[ad_1]
Poland demanded the extradition of Rafal Gawel (47) from Norway to his country of origin. The Board of Immigration Appeals, UNE, has granted political asylum to the Polish citizen.
– I’m very happy. Now we can safely plan a life in Norway, says human rights activist Rafal Gawel when we find him in the office of lawyer Niedzielski in central Oslo.
Rafal Gawel arrived in Norway on January 7, 2019, along with his wife and two-year-old daughter. Two days later, his application for political asylum was rejected by the Norwegian Immigration Directorate (UDI), to which he immediately appealed.
Gawel and his family had left Poland by car. The trip passed through several European countries until they crossed the border into Norway without a valid passport.
– The Polish authorities deprived me of my passport, but through diplomatic contacts that I cannot reveal, we still arrived in Norway last winter, says Rafal Gawel.
In Poland, he has been convicted of crimes committed several years ago, for which he had to serve a two-year prison sentence. A verdict that he claims has been fabricated and that it is actually retaliatory action by the Polish authorities.
also read
Towards victory in the first round of the current president Duda
Unanimous decision
VG has seen the decision of the Alien Appeals Board (UNE), on September 30, 2020. It is unanimously declared that “the complaint is accepted. This means that the perpetrator is a refugee under the Immigration Act … and that he receives a residence permit for one year, which can be renewed and which provides the opportunity for family immigration and to obtain a permanent residence permit subsequently, the author can work in Norway. ‘
UNE summarizes that the complainant runs the risk of being persecuted upon returning to his country of origin.
– The UNE thus has the impression that this case, under the guise of a criminal case, has a mark of political persecution by the Polish authorities, says Rafa Gawel’s Norwegian lawyer, Lukaz Niedzielski.
Since he started the organization “Center for Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination”, Rafa Gawel has been a thorn in the side of the Polish judicial authorities.
When his organization revealed that local police officers were in cahoots with neo-Nazis and far-right forces, Rafal Gawel was among the nominees for the title of “Polo of the Year.”
Police attorneys fired
– Our work led to several police lawyers being fired from their jobs. But what seemed like a development in the right and democratic direction in Poland came to an abrupt halt when there was a change of government in 2013.
Under the Nationalist government, the police lawyers who were fired got their jobs back. After that, I was free to go to the authorities. I had no choice. I had to leave Poland, says Rafal Gawel.
He claims that he was forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution where he shared a cell with a murderer. – This is how totalitarian regimes try to break people. It is a sad fact what we are experiencing in Poland, says the 47-year-old.
also read
Democracy as a form of government is threatened
His Norwegian lawyer, Lukaz Niedzielski, himself of Polish origin, says that several newspapers have published false news about his client.
– It is alleged that Norway has granted him citizenship and that he has escaped a criminal conviction and new charges that would have given him 25 years in prison, says the lawyer.
Rafa Gawel adds that it is interesting that there are many indications that Interpol has defied the Polish authorities and has refused to call it because the case is political.
Lawyer Niedzielski says that in recent years he has observed that the Norwegian authorities and the trust of the courts in similar authorities in Poland has weakened considerably.
– The granting of political asylum to my client must be seen in light of this development, says the lawyer.
The head of the department, Marianne Granlund, of the Immigration Court, UNE, tells VG that it is very rare for the court to grant asylum to citizens of European countries.
– But here the documentation was so extensive and the complainant’s explanation so convincing that the court was convinced that he is entitled to protection, says Marianne Granlund.