17.01.2007 - Source: Amnesty International

On security and humanitarian situation; deportees, unlike people who return voluntarily, are generally not entitled to receive support from IOM's RANA programme (position paper) ("Keine extreme Gefahrenlage in Afghanistan?") [ID 19071]

Document(s): Open document

17.01.2007 - Source: Amnesty International

Development of security and humanitarian situation in 2006; support through IOM's RANA programme (Return, Reception and Reintegration of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan) is generally not available for deportees (expert opinion, in German) ("Stellungnahme vom 17.1.2007 an VGH Hessen - 8 UE 1913/06.A -") [ID 19072]

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Amnesty International

Economic and security situation still volatile; AI advocates not to return refugees to Afghanistan ("Ab in den Hindukusch") [ID 18790]

Document(s): Open document

23.06.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

In the political, social and economic circumstances of Afghanistan today it is further unlikely that repatriation can be promoted in the foreseeable future ("Out of sight, out of mind: The fate of the Afghan returnees") [#13706],  [ID 2508]

"In a report on refugee returns to Afghanistan issued in July 2002 Amnesty International urged that return must be sustainable in order to break the cycle of displacement. The organization further stressed that it was incumbent on those engaged in facilitating repatriation to ensure that refugees were fully informed about the lack of sustainability of the current situation, as a consequence both of instability and the diminishing absorption capacity. Ten months on little has changed in Afghanistan. If anything, the security situation in the country is deteriorating, and large premature return movements have stretched the absorption capacity of the country to near breaking point. Amnesty International believes that Afghanistan’s long term reconstruction should not be held hostage to a rush to return people to an unsustainable situation. At present the situation in Afghanistan can not be said to have fundamentally, durably and effectively changed. In the political, social and economic circumstances of Afghanistan today it is further unlikely that repatriation can be promoted in the foreseeable future.
While the fall of the Taleban regime and the institution of the Afghan Transitional Administration has created an opportunity for fundamental change in Afghanistan, the precarious and volatile nature of the current security situation, including in Kabul, the ongoing and increasing factional fighting between commanders and the resurgence of forces allied to the Taleban, tell of a country still teetering on the edge of collapse. Amnesty International therefore urges the Afghan Transitional Administration, states hosting Afghan refugees, and the wider international community to put their efforts into ensuring that sufficient and effective reconstruction assistance in material and financial terms is available to Afghanistan, that an effective degree of security is provided in the whole of the country and that national institutions of justice, policing and social reform are able to operate in a rightsrespecting manner throughout the country. Only when these conditions are fulfilled will it be possible for refugees and IDPs to break the cycle of displacement and return to their places of origin in a manner that is truly voluntary and sustainable."

Document(s): Open document

23.06.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Many refugee returnees forced into a situation of internal displacement upon their return to Afghanistan and, therefore, are still in search of a durable solution to their displacement ("Out of sight, out of mind: The fate of the Afghan returnees") [#13706],  [ID 2509]

"For many of the estimated 600,000 IDPs in Afghanistan, return to their homes or places of origin remains a distant dream. IDPs in Kabul city, in the north and in the west of the country are either unable or unwilling to return. In addition, there are large groups of, mainly Pashtun and Kutchi IDPs in southern provinces that are similarly unable to return to their homes in the north. UNHCR has noted that “many of the reasons that have caused people to become internally displaced in Afghanistan are similar to those that have resulted in them seeking refuge abroad. In the same vein, many of the solutions to internal displacement are similar to those for refugees.” To this could be added the fact that many refugee returnees have been forced into a situation of internal displacement upon their return to Afghanistan and, therefore, are still in search of a durable solution to their displacement. Amnesty International interviewed a group of Ismaili IDPs originally from Doshi district, Baghlan province, who had returned from Pakistan in 2002 only to find their land occupied by people from a rival ethnic group. Having been prevented by threats of violence from reclaiming their land, the Ismailis have been forced to set up informal settlements on government-owned land in Pul-i- Khumri.

Forced return?

The precipitate return of IDPs to their villages of origin in Afghanistan raises similar questions of sustainability to those posed in relation to the return of refugees, and carries with it the same dangers to the security and human rights protection of the persons returning, as well as negative implications for the reconstruction of the country. Some groups of IDPs interviewed by Amnesty International stated that they had been forced to become internally displaced because they had been unable to raise enough funds to travel to another country. This was the case with a group of Pashtun IDPs originally from Takhar, who told Amnesty International that they had come to seek refuge in Kunduz in early 2002 because, unlike other families from their village, they had been unable to afford the trip to Pakistan to escape persecution at the hands of the local commander. In 2003, people continue to be displaced within Afghanistan, and to attempt to leave the country to seek refuge elsewhere."

Document(s): Open document

23.06.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Security situation in Afghanistan has steadily deteriorated in 2003 ("Out of sight, out of mind: The fate of the Afghan returnees") [#13706],  [ID 2510]

"Amnesty International believes that Afghanistan is not a country that has crossed over into a post-conflict situation, and therefore is one to which most refugee and IDP returns should be considered unsustainable. At a basic minimum, a post-conflict situation would be characterized by adequate levels of security in the majority of the country, access to adequate shelter, access to food and potable water, access to employment, the rule of law and due regard for the human rights of all persons, including in particular those of vulnerable groups. In contemporary Afghanistan, these conditions are not being met for the vast majority of Afghans, including refugees returning to their country of origin who are especially vulnerable, having been uprooted for protracted periods of time.
The security situation in Afghanistan has steadily deteriorated in 2003. Attacks targeted at foreigners, such as the murder of an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) staff member in Uruzgan province in March 2003, have led to a withdrawal of NGO and UN staff, in particular international staff, from aid projects throughout the south of the country. Humanitarian aid workers and de-mining teams have also been the target of attacks in other parts of the country. Growing insecurity over the last months has meant that up to twothirds of the country is not readily accessible to international aid agencies to conduct relief and monitoring exercises. UN agencies in the south have recently had to request armed escorts in order to be able to travel with some measure of security.
This insecurity is as prevalent in the urban centres of Afghanistan as it is in the countryside. As the pace of reconstruction in Afghanistan slows, and the living conditions of most ordinary Afghans fails to improve, many are turning to extremist forces, such as a revitalized Taleban now active in the south-east and east, to express their disappointment in the present administration and its foreign backers. US-led military action along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan has been the cause of further deaths and consequent resentment of the presence of foreigners. On 9 April, eleven civilians, including seven women, were killed when a US bomb hit their house on the outskirts of Shikin, Paktika province. In Kabul there has been a sharp decrease in the level of security experienced by Afghans and members of the international community."

Document(s): Open document

06.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Amnesty International expresses deep concern about EU plans to forcibly return Afghan nationals based on a recent field mission ("Briefing on the EU Return Plan to Afghanistan. At the occasion of the JHA Council, 8-9 May 2003") [#12627],  [ID 2511]

"1. Facilitating voluntary returns: a first step to promoting systematic forced returns?

Although the EU plan “shall first and foremost” promote voluntary returns, it explicitly includes forced returns of Afghans, “who do not have protection needs or compelling humanitarian needs justifying the prolongation of their stay in Member States”. In the light of its recent mission, Amnesty International considers that Afghanistan is not yet in a post-conflict situation. The security situation is extremely volatile in up to two thirds of the country, causing UN agencies and NGOs frequently to withdraw their staff and disrupting reintegration and reconstruction, not to mention relief programmes. Humanitarian programmes were suspended recently in the South of the country following the murder of an ICRC staff member. It is important also to underline that the writ of the central government only extends as far as Kabul. Other provinces are controlled (often only tentatively) by local commanders. This impacts to a large degree on the viability and sustainability of returns.

Although the total numbers of people to be returned from Europe are likely to be relatively low compared to the number of returnees coming back from neighbouring countries, Amnesty International believes that the returns from EU countries could have a destabilising effect in the course of a fragile transitional process. Within this context, the “negative export value” of the plan should be stressed: Iran, which is currently hosting two million Afghan refugees, has started forcible deportations. In Pakistan, most refugees are deprived of access to employment or education, thus leading to “constructive refoulement”. Furthermore, it is worth underlining that the situation in Afghanistan is not conducive to applying the "cessation clause" (i.e. there are still large groups in need of international protection who should be granted refugee status or complementary protection by EU member states). Vulnerable individuals risk falling into a gap, with vulnerability assessments being sporadic and ad hoc. Elderly and handicapped persons and unaccompanied women returnees are of special concern.
[...]
2. Forced returns generate renewed cycles of internal displacement

Although the EU Return Plan contains express provisions for allowing return “in safety and dignity”, it seems that these provisions will remain a dead letter given the security risks, the level of hardship and the lack of absorption capacity. In this context, it should be recalled that Afghanistan is struggling to absorb and sustain the nearly two million refugees who have spontaneously returned over the last year. Amnesty International has heard reports of returnees leaving again for their country of asylum, citing security concerns and inability to sustain themselves upon their return. Indeed, Amnesty International found many instances of international assistance being diverted by local commanders, who are also allocating lands to their “clients” rather than to refugees and internally displaced persons.
[...]
3. Lack of proper post-return monitoring

It should be noted that the EU plan does not contain any detailed provisions regarding monitoring capacities, nor the consequences to be drawn in case of a dramatic deterioration of the security situation. Amnesty International urges the EU to develop an appropriate monitoring system to reflect the fact that the responsibility to uphold the safety, dignity and full respect for the human rights of returning individuals does not cease at the port of exit nor at transit centres in the major urban areas of Afghanistan. If the government sending back refugees is unable to uphold these rights up until the individual is resettled in her/his home or other resettlement of choice, this responsibility must be ceded to and fully carried out by an independent and competent body, such as the UNHCR."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

Amnesty International: No security or protection for returnees to Afghanistan ("Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees") [#8004],  [ID 1505]

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Afghanistan not safe for returns ("Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees") [#8004],  [ID 2512]

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Lack of housing, food security, health care, infrastructure are among the reasons why repatration to Afghanistan might create new cycle of displacement ("Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees") [#8004],  [ID 2513]

"Large numbers of refugees returning to Afghanistan are going to Kabul, partly because of lack of security in other parts of the country means that return to those places is not generally viable. In Kabul, the shortages of housing and inadequate infrastructure have caused concern about the spread of disease and the provision of basic services.
Food security is a major and continuing problem. There are serious concerns about the availability of food and water following three consecutive years of drought. The World Health Organisation have stated that six million people depend on food aid, and another six million people have no access to basic necessities. In northern Afghanistan, an outbreak of locusts is destroying the wheat crop.
Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have warned of an increase in the spread of serious infectious diseases, particularly diarrhoea, tuberculosis and leishmaniasis, as Afghan refugees return to a country without a functioning health care system. Already, MSF has reported a dramatic rise in the number of patients they are treating as repatriations increase.
Basic infrastructure in the country has been devastated by more than two decades of armed conflict. For example, only 13 per cent of Afghanistan's road infrastructure was paved in 1991, most of which has been further destroyed by the recent hostilities. The telephone and telegraph network that linked major towns hardly functions. Educational facilities have also been severely affected by years of conflict.
It is essential that return is sustainable in order to break the cycle of displacement. Although the international community, including UNHCR, cannot and should not obstruct the individual decision of a refugee or refugee family to return to Afghanistan, it is incumbent on those engaged in facilitating repatriation that refugees are fully informed about the lack of sustainability of the current situation, as a consequence both of the instability of the situation and diminishing absorption capacity."

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Volatile security conditions disrupt repatriation movements ("Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees") [#8004],  [ID 2514]

"Other disruptions to voluntary repatriation also raise serious questions about the sustainability of returns. In early April, repatriation movements were disrupted by violence in eastern and western Afghanistan. Two incidents interrupted returns via the main Torkham crossing from Pakistan, delaying the return of some 18,000 Afghans. UNHCR said that roadblocks by angry farmers along the road from Torkham to Jalalabad caused them to recommend a halt to returns via this route during these protests. The 8 April 2002 bombing that apparently targeted the Afghan Defence Minister in Jalalabad, Nangarhar province, also temporarily disrupted repatriation as a UNHCR distribution centre was near the place that was bombed.
At this time, fighting in western Afghanistan around Zaranj, capital of Nimrouz province, forced UNHCR to change its plans to repatriate Afghans from Iran directly to this region.
Uneven conditions of safety continue to prevail in Afghanistan with deteriorating security in areas of the country owing to a range of factors, including continued conflict, lack of law and order and factional fighting which have hampered the return of refugees and provoked new displacement. In June 2002, UNHCR reported that those returning were facing a fresh crisis, with Afghanistan “dropping off the relief agenda” to the extent that the sustainability of return was threatened. In early July 2002, return of internally displaced persons (IDPs) were suspended by UNHCR because of the volatile security conditions in the north. This action came in the wake of reported concerns about escalating violence and a deterioration in the human rights situation in parts of northern and central Afghanistan. Suspension affected IDPs bound for Faryab province, Sar-i-Pul district in Jozjan province, Sholgara district in Balkh province and Samangan province. Abuses of ethnic minorities have been widely reported in some parts of Afghanistan.
In considering the sustainability of return, it is important to note that outside Kabul the Afghan Transitional Administration wields little power, while the International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) mandate does not extend beyond Kabul. Pointing to the existence of the Transitional Administration and ISAF, independent of an analysis of their impact, would not therefore provide grounds for concluding that the situation has stabilised."

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Denial of basic social and economic rights by countries of refuge in order to induce refugees to return might effectively violate principle of non-refoulement ("Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees") [#8004],  [ID 2515]

"UNHCR began facilitating, as opposed to promoting, voluntary repatriation programmes for Afghan refugees returning from Pakistan on 1 March 2002 and for those returning from Iran on 9 April 2002. Between 1 March and 5 July 2002, some 1,068,000 Afghan refugees repatriated from Pakistan and between 9 April and 5 July 2002, 90,000 repatriated from Iran with UNHCR assistance. Refugees decide to return to their countries of origin for a range of reasons, which may include poor conditions in their country of refuge, protection of property, family or community pressure, or security. It does not follow that because a person has returned that the decision to return was truly voluntary. It is therefore critical to guard against institutional or other external pressure on refugees to return.
In order to ensure that the return of refugees is truly voluntary, UNHCR, host states and donor states should collectively guarantee respect for the human rights of refugees, in particular that refugees retain access to their basic social and economic rights in their countries of asylum and do not have them denied in the name of “encouraging” or “inducing” people to return. Failure to do so may effectively result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement, the forcible return of persons to a country where they may face serious human rights abuses, which is prohibited by customary international law. Treatment which has the indirect effect of forcing people to return in such circumstances would constitute a “constructive” refoulement."

Document(s): Open document

20.06.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

Amnesty International does not encourage returns to Afghanistan ("Afghanistan: Refugee returns should not be encouraged") [#7502],  [ID 2516]

"On World Refugee Day (20 June), Amnesty International is urging the international community not to return refugees to Afghanistan while the country remains unsafe and insecure. After the fall of the Taleban, officials from certain countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, have indicated that they felt the situation had changed to such an extent that Afghan asylum seekers could return or be returned to the country. "Afghanistan is far from stable - fighting continues, crime and banditry are rife, women and ethnic groups have been targetted for abuse, and there are thousands of unexploded landmines," the organization said. "While the situation remains fluid, governments should not encourage voluntary repatriation." Although hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned from Pakistan and Iran, many of them appear to be returning because they are not protected in their countries of asylum and transit. While the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is facilitating these returns, it is not encouraging voluntary repatriation."

Document(s): Open document