*********************
Following is a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, to a question by the Hon Dennis Kwok in the Legislative Council today (February 20):
Question:
Since December 2009, the Government has implemented the "enhanced screening mechanism", a non-statutory and administrative scheme, for handling torture claims made under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides that a person should not be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Under the mechanism, claimants may submit detailed grounds to establish their torture claims through a questionnaire with supporting documents or evidence (questionnaire stage). They will then be invited to attend a screening interview with immigration officers to further provide information or answer questions (interview stage). If they are aggrieved by the authorities' decisions on their claims, they may lodge petitions (petition stage). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) among the torture claims received in each of the past three years, of the respective numbers of those which (i) had been processed, (ii) are currently outstanding, and (iii) had been withdrawn, with a breakdown by the country of origin of the claimants, set out in the table of the Question Annex;
(b) in each of the past three years, of the respective numbers of claimants (i) who had submitted the aforesaid questionnaire, (ii) whose claims had been rejected after the questionnaire stage, (iii) who had proceeded to the interview stage, (iv) whose claims had been rejected after the interview stage, (v) who had lodged petitions, and (vi) whose petitions had been rejected;
Number of claimants
Stage of the involved
screening process 2010 2011 2012
----------------- ---- ---- ----
(i) Claimants who had
submitted a questionnaire
(ii) Claimants whose claims
had been rejected after the
questionnaire stage
(iii) Claimants who had
proceeded to the interview
stage
(iv) Claimants whose claims
had been rejected after the
interview stage
(v) Claimants who had
lodged petitions
(vi) Claimants whose
petitions had been rejected
(c) of a breakdown of the torture claims which were rejected in the past three years by the reason for rejection; and
(d) among the claimants who had submitted torture claims in each of the past three years, of (i) the number of claimants who had departed from Hong Kong voluntarily, and (ii) the number of claimants who were deported, with a breakdown by the country of origin (same as those set out in the table in (a) above) of the claimants, set out in the table below?
Number of claimants who
(i) (ii) Total
departed from were
Country Hong Kong deported
of origin Year voluntarily
--------- ---- ------------- --------- -----
2010
2011
2012
Reply:
President,
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) has been applied to Hong Kong since 1992. The Immigration Department (ImmD) introduced an enhanced screening mechanism in December 2009 to ensure the procedures meet the high standards of fairness as required by the Court. Subsequently, the Legislative Council enacted the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (the Ordinance) in July 2012 to provide for a statutory framework to underpin the enhanced administrative mechanism. The statutory mechanism has commenced operation on December 3, 2012.
Under the enhanced screening mechanism and the current statutory mechanism, claimants are given every reasonable opportunity to establish their claims, including submission of detailed grounds of the claim and supporting facts in a torture claim form, and provision of further information and answering questions relating to the claim at a screening interview. Publicly-funded legal assistance is made available to all torture claimants through the Duty Lawyer Service (DLS). When the ImmD makes a decision on torture claims, it must inform the claimants of the reasons for its decision in written form. Claimants aggrieved by ImmD's decisions have a right to lodge an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (or Adjudicators who handled petitions before the commencement of the Ordinance). Both comprise retired judges and magistrates.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) The ImmD received 1 809, 1 432 and 1 174 torture claims in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. The majority of claimants came from countries in South or Southeast Asia, including Indonesia (27%), Pakistan (19%), India (18%), the Philippines (10%), Bangladesh (6%), Nepal (4%) and Sri Lanka (4%). Detailed figures are at Reply Annex Table A.
(b) Since December 2009, all torture claims (including those received before December 2009) have been screened under the enhanced screening mechanism and the subsequent statutory screening mechanism as described in paragraph 2 above. As at the end of 2012, the ImmD has decided on 2 715 cases. Among them 1 330 petitions/appeals have been lodged, 1 183 of those have been determined (all dismissed); 27 have been withdrawn and 120 are pending determination.
(c) In deciding on torture claims, the ImmD must consider, in accordance with the "high standards of fairness" as required by the Court and the requirement stipulated in section 37ZI of the Immigration Ordinance, merits of individual claims and take into account all relevant considerations including the situation in the relevant country. If the ImmD is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that a claimant would be subject to a personal risk of being tortured if removed or surrendered to a torture risk State, it must accept the claim as substantiated; otherwise, the claim must be rejected.
(d) A claimant may not be removed from Hong Kong to a torture risk State unless his claim is withdrawn or is not a substantiated claim on final determination. From December 2009 to end December 2012, 1 159 torture claimants whose claim has been finally determined as unsubstantiated have been removed or deported from Hong Kong. Detailed figures are at Reply Annex Table B.
Ends/Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Issued at HKT 15:32
NNNN
