EU: New rules on asylum and ‘safe countries’ undermine the foundation of refugee protection

Reacting to the agreements between the European Parliament and Council on new EU asylum rules, which undermine the very foundation of refugee protection, Olivia Sundberg Diez, the EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum at Amnesty International said:

“This is an unprecedented attack on asylum in the EU, which must be understood in the context of a vast array of punitive deportation measures, still under negotiation. This shameless attempt to sidestep international legal obligations further shifts EU responsibility for refugee protection to countries outside Europe and is far from a humane migration policy that upholds people’s dignity.

“Changes to the ‘safe third country’ concept will mean that people seeking asylum in the EU may see their applications rejected without review, they could be sent to countries to which they have no connection and may have never set foot in before. Today’s agreement marks an abdication from the EU’s commitment to refugee protection and paves the way for EU member states brokering agreements with third countries for the offshore processing of asylum claims.

“Today’s deal also introduces an EU-wide list of countries of origin that are considered ‘safe’, placing a burden on people seeking asylum to prove otherwise. This undermines the individual assessment of protection claims, and raises yet another hurdle in the legal maze that will undoubtedly see people at risk denied the protection they need.”

Background

On 18 December, the European Parliament and Council agreed on proposed rules amending the ‘safe third country’ concept in the EU Asylum Procedures Regulation, as well as introducing an EU-wide ‘safe countries of origin’ list.

The rules will make it easier for member states to apply the ‘safe third country’ concept to reject asylum applications as inadmissible, without an examination of their merits, and to forcibly transfer people seeking safety to countries to which they have no connection, or that they may have only transited through. These rules will apply from June 2026, alongside the rest of the Pact on Migration and Asylum.

The new EU-wide list of safe countries of origin includes Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Kosovo, India, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as EU accession candidate countries (with exceptions). Nationals from these countries will be presumed not to be in need of protection and will be channelled through an accelerated asylum procedure, detracting from an individualised assessment of their claims. Provisions expanding the designations of ‘safe countries of origin’ may apply immediately.

The post EU: New rules on asylum and ‘safe countries’ undermine the foundation of refugee protection appeared first on Amnesty International.

Israel/OPT: States must not assist the Holger G’s transportation of explosives to Israel 

States must prevent the Portuguese-flagged Holger G vessel – which is carrying munition components bound for Israel – from docking at their ports, given the clear risk that its cargo would contribute to the ongoing genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip, as well as to war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians, Amnesty International said.

According to information first reported in The Ditch, the German-owned ship is carrying 440 tonnes of mortar  bomb parts, projectiles and military-grade steel destined to large Israeli defence contractors that supply huge quantities of arms to the Israeli military. Amnesty International subsequently verified that that the ship is carrying metal alloys used in artillery shells, as well as what are likely to be subsystems and components usable in missiles and rockets.

The Holger G departed from India on 16 November. The destination of the cargo is Haifa, where it will be delivered to Israel’s biggest arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems, as well as its subsidiary IMI Systems.

“The hundreds of tonnes of deadly cargo on board the Holger G must not reach Israel. There is a clear risk that this colossal transportation would contribute to the commission of genocide and other crimes under international law against Palestinians,” said Erika Guevara Rosas the Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns of Amnesty International.

“The hundreds of tonnes of deadly cargo on board the Holger G must not reach Israel. There is a clear risk that this colossal transportation would contribute to the commission of genocide and other crimes under international law against Palestinians.”

Erika Guevara Rosas the Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns

“Israel continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, while maintaining its unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and enforcing a system of apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights it controls, alongside other serious violations of international law. States that continue business as usual with Israel risk complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

States that facilitate the transfer of arms to Israel are acting in contravention of their obligations under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 6 of the Arms Trade Treaty and must act to prevent all such transfers with urgency. They are also failing to live up to their obligations to “take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” as indicated by the International Court of Justice in its July 2024 Advisory Opinion.

Corporate actors manufacturing, exporting and shipping arms also have obligations under international humanitarian law and a responsibility to respect human rights as reflected in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which require them to refrain from contributing to violations of international law throughout their value chains. This responsibility is independent of a state’s own human rights obligations and exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations.

“Once again, we call on all states to urgently adopt a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. Under international law, states have an obligation to refuse authorization for the transit of arms to Israel and to ensure they do not facilitate the continuation of any such cargo. As the ship’s flag state and a party to the Arms Trade Treaty, Portugal must make every effort to stop the cargo from reaching Israel.

“The German shipping company Reederei Gerdes must fulfil its responsibility to respect human rights, including by ensuring that it does not contribute to violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by states and non-state actors. Any company or private entity that continues to supply Israel with assistance or equipment used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is at serious risk of being complicit in these crimes,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas.

Background

According to this  vessel tracking site, the Holger G ship is currently in the Eastern Mediterranean, after having travelled through the Strait of Gibraltar, and is due to stop off at Port Said in Egypt in mid-late December.

The ship is owned by German shipping company Reederei Gerdes. 

Amnesty International approached Reederei Gerdes for comment, but at the time of publication they did not respond. Elbit Systems was previously approached in relation to their supply of arms to the Israeli military and argued that the company was operating lawfully, supplying “a sovereign, unsanctioned government, recognized by the international community”, and that “there is no legal basis for restricting our sales”.

For more information please contact press@amnesty.org

The post Israel/OPT: States must not assist the Holger G’s transportation of explosives to Israel  appeared first on Amnesty International.

Why systematic racism has a lot to do with migration and asylum systems   

How does systemic racism influence migration policies, asylum systems and border enforcement? 

Borders are not simply lines on a map or physical barriers separating one place from another. They are a complex infrastructure of control, social ordering and exclusion shaped by racial hierarchies rooted in histories of colonialism, slavery and other forms of oppression such as patriarchy. Experts talk about “racial borders”, referring to the ways migration policies, asylum systems, and border enforcement reproduce systemic racism and racial discrimination. 

These systems are used to create and enforce illegality and vulnerability. This includes who is ‘in’ or ‘out’, who should be treated with suspicion, who should be scapegoated during a crisis, who should be denied movement and who is disposable.  

In modern border regimes, white people are privileged over racialized people who are excluded, often violently. 

How are borders shaped or influenced by colonialism? 

During colonial times, borders were shaped, imposed or influenced in ways that reflected and reinforced colonial power dynamics and ideologies, establishing and globalizing white supremacy and constructing racial hierarchies. 

The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, for example, established rules for the colonization of Africa and divided up vast territory between European powers with complete disregard of the continent’s indigenous populations. During the same period, passports and visa systems were created as basic systems of mobility control, to identify foreigners, limit their ability to travel and manage the use of migrant labour. 

How is that reflected in migration systems today? 

Today’s migration policies and practices reproduce biases developed during colonial times, for example the idea that colonists can travel freely between their country of origin and its colonies, while colonised people can’t. Colonised people can only travel to the colonial country to provide it with cheap labour. 

These biases are reproduced in contemporary migration policies, as nationals of Global North countries can travel more easily and widely than nationals of Global South countries – and with more favourable visa conditions. 

Amnesty International has exposed visa policies in several countries that intend to allow cheap labour from Global South countries but in fact expose racialised migrant workers to labour exploitation and other human rights violations. 

What does the term “digital racial borders” refer to? 

According to E. Tendayi Achiume, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the term “digital racial borders” refers to the ways digital technologies deployed in asylum and migration contexts help entrench racial inequalities and racial harm. 

Digital technology is increasingly shaping and delivering migration and asylum policies, from electronic monitoring, satellites, and drones to facial recognition, algorithmic decision-making in visa processes, “lie detectors” and iris scanning. The growth of digital technologies and so-called “smart border” technology have created new partnerships between governments and companies, and with them a range of threats to human rights. Racism is deeply ingrained within migration and asylum systems, so these technologies risk exacerbating racial biases and discrimination. 

How are racial borders affecting people? 

Racial borders create an underclass of exploited racialized migrant workers. For example, states employ exploitative visa policies designed to facilitate the employment of cheap migrant labour. These policies place migrants in very vulnerable positions. 

We have documented how migration policies create or contribute to labour exploitation of racialized migrant workers in a number of countries across the world including CanadaFranceHong Kong/ChinaItalyLebanonQatarSaudi Arabia and South Korea.   

Also, migration policies, asylum systems and border enforcement often expose racialized people to discrimination and life-threatening risks, treating their lives as disposable and less worthy of protection. Amnesty International has documented this in the Dominican Republic, where migration policies have led to mass expulsions that disproportionately affect Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent, often implemented through racial profiling and other human rights violations. 

Are there limits to states’ discretion in deciding who can visit and live in their countries? 

Yes. Like any other state power, the power of states to decide who can visit and live on their territory is limited by their human rights obligations.  

Under international human rights law, the prohibition of racial discrimination protects migrants and refugees from discriminatory treatment based on race, skin colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. International human rights law also includes separate protections against discrimination on other grounds such as religion, gender, disability, among others, which can often be racialized. 

One of the ways in which States try to justify harmful policies and practices is to maintain a false narrative that borders are designed to protect, when in fact they are designed to control, extract and exclude. 

This approach allows states to focus public attention on so-called border “crises” rather than looking into the root causes of displacement, mobility and immobility. In fact, states determine who can move and who can’t with their migration policies – and they often have a structural role in contributing to the root causes of displacement. It also shapes how support for refugees and migrants is imagined. Rather than a matter of justice and rights, it becomes a question of charity. 

What should be done? 

There’s much that can, and must, be done. In the short term, states must abandon discriminatory and exploitative migration policies, like visas that tie workers to one employer or discriminate against elderly and disabled people.  

States must also stop surveillance and violence as means of border control and management. Migration policies must ensure that the rights of those who move or would like to move are protected and be guided by values of justice, dignity, and solidarity, centring those who have been historically marginalized at the heart of policy making.  

In the long term, we must work towards a world where colonial ways of thinking, racial capitalism, and other violent mindsets do not shape policies, our experiences or our relationships with one another. It’s possible to imagine a better way of living together, where mobility and community life aren’t shaped by racial hierarchies but strengthened through mutual care and respect. 

The post Why systematic racism has a lot to do with migration and asylum systems    appeared first on Amnesty International.

El Salvador: Alejandro and José Ángel are released from prison

“We celebrate that Alejandro Henríquez and José Ángel Pérez are being released today after months of unjust detention. However, it is essential to point out that they should never have been deprived of their liberty or subjected to criminal proceedings for exercising their right to peaceful protest,” said Ana Piquer, Regional Director for the Americas at Amnesty International. 

We celebrate that Alejandro Henríquez and José Ángel Pérez are being released today after months of unjust detention. However, it is essential to point out that they should never have been deprived of their liberty or subjected to criminal proceedings for exercising their right to peaceful protest

Ana Piquer, Regional Director for the Americas at Amnesty International 

Several international protection mechanisms have pointed out that no state can use criminal law to punish or dissuade participation in peaceful demonstrations.  Furthermore, the use of charges such as ‘aggressive resistance’ and ‘public disorder’ in these cases is incompatible with international standards on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 

The use of abbreviated proceedings, which requires acceptance of the charges in order to be released from prison, raises concerns regarding international standards of due process. 

“Among this good news, we must not forget that other human rights defenders and dissident voices in El Salvador—such as Ruth López, Fidel Zavala, Enrique Anaya, among others—continue to be subjected to criminal proceedings and arbitrary deprivation of liberty solely for exercising their rights or for being perceived as critical of government policies. We urge the Salvadoran authorities to guarantee their freedom and order the immediate closure of proceedings against those detained only for exercising their rights. The Salvadoran State has an international obligation to protect, and not punish, those who defend human rights. No one should face criminalisation for peacefully raising their voice. 

Among this good news, we must not forget that other human rights defenders and dissident voices in El Salvador—such as Ruth López, Fidel Zavala, Enrique Anaya, among others—continue to be subjected to criminal proceedings and arbitrary deprivation of liberty solely for exercising their rights or for being perceived as critical of government policies. We urge the Salvadoran authorities to guarantee their freedom.

Ana Piquer, Regional Director for the Americas at Amnesty International

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: press@amnesty.org

The post El Salvador: Alejandro and José Ángel are released from prison appeared first on Amnesty International.

Hong Kong: Prisons rife with violence and inhumane treatment, inmate testimony reveals

Former Hong Kong prison inmates have told of inhumane and degrading conditions in new research published today by Amnesty International, as the organization called for authorities to urgently investigate the situation in the city’s correctional facilities.

Nine former inmates jailed between 2016 and 2023 reported physical violence, prolonged solitary confinement, poor sanitary conditions and dangerously high summer temperatures during their incarceration across 11 prisons in the territory.

“These accounts of Hong Kong prison life by former inmates reveal a pattern of ill-treatment that has caused significant mental and physical harm and demands immediate investigation,” Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director Sarah Brooks said.

“Subjecting inmates to extreme heat, filthy conditions and violent punishment amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and may amount to torture under international law. Hong Kong’s government must end this culture of abuse and ensure those responsible for human rights abuses in its prisons are held accountable.”

Hong Kong authorities responded to Amnesty to refute the claims as a “malicious smear”.

“I heard screaming and the sounds of a ‘chicken wing’”

Tony Chung, a political activist held on remand at the Pik Uk Correctional Institution for juvenile offers from October 2020 to April 2022, told Amnesty International that violence by prison officers against inmates was commonplace.

“Sometimes, when officers were unhappy with an inmate, they would bring the inmate to a corridor where there was no CCTV coverage, and then I could hear the inmate screaming and the sounds of a ‘chicken wing’,” he said. ‘Chicken wing’ is a term used to describe officers striking an inmate’s shoulder blades with their elbows, a method intended to avoid leaving visible bruises.

Peter*, who was held in the same facility from 2016 over protest-related offences, said he was assaulted by a correctional officer on his first day because he did not know how to address staff properly.

“In juvenile prisons, inmates must use specific phrases to report their names and hold their ID cards in front of their chests,” he said. “I didn’t know that because I was new, so I was slapped in the face eight times as punishment.”

Peter said corporal punishment was used by officers to assert authority and to instil fear in juvenile facility.

“You could get beaten if your blanket wasn’t folded neatly or if your hands weren’t firm and straight enough while standing,” he said. “Once, I was asked to memorize the prison rulebook, then suddenly ordered to recite it backwards. For every wrong word, I was hit once on the soles of my feet. In the end, my soles turned purple.”

The inmates’ accounts appear to corroborate previous allegations of violence by Correctional Services Department (CSD) officers. In 2017, a Hong Kong media outlet interviewed 50 former juvenile inmates who described extreme physical and psychological abuse by CSD officers, including beatings and being forced to drink urine and eat faeces. In 2020, dozens of juvenile inmates were reportedly slapped by an officer after singing a protest song.

‘We had to be completely naked in the cells’

Hong Kong’s summers are extremely hot and humid with afternoon temperatures often exceeding 31°C. Pro-democracy online radio host “Giggs” Edmund Wan was remanded in 2021 in Stanley Prison for approximately 20 months, including two summers. He told Amnesty International that the cell was “like an oven” in the summer months and felt like it was “over 40°C”.

“Every night before we returned to our cells, we queued at the canteen toilet to use the hose there to pour water over our bodies to cool down,” he said. “But really, we were only fooling ourselves. By the time we walked from the canteen back to the cells, we were already drenched in sweat again.”

Although an electric fan was installed on the ceiling of each cell in Stanley Prison, Wan said it was tightly enclosed by a wire mesh that blocked airflow, rendering it “completely useless”.

“We had to be completely naked in the cells — not even underwear. I could hear people crying out in pain, and some had to be hospitalized because of the heat,” Wan said.

Amy*, who was held in solitary confinement at Lo Wu Correctional Institution during the summer of 2023, said her cell had no windows and she developed a heat rash. “Even the officers were completely drenched in sweat,” she added.

In 2024, imprisoned activist Chow Hang-tung mounted a legal challenge to the rules that require women – but not men – to wear long trousers year-round in prisons despite extreme heat in summer.

‘Where you could barely see the sun’

Hong Kong’s Prison Rules provide for two types of solitary confinement, both in violation of international standards. Rule 63 allows for punitive solitary confinement of up to 28 days for disciplinary offences. Rule 68B authorizes administrative solitary confinement initially for 72 hours and for a further period of up to one month for vague non-punitive purposes.

During his time in Pik Uk, Chung said he was put in solitary confinement under Rule 63 on at least three occasions, which he believed were acts of retaliation rather than legitimate disciplinary measures.

“Once, I told a friend during a visit that I had to do drill exercises for more than three hours because the officers thought we were too noisy at night. My friend posted this on social media, and a week later, officers searched my cell and ‘found’ a bookmark that didn’t belong to me. I was then sent to solitary confinement as punishment.”

Even the “non-punitive solitary confinement” appears to be, in practice, used as a punitive measure.

“When I first entered prison, officers put me into a room and pressured me to sign papers ‘voluntarily’ agreeing to solitary confinement,” Wan said. “There’s basically no way to refuse — they lock you in a room and keep you there until you agree to sign.”

Fernando Cheung, a former legislator held in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre in 2022 and now an Amnesty International Hong Kong Overseas Board Member, said he was also required by officers to sign similar documents to “voluntarily” request solitary confinement.

Interviewees described the significant mental suffering caused by solitary confinement.

“I was locked in a tiny cell, completely alone for more than 22 hours a day,” Wan said. “I ate and used the toilet inside the cell. Although there was one hour of daily exercise, it was just walking alone inside a fenced cage where you could barely see the sun.”

Amendments of the Prison Rules in July 2025 included allowing the use of solitary confinement under Rule 68B based on the grounds of “safeguarding national security”.

Interviewees said solitary confinement was more likely to be used against prisoners detained for “political” offences.

‘Cockroaches were crawling on my body’

Interviewees also reported poor sanitary conditions inside prison. Tommy*, held at Lai Chi Kok in 2021, said: “There were cockroaches crawling on my body — I couldn’t sleep at all.”

Cheung, who was imprisoned in the same facility that year, described it as “extremely filthy — beyond imagination.

“In the cell, dust had built up into pillars hanging from the ceiling. In the prison hospital, the toilets couldn’t be flushed, and the stench was unbearable.”

Amnesty International calls on the Hong Kong authorities to take immediate and concrete steps to address the abuses it has documented, including by undertaking the necessary investigations and reforms to prevent further violations of inmates’ human rights.

The government should also implement recommendations made by the UN Committee against Torture in 2016, including:

  • Establish an independent body with the mandate to carry out effective unannounced visits at all detention facilities.
  • Reduce the maximum duration of solitary confinement and limit its use as a measure of last resort, for as short a time as possible. Clear and specific criteria should be established for decisions on solitary confinement, indicating the conduct, type and maximum duration.
  • Compile and regularly publish comprehensive disaggregated data on the use of solitary confinement, including related suicide attempts and self-harm.

“Using solitary confinement as a tool of retaliation and coercion is an abuse of power that can spiral into psychological torture. The Hong Kong government must urgently bring its practices in line with international standards by strictly ensuring that solitary confinement is only imposed in exceptional, individualized circumstances and as a last resort, and subject to regular, substantive and independent review,” Sarah Brooks said.

Background

Hong Kong’s CSD currently maintains 29 correctional facilities across the city. Inmates in these facilities include people on remand awaiting trial or sentencing, convicted individuals serving sentences and people detained for immigration reasons. For simplicity, Amnesty International has used the term “prison” to refer any of the 29 facilities managed by the CSD.

In addition to interviews with former prisoners, Amnesty International also conducted extensive desk research and spoke with lawyers and researchers with expertise in the correctional service.

In response to Amnesty’s findings, the CSD said it “categorically refutes the allegations”. The CSD said it had zero tolerance of physical violence, that solitary confinement is only imposed “in strict adherence to the law”, that it enforced the “highest possible degree of cleanliness” and that it had taken “extensive measures” to address the effects of hot weather.

The post Hong Kong: Prisons rife with violence and inhumane treatment, inmate testimony reveals appeared first on Amnesty International.