Cyprus’ migrant deal with Lebanon was ‘misguided’

Making agreements with Lebanon to stem the tide of would-be refugees is misguided, Associate International Law and Human Rights’ professor Aristotelis Constantinides said on Wednesday.

The UCy expert made the statement in the wake of the Republic having been slapped on the wrist on Tuesday by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with a ruling that the pushback at sea of two Syrian asylum seekers in 2020 by the state authorities, had violated principles.

The Republic was ordered to pay around €50,000 in damages to the two Syrians for degrading treatment while they sought refuge in Cyprus from Lebanon.

The ECHR noted Cyprus had failed to provide any documentation for groups of migrants, revealing their claims were never processed.

According to international humanitarian law, asylum seekers have the right to be processed on an individual case-by-case basis.

“It was […] clear that MA and ZR, who had been kept on the boat with the intention of preventing their disembarkation onto Cypriot soil, had not been given access to legal advisers, and that contact with their relatives, through whom they had attempted to obtain legal assistance, had been extremely difficult while at sea,” the ECHR said in its ruling.

Clarifying elements of the case, Constantinides said Cyprus had attempted to argue the acts had happened under a 2002 bilateral agreement the state had made with Lebanon.

This covered coordination with Lebanese authorities to prevent the arrival of boats with migrants, departing from Lebanon’s shores, from reaching Cypriot waters.

The Republic argued it had provided medical care to those in need and a translator, and that the migrants had only claimed they wished to secure better living conditions, such as those relating to work, not requested asylum per se.

The ECHR, however, did not accept these arguments, noting that given the condition of the state of Lebanon at the time, the arguments were moot as the country of departure could not be considered a safe haven.

The state Lebanon is not bound by the Geneva Convention for refugees, nor can it offer asylum seeking procedures, the expert explained, although it does practically offer shelter via UN operations on its territory.

The same applies for the so-called ‘TRNC’ and this makes the Republic of Cyprus the only state in the immediate region that can offer legal recourse for asylum, he said.

Moreover, fears of refoulement exist whereby Lebanese authorities may push fleeing Syrians back into Syria, which is also a responsibility legally borne by the Republic, he said.

The expert pointed out that Lebanon is currently harbouring over one million Syrian refugees and the country is in a state of “dissolution”, and the Republic was expected to have taken this into consideration.

Cyprus was additionally reproved for its failure to operate a designate protocol for the treatment and processing of migrants at sea, Constantinides said, and accusations of “humiliating” and inhumane treatment also included having kept the two Syrian asylum seekers in the dark for days about what and how to proceed.

The development points to the fact that attempts to make deals with Lebanon are misguided, and the Republic, as well as the European Union as a whole ought to focus on systematic efforts towards restoring order and peace in Syria, Constantinides said.

The European Court of Justice recently disbanded the notion that parts of any embattled country can be declared safe, which had been a key strategy of the Interior Minister Constantinos Ioannou, along with several European partners.

Cyprus is not the only state grappling with how to manage the ongoing migrant flows, nor the only state to be accused of illegal pushbacks, the expert said, noting that Italy, Greece, Hungary and Poland were among the states facing the same accusations.

President Nikos Christodoulides had said on Tuesday that state legal services would be examining the ECHR ruling, adding that the Republic had proven it undertakes its responsibilities and acts beyond them, “because, as an occupied state, we know what being a refugee means, what having to flee means”.