Transcript
CATHERINE STUBBERFIELD: We had sought assurances from the Government of Fiji that he would have access to the country's national asylum procedures, which are in place and functioning and we're very concerned for his welfare now that he has been returned against that advice.
AMELIA LANGFORD: So, putting the spotlight onto Fiji here, the Attorney-General in a statement about deporting Loghman Sawari - did say that it had sought advice from the UNHCR and that it had been advised that Sawari was not recognised as a refugee under its mandate. What do you say to that?
CS: I think it's important to explain the distinction here between different types of legitimate and valid refugee status. The A-G's statement released last week refers only to one of the issues which should be considered when assessing any claim for asylum. The fact that a refugee has not been recognised under UNHCR's mandate is not necessarily determinative of their international protection needs. So UNHCR only conducts mandate refugee status determination in countries where the local authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. In PNG, as in Fiji, there is an established national asylum system in place that had recognised [Sawari] as a refugee.
Refugee status determination is first and foremost the responsibility of states and that process is managed then by the authorities of PNG. So UNHCR's position is always that asylum seekers should have access to refugee status determination procedures in the country where they seek asylum. In this case, the UNHCR had clearly advocated for [Sawari] to be given access to the Fijian national asylum procedure so we are gravely concerned by his return and now equally for his welfare.
AL: So is this a case of the A-G being a little bit selective here in what information he has included in this statement in terms of what advice he got from the UNHCR?
CS: I think fundamentally that it's a matter of understanding the difference between refugee status that is conferred nationally and by state and refugee status that is conferred by UNHCR under its mandate and realising and emphasising in this case that both are equally valid and both reflect a genuine international protection need.
AL: So clearly Fiji's AG has gone against your advice here?
CS: UNHCR was very concerned regarding the deportation of [Sawari]. What we had hoped to see happen was for him to be considered in full accordance with Fiji's existing national procedure under its immigration law and to be considered for asylum in the country where he had sought it. That has not taken place and we're now continuing to follow up with the authorities of PNG regarding his situation there and most importantly his welfare.
AL: What is due process when it comes to a country's responsibilities when someone like Loghman Sawari arrives seeking asylum?
CS: While refugee status determination in Fiji as elsewhere falls under the national procedures and immigration law and always, and ideally, sets out the core elements for assessing refugees and asylum seekers international protection needs - that is a process that is informed by the 1951 Refugee Convention and importantly it includes the principle of 'non-refoulement' which means that states cannot return people to a place where their life or freedom may be threatened. Those processes are in place in Fiji and should be followed in all cases when people make a claim for refugee status.
