Author
Due attention shall be given to applicants’ sex and age, status as a person requiring special procedural and/or reception guarantees, as well as family unity, upon placement in a reception facility.[1]
The Asylum Act defines the specific guarantees that should be granted during the asylum procedure and in relation to reception conditions of asylum seekers with specific needs, including children, persons lacking or having limited legal capacity, children separated from their parents or guardians, persons with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women, single parents with underage children and persons who had been subjected to torture, rape or other forms of grave psychological, physical or sexual violence.[2] However, these provisions are only applicable to asylum seekers,[3] and not to all foreign nationals who arrive to reception facilities and whose number, according to the CRM, has reached 108,808 in 2023. Thus, legal framework clearly neglects the responsibility of the State to conduct different forms of vulnerability assessment and in line with the indicators which are relevant for survivors of trafficking in human beings, torture survivors, elderly and other above-outlined categories.
On the other hand and in practice, none of the 196 asylum seekers from 2023 underwent any kind of vulnerability assessment nor were reception conditions adapted to their special needs.[4] Even though the representatives of the CRM would claim that every person has an individual vulnerability assessment form, none of the vulnerable clients of IDEAS have ever been provided with such assessment, nor the conditions in which seriously vulnerable applicants are being held respond to their special needs.
In 2023, and for the most of the 2023, vulnerable foreign nationals were placed in AC Krnjača: LGBTQI+, SGBV survivors, single women, families with small children and people with healthcare and psychosocial needs. However, throughout 2023, this facility also hosted dozens and even hundreds of single men from different countries who were mixed with vulnerable population. This meant that LGBTQI+ foreign nationals were placed together with other single males or families with anti-LGBTQI+ attitude, that women, including those who survived SGBV, would share facilities with single males, including showers and toilets. Also, AC Krnjača has been in dilapidated state for some time now, meaning that many of the showers and toilets were broken, leading to even more people using the same facilities. Thus, AC Krnjača does host the most vulnerable persons, but one the other hand, they are also kept in dilapidated conditions.
There is no vulnerability screening of newly arrived foreign nationals in the asylum or reception centres. The vulnerabilities are usually determined in the most obvious cases or when CSOs working in reception facilities flag certain cases to the authorities. Thus, there are no questionnaires nor other instruments which are designed and used for the purpose of vulnerability assessment.
Also, most vulnerabilities are determined in relation to those persons who are willing to apply for asylum and who undergo detailed interviews with their legal representatives and are then referred to different support services. Thus, unless persons are identified in a situation of immediately identifiable vulnerability (e.g. survivors of trafficking in human beings who escaped the traffickers or who were in clear situation of distress), most of the vulnerable people on the move will are not detected as such by CRM employees. Asylum seekers who, due to their vulnerability, are not transferred to a hospital or the safe house for survivors of trafficking in human beings or SGVB, have then only the option to remain in reception facilities in accommodation identical to accommodation provided to non-vulnerable residents.
This means, for example, that LGBTQI+ people in AC Krnjača and in other facilities are accommodated together with homophobic residents who often resort to verbal abuse and sometimes even physical; survivors of SGBV, including rape victims, are accommodated with men in barracks; or seriously injured people are accommodated in barracks which are not designed for their special needs. This practice is an additional reason why vulnerable people also decide to abscond from the asylum procedure and leave Serbia.
The Asylum Act envisages that material conditions of reception of UASC are provided in asylum centres or other facilities designated for the accommodation of asylum seekers until the final decision on the asylum application is taken.[5] In 2020 and 2021, AC Sjenica and AC Bogovađa were designated for UASC, and from 2022, RC Šid. Since most unaccompanied minors reaching Serbia are not willing to apply for asylum, nor they are registered in line with the Article 35 of the Asylum Act, they are all accommodated in RC Šid since 2022 and there is no assessment of their special needs.
On the other hand, of the few children who are willing to apply for asylum are usually placed in the house of the Jesuit Refugee Service or one of the social welfare institutions such as Institute for Education of Children and Youth in Belgrade and the Institute for Education of Youth in Niš, and the Children Home “Jovan Jovanović Zmaj” at the Institute for Protection of Infants, Children and Youth in Belgrade, while specialised foster care is also an option.[6] Since the end of 2015, UASC have been accommodated in institutions in Belgrade and Niš. These facilities are also used to accommodate minors who are Serbian nationals– primarily underage offenders and are therefore neither specifically-tailored to the needs of foreign nationals, nor particularly suitable for their housing. Regardless, UASC in these facilities are kept separated from other groups, and overall reception conditions are considerably better than those in asylum centres, although a chronic lack of interpreters for various languages spoken by children continues to present a considerable challenge to ensuring their proper development and integration. However, all the children placed in Belgrade social institutions regularly attend school and most of them speak Serbian.
However, it is clear that the vast majority of reception facilities do not meet adequate standards. While in 2022 RC Šid was established for the same purpose, to host minors. None of these centres, taking into consideration their remote location and lack of available social services, can be considered to be in line with child-specific standards (see more in Conditions in Asylum Centres)
[1] Article 50 (3) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 17 Asylum Act.
[3] Who have to lodge asylum applications in line with Article 36 of the Asylum Act, after which they become entitled to rights of asylum seekers enshrined in Article 48.
[4] See more in IDEAS, Assessing the reception conditions of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers and refugees in Serbia: Identifying challenges and proposing recommendations and Recognition and Reception: Advancing Support for SGBV Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Serbia, Upcoming.
[5] Article 53 Asylum Act.
[6] Practice-informed observation by IDEAS, 2022-2023.