Çaliskan (2014), general secretary of the German section of Amnesty International, reports on the upcoming recognition of Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as safe countries of origin by the German Federal Assembly. On this occasion, she elaborates on the contradictions behind the concept. According to her, the assessment that the countries concerned are free of persecution is not based on in-depth research and analysis, but on statistical findings that there are more applications for asylum from these states while there is a declining recognition of the applications; and are thus rejected by the courts as being unfounded. Çaliskan criticises this practice as a trivialisation of real discrimination taking place that particularly affects minorities such as Rroma: “The fact that only a few of the asylum seekers were recognised is not a proof of the “safety” in Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is rather a proof that even now the asylum applications are not examined thoroughly. Because the human rights situation in the three countries is anything from rosy. Especially Rroma are not “safe” from prosecution. They are structurally disadvantaged, living on the margins of society, often literally on the edge of cities, industrial areas, some families on dumping grounds. Often they are virtually cut off from work, medical care, and the children of reasonable education. Moreover, governments do not protect them from racist attacks and politicians partly stir up prejudices against them.” The denial of the status of “safe country of origin” would guarantee a more detailed examination of each case and protect the victims more effectively from discrimination and persecution. Admittedly, each case is still assessed in spite of the status of safe country of origin, but never as thoroughly and detailed, as it would if the status would not exist. Officially, a country can respect the security and rights of minorities. However, this does not mean that this really happens in everyday life and in individual cases, as shocking individual destines show. The legal evidence of an individual experience of discrimination is often difficult to prove, especially when official documents or witnesses are missing.
- Çaliskan, Selmin (2014) Faule Kompromisse beim Asyl. In: Frankfurter Rundschau online vom 15.8.2014. http://www.fr-online.de/meinung/asyl-faule-kompromisse-beim-asyl,1472602,28133030.html