A code of practice is needed to prevent failed asylum-seekers being killed or injured during deportations, a refugee policy think-tank has said.
The newly formed group warns that asylum-seekers have died or been harmed due to restraining methods used while being deported from other EU states.
The Refugee Protection Policy Group, in a report on deportation, says the most common restraining device is a mouth gag. In Belgium, a Nigerian woman was recently asphyxiated after an attempt to forcibly deport her and in the UK, the death of a woman in 1993 as a result of restraining devices used by police led to a review of procedures.
The report says that a code of practice should be drawn up to guard against such incidents.
It also recommends that allegations of ill-treatment by immigration officers while enforcing deportations should be open to independent review. There have been no official reports of excessive force being used by the authorities to carry out a deportation order in Ireland.
Asylum-seekers are people who seek protection in the State as refugees on the basis that they are fleeing persecution at home on grounds including race, religion and nationality. If granted refugee status, they are entitled to live permanently in the State and receive health, education and other services on the same basis as Irish nationals. If refused, following appeal, they are liable to be deported.
The Refugee Protection Policy Group was set up to examine "major policy challenges" facing Ireland in the area of refugee law and policy, which has developed rapidly in recent years. Its recommendations on deportations are made in one of three policy papers published in Dublin last night. The group includes barristers, solicitors, academics and members of non-governmental organisations acting in their personal capacity.
In another paper, the group expresses concern at the recent increase in the number of asylum applications dealt with under the fast-track procedure used for handling "manifestly unfounded" claims.
Four per cent of asylum applications were found to be manifestly unfounded in 1999, the group says, but this jumped to about 55 per cent in last April and May alone. In the first five months of this year, 35 per cent of claims were deemed manifestly unfounded.
"As deportation is the serious consequence of a final negative determination of an asylum application, there is a high onus on the Government to use the accelerated procedure selectively - only in situations where asylum claims are clearly fraudulent or abusive," the report says.
The group claims the sudden growth in the use of accelerated procedures "runs parallel to the Government's plans to increase deportations. The `manifestly unfounded' procedure can never outweigh a well-founded fear of persecution and no person should be deported unless they have had access to a fair and substantive hearing."
A recent Government commissioned study on asylum law in the EU found that Ireland's criteria for manifestly unfounded procedures were the most extensive of all member-states. The group recommends that the criteria for such claims be brought up to international standards.