The joint flight: preparation, execution and handover. (Read full CPT report)
9. The practice of removal of foreign nationals is a frequent and widespread practice
throughout Europe. For Spain, removal operations to Latin America in particular are commonplace.
In the CPT’s experience, removal of foreign nationals entails a manifest risk of inhuman and
degrading treatment (during preparations for the removal, during the actual flight or when the
removal is aborted).
10. In the case of the Joint Return Operation of 18 February 2016, the returnees removed by
Spain were transported from various places of deprivation of liberty, including police stations in the
Madrid area, several prisons in different parts of the country and the CIEs in Aluche and Valencia.
All returnees listed for removal appeared to have been issued with a valid removal order.
11. The following parts of the operation were monitored: the collection and transport of
40 returnees from Aluche detention facilities (both the CIE and the OCDE) to Madrid Barajas
Airport; the flight preparations at Madrid Airport; the boarding of the aircraft to Bogota/Santo
Domingo, the 15-hour flight to Bogota and Santo Domingo, including a two-hour stopover in
Bogota; and the physical handover to the Colombian and the Dominican authorities.
12. A few days prior to the JRO, 80 persons had been listed to be removed by the Spanish
authorities and two others from Germany. In the end, 70 returnees from Spain (including two
women), and one man from Germany boarded the aircraft – 47 returnees were removed to
Colombia and 24 to the Dominican Republic. The ten returnees from Spain listed for removal who did not board remained behind for various reasons, including a pending asylum procedure and an intervention by a judge.
13. From the outset, the CPT wishes to make it clear that its delegation did not observe or
receive any allegations of ill-treatment during the operation, including by escorting police officers.
On the contrary, from the CPT’s perspective the removal operation by air was carried out smoothly
and professionally. In particular, the delegation noted with appreciation the efforts made by the
escorts to engage with the returnees throughout the operation. These efforts were acknowledged by
some of the returnees who shook hands with their escort before leaving the aircraft (see also
paragraph 31).
14. A proper preparation for removal is crucial in order to reduce both the risk of violating the
principle of non-refoulement and the inherent health risk related to the return flight. A number of
safeguards should therefore be guaranteed. The Committee has placed particular emphasis on timely notification of the removal to both the returnee and his/her lawyer. Following this notification, the returnee should be granted:
– immediate access to a lawyer;
– access to a medical doctor, particularly in the context of a “fit to fly” examination; and,
– the right to inform a third person(s) in the sending country and, when possible, the
destination country of the upcoming removal.
These rights should be enjoyed by all categories of foreign nationals to be removed, from
the very outset of their notification, i.e. at least 24 hours prior to the flight (see paragraph 17). It is
equally fundamental that these persons be informed without delay of their rights, including those
mentioned above, in a language they understand.
15. A timely notification of the removal gives the foreign national time to prepare for his or her
departure, which is likely to reduce stress and resistance.
16. Although situated in a single location, there was a striking difference between the CIE and
the OCDE in Aluche as concerns the moment returnees were informed of their upcoming removal.
For the Aluche CIE, a judicial authority had ordered that returnees should receive, at least
12 hours before removal, information about the aircraft’s time of departure; the city of its
destination; and the flight number.
This order was complied with. With one exception,10 all returnees interviewed were
informed in writing exactly 12 hours before departure of their removal and they were requested to
sign an act of notification of the expulsion (which indicated the date and time of the notification).
Due to the very short time available, not all returnees managed to prepare themselves properly for
the removal. Several indicated that there was insufficient time for their personal belongings to be
transferred to the detention centre as they had been living some distance from Madrid. One returnee
was returned in the company uniform he had been wearing at the moment of his arrest. Several
complaints were received alleging that returnees did not know how they would be able to access the
money in their Spanish bank account and one returnee stated that he was not informed that he was
allowed to take his belongings. In contrast, none of the returnees interviewed at the Aluche OCDE was provided with written information about their removal; they were only informed orally by police officers a few hours before the removal operation began. The delegation observed that this situation generated
anxiety and distress among these returnees.
17. Leaving the person being removed unaware of the scheduled removal (and, in particular, of
the time of departure) can do more harm than good. Experience shows that instead of facilitating the
process, it increases the risk of the person violently resisting the removal. Preparing the person
concerned well in advance for his/her removal has proved in the long term to be the most humane
and efficient approach. The CPT recommends that the Spanish authorities adopt the necessary
measures, including of a legislative nature, to ensure that all persons being removed, and their
lawyer, if applicable, are officially informed in writing, in a language they understand, at least
several days in advance of the flight (see also paragraph 22).
