[ad_1]
The Covid risk in the countries of origin may be a reason and a contributing cause for granting the “Humanitarian protection” to migrants who do not have the right to political asylum or subsidiary protection from wars or torture: with ex officio evaluations, that is, even without request from the parties, this is the innovative option adopted by the Civil Court of Milan in a series of proceedings brought just before Christmas.
The new line, however, operates without any automatism. (With the same country there are in fact both acceptances and rejections), but only individually: humanitarian protection for Covid is granted by the Section specialized in immigration in the event of a pandemic – in addition to being measured in its specific territorial impact by international indices specific – there is a risk (in terms of scarce health resources, food insecurity, social unrest, economic crisis) of further aggravating a previous personal vulnerability. As if to suggest that, in the event of repatriation, those who are already vulnerable would collapse in living conditions that do not respect the minimum core of human rights.
In appeals to the section of President Pietro Caccialanza, all presented before the now modified Salvini decree of 2018, there is the illiterate who says that he cannot return to his village in Bangladesh because, while working from Italy he can send 50 euros a month to a wife and children without a swept home. away from a flood, creditors would chase you. There is the young Mandingo, orphaned father and mother in the Gambia, terrified to return home for fear of the evil powers of his “sorcerer” uncle. There is the 15-year-old Guinean, shipwrecked in Italy (in the midst of 30 deaths) where he has already obtained his high school diploma and has started a work experience. There is the 54-year-old blind Pakistani, who escaped from Punjab after a deadly dispute over the actual milk capacity of a boiled buffalo.
The Court explains to everyone that these experiences do not give them the right to asylum. But autonomously (following the rulings of the EU and the Supreme Court on the “new fact”), the Court feels it has to assess the pandemic. Not bad, but based on the “Inform Epidemic Global Risk Index” with which the Joint Research Center of the European Commission summarizes 100 risk indicators in three bands: risk of exposure (from population density to access to running water ), Intrinsic criticalities (from food insecurity to price changes), system capacity (starting with health care).
Thus, the experience of these migrants, which alone would not be a reason for humanitarian protection, it is when combined with the risk they would face in Bangladesh with only 733 intensive care facilities and 1,800 ventilators; in Pakistan, where some cities have only 10 Covid sites and a laboratory; or in Côte d’Ivoire, treating 2.3 doctors for every 10,000 inhabitants compared to the minimum of 23 recommended by the WHO. And yet, there are no automaticities even in this perspective: Senegal also has a composite index of medium-high risk (between 5 and 6 on a scale of 0 to 10), but the Court does not grant humanitarian protection to a young man on the run . of a mortgage contracted in his name by the owner of a store that was later burned down Why not? Partly because “Senegal’s response to the pandemic was rapid, in particular thanks to an excellent public awareness strategy”; but much because, in the combination of a general analysis and a specific case, the judges do not recognize “specific vulnerability factors that would expose the applicant to an individualized risk in case of return, considering that he is an adult, with average education, without pathologies, and in constant contact with the family.
December 27, 2020 (change December 27, 2020 | 06:59)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
