on a plane, against all international regulations, without a written statement from his parents. He indicated that his treatment here had such a psychological impact that he could no longer stay.
There is also the issue of two women allegedly being the victims of sexual abuse by members of the security. While this was under investigation, these women were “voluntarily” deported.
“The conclusion that repatriation is voluntary in these cases too, takes on a rather bitter aftertaste against this background,” says Witteveen. "These are some painful examples known to us from practice. Together with our local and international partners, we know that the situation of many Venezuelans on our island is still dire and is too often characterized by exploitation and xenophobia. There is a lot of reluctance to give them a real opportunity or perspective."
HRDC has been emphasizing for some time that the responsibility for respect for human rights is a Kingdom affair. It is remarkable that it is precisely the Undersecretary, who is extremely committed to cooperation in many areas (including those in which Curaçao is autonomous), in that case, in particular, fails for human rights.
Knops insists that Curaçao itself is responsible and that it mainly concerns an internal matter. According to the HRDC, this is not in line with the Statute and the human rights organization says that the United Nations also repeatedly points out in human rights reports that there is a joint responsibility.