Audio testimony: ‘NO, I don’t want to leave’.

After having spent almost 7 months in the Caricole closed centre, Michelle was to be deported this 30 July 2020.
She receveid a ticket for a flight at 2.55 p.m to Cameroon, here native country. To be able to deport her, the Foreigners Office was obliged to do a screeing test for Covid-19 on her. Michelle refused to do it because she doesn’t want to return to a country she fled.  
She testifies this 27 July, just after she refused the screening test to the centre’s director and psychologist: ‘The director tells me: ‘OK, since you refuse to cooperate, we will turn our backs on you’. ‘Turn your backs on me? What do I cooperate to? Do you know what awaits me in my country? I don’t want to return. I went to the embassy to ask for a visa because I was fleeing. I get here and you want me to return voluntarily?  […] I’d rather go back with an escort because I know that I will refuse first and I will come back with bruises, which will prove that I was forced to return. 
Listen to her testimony here (transcription below)
She was released this 28 July 2020! The relentlessness of the Foreigners Office and the manipulations of the staff of the closed centre were not sufficient to undermine Michelle’s determination and strength. The scandalous pressure by Brussels Airlines phone calls did not change anything either.

We strongly oppose all detentions, especially the detention of undocumented migrants. However, in view of the ever more worrying situation that authorities at all levels and responsible officials trivialise, we would like to make some updates. The situation which has been brought to our attention, lead us to raise awareness on certain aspects and unacceptable facts in the detention of undocumented migrants.

Some facts:

The law on the detention of migrants, who do not have, or no longer have documents allowing them to stay in a European Member State which has a closed border policy, stipulates that the migrant can be detained with a view to her/his removal from the territory. This is strictly limited to the time necessary for the execution of the measure, without the detention period exceeding two months.

A two-month extension of the initial period of detention is possible in certain situations, for example:

if the steps for removal have been taken within seven days after the decision becomes enforceable;

whether these procedures are pursued with the required diligence, and;

if there is still a possibility of effectively removing the undocumented migrant in a reasonable time frame.

In fact, a systematic extension seems to be the rule! The exception becomes the rule when if it is politically convenient for the authorities. This is happening far from the public gaze, without many people being alerted!

After a first extension, a new extension decision can be taken by the Minister. After five months of detention, the migrant must be released. However, if “the safeguard of public order so requires”, the detention is extended month by month after the expiration of the five-month period with a maximum of eight months of detention in total. It is important to appreciate the term “safeguard” of public order here!! How could these people, imprisoned and detained in scandalous conditions, endanger public order? But regardless, what public order are we referring to here?

Note also this outrageous possibility with regard to the time limit: if a person of migrant origin refuses to board the plane, which will take him to a destination that he fears, the Immigration Office (Office des Etrangés) can notify him of a new decision to detain her/him, and the two-months detention period starts again!

This, although this scenario does not comply with what is stated in the so-called EC Return Directive1 and certainly contravenes the right to liberty provided for by article 5, §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights2.

In the testimony below we see that the staff of the detention centre, including the management and the social worker, who are disrespectful, speaking in a familiar manner to the inmate ‘M’ abuse their power over her. For example, by saying that if she does not collaborate “we will turn our backs on you”, or that she risks being forcibly expulsed, which is usually brutally executed by the police.

However, according to the European Court of Human Rights, “any conduct by the police against a person which violates human dignity” constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human rights, in particular “the use (…) of physical force against an individual when this is not strictly necessary by his behaviour. In addition, the Council of Europe, specifies that this must be assessed with regard to “the real or reasonably expected resistance on the part of the person to be expulsed.”

If we oppose the very principle of the use of force stated here, we stress that the police and the administration, which are tasked with implementing such practices are, apart from all human consideration, outside the law.

In detention centres the roles are well defined: the management is there to ensure the proper functioning of the centre. There is no question of getting together with other members of the staff in order to threaten and put pressure on the detainees. This is neither the job nor the role of the management.

The medical and psychological service is responsible for the medical and psychological monitoring of detainees at the centre. However, it is well known that the medical profession, including nurses, are complicit in the administration of medications to the detainees, of which, they are unaware of the real effects and risks, are sometimes forced to do so by the order of the guards.

Is there a follow-up, either medical or psychological, to the side-effects of the sedatives administered in these detention centres? Some detainees cry for help but what is the follow-up? Solitary confinement, hidden from the public gaze, isolated from everyone, seems to be the only answer to their distress. This is also the fate reserved for detainees who have attempted suicide, which is unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence. This is a double punishment for people who are already in serious distress.

With regard to social services: social assistants officially accompany the “residents” during their detention in the centre. They ensure the follow-up of administrative files. They also ensure the preparation of “residents” on their return. A DVD, in several languages, which provides information about returns and removals, is made available to detainees in order to help them to accept voluntary return. The detainees testify that it is rather a matter of putting pressure on them, generating fear and anguish, and the violent consequences of a refusal to cooperate. Politicians then exploit the return figures in their reports to increase public support.

This is an overview of the main issues encountered in the detention centres. However, there is still the issue of the airlines which are profiting from these expulsions. For example, Brussels Airlines, owned by the German company Lufthansa, prides itself on being “an airline with the human touch, close to our passengers of whom we take the greatest care.”

Since when does its staff replace the officials of the Immigration Office, when the regulations stipulate that the person to be deported will be notified? It is difficult to understand the hidden agenda behind this unhealthy relationship.

We can compare the treatment endured by M and many others locked up in detention centres to torture. This treatment is often repetitive, imposed on detainees, in all discretion and with peace of mind by the civil servants, which exposes its systemic nature.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment3 defines torture in article 1 as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person. “. However, threats, intimidation, humiliation, and imprisonment can also be included in the above definition.




Let’s support the struggles in the centres! 
Resistance against evictions!
Transcription of Michelle’s testimony:
I’ll start with the day they came and promised me that they would release me at the airport. It was on a Friday. The social assistant and the psychologist (I’ve seen a psychologist since March) both came to tell me that a ticket had been foreseen for me with a departure on 30 July. I said: ‘what ticket?’. She said: ‘You can refuse but you have to do that at the airport’. ‘But why refuse at the airport? I don’t want to leave’. She said ‘I know you don’t want to leave, but they want to release you at the airport’. ‘But why do they want to release me at the airport level? The others were released here.’She said: ‘No Michelle, you can not stay here anymore. They will release you at the airport, you can not come back here because there are no escorts for the moment. Hence, you’ll go to the airport and say that you don’t want to leave,and they will let you. I said ‘OK’. Then she said ‘You’ll do the test on Monday’. 
This morning, someone from the Office came to fetch me, because when you want to see a doctor, it is someone from the Office who comes to fetch you. They came and said: ‘Michelle, we came to fetch you to go to the hospital’. I asked ‘why to the hospital?’,they said: ‘you have to do the test’. ‘What is the purpose of this test?’ He said: ‘you have to do the test because you are going to catch a flight’. ‘But I never asked for any flight! Why is my name on the flights’ list?’ He said: ‘You are obliged to do the test’. ‘Obliged to do the test? But I am not sick! I have been here for 7 months. Why do they decide that I have to do the test today? I am not sick, I don’t want to travel. I never asked for any flight’. He said: ‘Ok, we’ll tell the doctor’. Then he left. 
Ten minutes later the psychologist came. She said: ‘Michelle, I am telling you that they are going to release you at the airport, you have to do the test.’ ‘No! One has to think, if I do the test it is like if I accepted to leave. They are voluntary returns. At the airport they will oblige me to enter because I will have done the test already. I cannot do the test because it would mean that I accept to leave and I don’t want to leave.’ She said Ok and left again. 
She came back with the director. The latter brought me to the big room and whispered to me  ‘Michelle, we took all the necessary steps because you stayed here for too long. You can not stay here anymore. We did everything necessary so that they let you at the airport, but you have to do the test.’ I said: ‘No Madam, I can not do the test. If you want to release me, write a note, do as you did for all the others and release me directly from the centre. At the airport they will also release me.’ The psychologist said: ‘No, even if they force you on to the plane, you will shout and they will let you get off.’ I said: ‘No, I won’t have any reasons left to make noise and shout because if I do the test I accept to go on the plane. It would be more normal.’ The director said: ‘Ok, since you refuse to cooperate we will turn our backs on you’. ‘Turn your backs on me? What do I cooperate to? Do you know what awaits me in my country? I don’t want to return. I went to the embassy to ask for a visa because I was fleeing. I get here and you want me to return voluntarily?  What will I explain? I’d rather go back with an escort because I know that I will refuse first and I will come back with bruises, which will prove that I was forced to return. Then I will be able to explain. If not, you ask me to return voluntarily? I will go back there to die? No no Madam, I can not accept to return.’ She said: ‘No, you will not leave because they will let you at the airport’. Then she promised me that the psychologist will accompany me to the airport until the moment they release me. I said: ‘why don’t you also call the airport police to tell them that I refused to do the thest because I fear they force me on to the plane because I will have accepted to do the test?’ She said: ‘No, they cannot do that. You cost too much money since we keep you in the centre, I need space for other people.  You cost me 100€ per night. I cannot keep you any longer.’ I said: ‘If you cannot keep me any longer, then release


me. You released a whole centre, we were more than 150, you released everybody, I am the only one left. What proof do you have of what you are saying? I cannot see any proof. Bring me evidence that you will leave me free at the airport. Then I will leave. But I won’t do the test because if I did it would mean that I accept to take the flight.’
She spoke and said that they would ring the Foreigners Office, that they would be angry, and that they would really try their best to escort me. I said ‘Ok, no worries, because what awaits me there is worse than you turning your backs on me and escorting me by force.’ This is how we ended the conversation, and she left. 

Ce contenu a été publié dans Audio testimonies, News from the centres, Struggle stories. Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.