By Arja Oomkens
On 23 September 2016, the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), a commission that focuses on the protection of human rights in the Netherlands, announced that they had filed a lawsuit against the Dutch state for a wrongful act committed with respect to an Afghan person with a valid asylum residence permit.
The Afghan asylum-seeker in question fled for fear of persecution by the Taliban during the late 90’s and received asylum in the Netherlands. Eighteen years later, when the Dutch State found out that he had worked for the secret services of the Afghan communist regime (1978-1992), his residence permit was withdrawn without any individual investigation.
This was possible because of Dutch immigration policy on Afghanistan (set up in 2000): it stipulates that everyone who has worked for the Afghan secret services between 1978 and 1992 has per definition committed serious human rights abuses and is therefore not entitled to an asylum residence permit. These persons are excluded from the protection guaranteed under the Refugee Convention because they meet the criteria for article 1F of this Convention. Therefore, they are referred to by the Dutch state as so-called “1F-ers,” or in the terms of the media: “criminal asylum-seekers.”
The Dutch state is one of the few EU member states that requires alleged “1F-ers” to prove that they were not involved in any human rights abuses. In this specific situation, the Afghan person denied any involvement in 1F classified human rights abuses, since he had only worked within the administrative division of the secret services. Nevertheless, because he did not have any documents to prove his point, the Dutch state applied the 1F principle to withdraw his residence permit.
It is important to note in this regard that it is unlikely that any other decision could have been made in a similar situation. Gaibar Hasami, a board-member of the Dutch 1F Foundation, points out that a lot of people that worked for the Afghan secret services did not know that human rights abuses were being committed in the name of their employer. This had to do with the fact that the majority of 80.000 people worked for the “above-ground” secret services, while a minority worked for the “underground” secret services – only the latter committed human rights abuses. However, it is impossible to prove this since the secret services have done everything within their power to hide any evidence that points to human rights abuses. With no evidence available to prove their guilt or innocence, “1F-ers” are excluded from protection based on the premise that there are serious reasons for considering their involvement in human rights abuses two decades ago.
Consequently, the Afghan “1F-er” in question appeared before the Council of State, the highest authority in the Netherlands with respect to immigration affairs, to appeal the withdrawal of his residence permit. As with all other appeals with regard to Dutch 1F immigration policy on Afghanistan, the Council of State upheld the decision to withdraw his residence permit.
From the perspective of the Afghan “1F-er” and the NJCM this decision violates European Union law because no individual investigation was conducted, and because no reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg was made. Based on EU law, the withdrawal of residency under such circumstances would mean a wrongful act was committed by the Dutch State. Therefore, the implicated Afghan person and the NJCM now ask the District Court in The Hague to confirm this verdict.
Evidently, such a verdict will be in the interest of all alleged Afghan “1F-ers.” Because the situation in Afghanistan is still dangerous for them, many Afghan “1F-ers” – who have lived in the Netherlands for up to 20 years – cannot be expelled by the Dutch State. Their situation nevertheless remains insecure: when the security situation in Afghanistan changes they may be expelled at any time. Is this reasonable when they have built up their family life in the Netherlands? Even though there has never been any investigation into the specific circumstances of their situation?
One thing must not be forgotten: Afghan “1F-ers” who have lived in the Netherlands for almost two decades initially applied for asylum because they feared persecution in Afghanistan. In the abovementioned case, the Afghan asylum-seeker entered the Netherlands because of his fear of persecution by the Taliban. The Dutch state considered his story credible and therefore granted him asylum. This means it was considered credible that the Afghan asylum-seeker had been victimized and would be victimized again by the Taliban if sent back. Therefore, Dutch 1F immigration policy on Afghanistan does not protect victims of human rights abuses as it can wrongly exclude asylum-seekers in need of protection.
Article 1F is part of a convention drawn up to protect those in need of protection, yet in practice, its application in the Netherlands leads to blatant injustices. Based on political misconceptions of responsibility (both of the state and of the person), it fails to protect those it was designed to. Under 1F, victims are turned into perpetrators, their most fundamental rights upended, and ultimately, their safety and wellbeing compromised. For now, “1F-ers” like the Afghan person in this article have no option but to wait, hoping that the outcome of the lawsuit against the Dutch state can change their situation.