Information Network for

Return to Northern Iraq,

Serbia and Kosovo

Results and experiences from a two-year project

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Background 4

3. Information Network for Return to 5

Northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo

3.1 Factual background 5

3.2 Project organisation 5
3.3 Project objectives 6

4. Results and experiences 7

4.1 What is needed? 7

4.2 Statistics 8

4.3 Examples of return cases 9

4.3.1 Northern Iraq 9

4.3.2 Serbia 10
4.3.3 Kosovo 11

4.4 Follow-up 13

4.5 Activities in Sweden 14

4.6 Activities in countries of origin 16

5. International outlook 18

6. Final discussion 20

2
1. Introduction
During a two-year period, the Swedish Red Cross implemented the project
Information Network for Return to Northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo. In addition to
the full project performance report submitted to the International Law and Refugee
Department of the Swedish Red Cross and to the Swedish Ministry of Justice, we
have chosen to compile a more accessible report, which deals with the results and
experiences of the project, but also includes a more general discussion on action to
assist returning migrants.

This English edition of the report has been translated and adapted by Rickard Olseke.

Stockholm, June 2010

Ewa Jonsson Hugo W Rickberg Lejla Hadzihasanović

Project Manager Return Counsellor Return Counsellor
Swedish Red Cross Northern Iraq Kosovo and Serbia

3
2. Background
The Swedish Red Cross has since the early 1980s carried out activities to protect and
assist asylum seekers, including advice and support in individual asylum cases.
Asylum seekers approach the Red Cross during different stages of the asylum process,
and after receiving a final rejection. Working with individual asylum cases includes
informing about the asylum process, providing country of origin information and
explaining decisions of the authorities. A specific objective of these Red Cross
activities is to ensure that rejected asylum seekers “have the opportunity to return in
safe and dignified conditions and are able to live in dignity in the country of
origin”.

In the mid-1990s, when it became possible to return to the Balkans, the Swedish Red
Cross initiated activities to support the voluntary repatriation of refugees. This
intervention eventually also drew increased attention to the needs of rejected asylum
seekers who are obliged to return to their countries of origin.

During the period of August 2003 to August 2005, the Swedish Red Cross
implemented two pilot projects with the aim of developing methods for supporting
rejected asylum seekers. Through the project Information Network for Asylum Seekers
from Bosnia and Herzegovina, close cooperation was established with the Red Cross
Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina, aiming specifically at the quick and efficient
collection of correct information on the situation in places of origin, in order to
prepare asylum seekers before their return. The project Information Network for
Asylum Seekers from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro developed
further activities related to Bosnia and Herzegovina and initiated cooperation with the
Red Cross of Serbia and Montenegro. Both projects were co-financed by the
European Refugee Fund.

Through these pilot projects, the Swedish Red Cross identified ways of providing
adequate support to rejected asylum seekers who are obliged to return. Based on the
model developed, the Swedish Red Cross subsequently sought to develop its support
to rejected asylum seekers from northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo.

4
3. Information Network for Return to
Northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo

3.1 Factual background

• A large number of persons who are obliged to return, a number which will
most likely increase further;
• Many originating from northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo;
• An increasing number of rejected asylum seekers who choose to remain in
Sweden in hiding, without regular status;
• A probable risk of a difficult humanitarian situation after return;
• Limited resources available for support in Sweden and in countries of origin.

While the project’s main target group is rejected asylum seekers, it does not exclude
other vulnerable migrants who are obliged to return and in need of support during the
return and reintegration process.

3.2 Project organisation

Project manager
Swedish Red Cross
Ewa Jonsson

Asylum seekers from

Northern Iraq, Serbia
Database and Kosovo
Iraqi Red Crescent Society
Return Network
Red Cross of Serbia
International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Federation Employees and volunteers
(IFRC) in Kosovo at Swedish Red Cross,
who provide advice and
Return Counsellors at support to asylum seekers.

Swedish Red Cross:

Lejla Hadzihasanovic´
Hugo W. Rickberg

5
3.3 Project objectives

Overall objective

• Asylum seekers who are deported against their will should have the
opportunity to return in safe and dignified conditions.

Project objectives

• To facilitate return and improve conditions for social reintegration of rejected

asylum seekers from northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo;
• To present a proposal for possible future support to rejected asylum seekers
from central and southern Iraq.

6
4. Results and experiences
4.1 What is needed?

The illustration below is an attempt to show the needs of the individual who is going
to return. These needs were partly identified already when the project started, but the
picture has become clearer and more distinct during the project.

I will return! What

do I need?
Follow-up
What happens after
arrival in the country
of origin? Support in the
country of origin
Housing, livelihood,
health care,
psychosocial support,
etc.
Increases the
credibility of
advocacy work to
ensure a fair and
proper asylum
procedure and a
dignified and
humane return
process.
A stable basis
A fair and proper examination of asylum applications in
Sweden. Rejected asylum seekers receive information about
the return process, adequate and updated country of origin
information, and support in their own decision-making process
(whether to return or to choose another alternative).

7
 4.2 Statistics

The map below shows the number of registered return cases per region. In addition to
these cases, the project received 516 other general and specific return-related requests.
The Swedish Red Cross also provided support in 32 cases involving return to
countries not covered by the project (this number concerns the second year only).

Number of registered cases Number of persons

Northern Iraq 77 153
Serbia 42 165
Kosovo 84 331
Other countries 32 N/A
Total 235 644

The Red Cross in Sweden

N. Iraq: 5
Serbia: 0
N. Iraq: 0 Kosovo: 1
Serbia: 2 Other: 0
Kosovo: 6
Other: 0

N. Iraq: 0
Serbia: 0
Kosovo: 1
Other: 0 N. Iraq: 39
Serbia: 3
Kosovo: 2
N. Iraq: 9 Other: 15
Serbia: 7
Kosovo: 9
Other: 1

N. Iraq: 8
N. Iraq: 7 Serbia: 4
Serbia: 10 Kosovo: 9
Kosovo: 23 Other: 6
Other: 4

N. Iraq: 5 N. Iraq: 4
Serbia: 7 Serbia: 9
Kosovo: 12 Kosovo: 21
Other: 4 Other: 2
8
4.3 Examples of return cases
4.3.1 Northern Iraq

This case concerns a family of a man and a woman in their 30s with four children
aged 3, 4, 11 and 12. The family is of Kurdish ethnicity and residents of the Erbil
Province. When they left Iraq both parents had work. The man worked as a
carpenter/craftsman/car repairer and his wife as a public-employed teacher. Their
main reasons for leaving the country were honour-related, as their marriage, although
formally approved, was not viewed favourably by all relatives.

During their flight, which the family paid for by selling their house, they travelled
through Turkey and Europe, and eventually ended up in Ronneby, Sweden. They
stayed at a Migration Board reception facility during the asylum process, which lasted
two years. During this time, the youngest daughter was born, and the two older
children started pre-school and made a lot of friends.

In spring 2009, the family received a final rejection from the Migration Court of
Appeal. They were informed about the project by a reception officer at the Swedish
Migration Board and decided to contact the Red Cross. At a meeting with one of the
project’s return counsellors, they received information about the support provided by
the Swedish Red Cross and the Iraqi Red Crescent (IRCS).

The family, moreover, asked the Swedish Red Cross for advice in their asylum case.
However, no new circumstances that would substantiate a new application could be
identified. After a discussion about the pros and cons of staying in Sweden without
regular status, going to another country in Europe, or “changing tracks” to labour
immigration, the family decided to return to Iraq. They authorized the Red Cross to
contact the Migration Board in order to find out whether a time period for the
planning of reintegration activities would be granted. The parents’ CVs and
employment preferences were documented and sent to the Iraqi Red Crescent in Erbil,
together with a request to explore the possibility of finding cheap accommodation
close to Erbil.

The Iraqi Red Crescent replied that it had initiated the process of contacting the
Kurdistan Regional Government and the Ministry of Education to investigate whether
it would be possible for the woman to regain her previous job. The response had been
positive. The IRCS also provided information about affordable housing in Shaladin,
about 30 minutes from Erbil.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Red Cross contacted the Migration Board to plan the journey
from Ronneby via Copenhagen to Erbil, and to ensure that the family received a
decision entitling them to a “re-establishment support” grant of 75 000 SEK.

In August 2009, the family returned to Erbil and was assisted by the IRCS in
contacting the International Organization of Migration (IOM) in order to obtain the
grant. The woman also received continued support in contacting the Ministry of
Education to try to get her job back. Yet, at the time of the follow-up in November
2009, she had still not regained it. The family was in a generally difficult situation as
neither of the parents had been able to find permanent employment. Thanks to the re-

9
establishment support, however, they were able to rent an apartment in Chamchamal
(75 USD/month) and had also managed to arrange schooling for the two oldest
children. They felt welcome in the local community and also secure, since none of
their relatives knew that they had returned.

During the follow-up in April 2010, the family’s situation had improved somewhat,
although they now shared a house with another family (sharing a kitchen with others
was considered to be a problem). The man had a slightly more stable income, but was
still not working full time; his wife, however, had not got her job back. The four
daughters were doing well, largely thanks to the schooling they had received in
Sweden, and had reverted to only speaking Sorani. The woman received support from
the Iraqi Red Crescent in finding another job, and even if the visits by the IRCS had
become fewer – down from twice to once a month – she and the family felt safe to
have someone who cared and who followed up on developments. They hoped that
both parents would soon have a fixed income, but realized that it might take time. The
family had no plans to migrate to a third country.

4.3.2 Serbia

This case concerns a single Roma woman with two children who had been in Sweden,
where her parents live, for two years. She fled from her husband in Serbia who had
abused her for a long time. During her stay in Sweden, she had regular contact with
and received treatment at the Red Cross rehabilitation centre for victims of war and
torture.

Eventually, the woman and her children received a final rejection of their application
for asylum. After having, with the help of the Red Cross, unsuccessfully claimed that
there were impediments to the enforcement of the removal order, she decided to
accept the rejection. The Swedish Red Cross then informed her about what would
happen next, i.e. about the return process. Preparations for return took about one
month. During that time, both the woman herself and her parents living in Sweden
relied on the Red Cross for talking about practical measures as well as discussing their
emotional experiences. The woman was in great need of psychosocial support, which
is common among persons who are obliged to return.

In discussions with the Red Cross about the return journey, it became very clear that
she experienced strong anxiety about what would happen after return. She and her
children had no place to live in Serbia, and they had no identity documents, which is a
prerequisite for receiving any kind of support from the Serbian authorities.

A plan was drawn up, and the Red Cross assisted in contacting relevant stakeholders,
both in Sweden and in Serbia. The contacts with the officers responsible at the
Swedish Migration Board worked well, and they agreed to extend the preparation
period. The return journey was not booked until the Swedish Red Cross had
investigated the availability of protected shelters in Serbia. Through contacts with the
local authorities in the woman’s former place of residence, information was received
that access to a protected shelter could be granted only by the social services; an
application could not be submitted until after return.

10
When contacting organisations in Serbia that support women who are victims of
family-based violence, it became clear that they did not have the capacity to arrange
housing. However, they cooperate with the social services, which in accordance with
national legislation has the right to grant access to a protected shelter.

Contacts were also established with two organisations specifically dealing with Roma
and their situation: the Roma Educational Centre and the Ecumenical Humanitarian
Organization (EHO).

After their return to Serbia, both these organisations supported the woman and her
children. They assisted in the process of obtaining identity documents and other
documents necessary for registration in the country. A representative of the Roma
Educational Centre visited the woman, who again lived together with her husband and
his parents, on two occasions. During these visits, her husband or his parents were
present, and it appeared that the woman could not talk openly about possible
problems. She declined further visits, and it became clear that she dared not talk about
her situation.

No further visits have been undertaken, as there is concern about negative

repercussions if the organisations persist in trying to contact her. However, the
woman calls them by telephone from time to time, and she is aware that their door is
open, should she be in need of protection.

4.3.3 Kosovo

This case concerns an elderly couple from Kosovo that had been in Sweden for five
years. The man was 85 and the woman 80 years old. They lived in a so called mixed
marriage – the man is a Muslim, while his wife is Orthodox Christian (Serb from
Croatia). Both were sick and in need of assistance. In Sweden, they received home
care and were also supported by their daughter who lives in the country.

Their application for asylum was rejected, but it was difficult for them to accept that
they had to return. It was only when the Migration Board handed over their case to the
police that they realized there was nothing else they could do. They were informed
about the project by the police officer responsible and decided to contact the Red
Cross. The Swedish Red Cross provided psychosocial counselling on several
occasions, involving both the couple and their daughter; they had a huge need to talk
about their anxiety and the problems they expected after return.

During these sessions, it became clear that there was a risk that the couple would be in
a particularly vulnerable situation after return. They had no place to live in Kosovo,
nor any children or relatives that could take care of them. The woman had only old
identity documents issued in Croatia before the war, which could not be renewed in
Kosovo. Her husband had heart problems, high blood pressure, and impaired vision
and hearing (he could barely hear anything, despite a hearing aid), while she suffered
from heart problems, high blood pressure, asthma and diabetes. This meant that both
of them were dependent of regular medical check-ups and medication.

11
An elderly couple that has returned to Kosovo from Sweden. Photo: Faton Shehu/IFRC Kosovo

A comprehensive plan was drawn up, and the Swedish Red Cross assisted in
contacting the Red Cross in Kosovo and relevant stakeholders in Sweden.

The couple also asked for support in their contacts with the police and for the Red
Cross to participate in meetings with the police. The police officer responsible proved
to be sympathetic towards the couple’s situation and agreed to extend the preparation
period. He was also willing to arrange for the couple’s daughter to accompany them
on the return journey.This did not work out, however, as the daughter had already
booked tickets, which could not be cancelled, for herself and her children.

The Swedish Red Cross also contacted the couple’s doctor in order to get a
prescription for a larger supply of medicines that could be brought to Kosovo. It was
very important for them to know that, at least for a foreseeable time, they would have
access to proper medicines.

When arriving in Kosovo, they experienced it as a great comfort to be received by the

Red Cross at the airport.

The Red Cross in Kosovo made significant efforts to reduce the couple’s
vulnerability. They received initial support in the form of food parcels (containing
staple food for one month). Housing was arranged; initially transit accommodation
provided by the organisation Projekt 03, and then a small rental apartment, paid by
the couple’s children living abroad. The Red Cross also investigated whether it would
be possible for them to live in a home for the elderly, but the costs were too high.

12
Through regular visits by volunteers from the local Red Cross branch, they received
psychosocial support and practical assistance in contacting the authorities concerning
social assistance, pensions and health care.

During follow-up visits that were undertaken twice, it could be concluded that the
couple did not experience any security problems. The man had received identity
documents and pension, and had access to health care and necessary medicines. The
woman’s situation, however, was more problematic since she had not previously been
registered as a resident in Kosovo. This made it more difficult for her to get access to
pension benefits, social assistance and cost-free health care in Kosovo. Nevertheless,
the couple felt happy and had no plans to leave the country.

4.4 Follow-up

Out of the total of 235 cases registered by the project (see section 4.2.), 118
families/cases (328 persons) have returned to their countries of origin. Thirty-nine
families (150 persons) returned to Kosovo, twenty-five families (100 persons) to
Serbia and fifty-four families (78 persons) to northern Iraq. A majority of these cases
were classified by the Swedish Migration Board as so called “voluntary return”.

In-depth follow-up assessments were made of a limited number of families who had
returned to the three countries covered by the project. Most of them were contacted
twice, some three times.

These assessments included the following issues: security, livelihood, housing,

education, health care, social welfare and support received from the Red Cross, as
well as any other issue that the persons concerned wished to bring to our attention.

The follow-up has been viewed as a very important tool for assessing whether the
support provided has been adequate and also as a way for the Red Cross and Red
Crescent in countries of origin to identify any remaining needs. The results also shed
light on the quality and fairness of the Swedish asylum process.

During the project, 32 families were followed up, that is 102 persons including
children: Nine families (29 persons) from Kosovo, six families (31 persons) from
Serbia and seventeen families (42 persons) from northern Iraq.

In terms of security, no serious incidents were reported. It should be noted, however,

that several of the persons followed up in northern Iraq originated from other parts of
the country, e.g. Mosul and Kirkuk, to where they considered themselves unable to
return due to security concerns. Those returning to northern Iraq cited local traffic as
the main safety threat.

In Serbia, a family reported that they had been exposed to threats by a criminal group
when they returned, as it was believed that they were bringing money with them. The
majority of the returnees supported by the Red Cross were of Roma ethnicity, and
they experienced general discrimination at the same level as when they left the

13
country. Some were originally from Kosovo, to where they dared not return due to
security concerns.
Upon her return to Kosovo, a young woman was abused by her uncle. Other returnees
considered the general security situation to be unsatisfactory, but did not report to
personally having been threatened.

Overall, the main concerns expressed by those who had returned were lack of housing
and livelihood opportunities. Many were also in need of health care, and although all
persons followed up had access to health care, it was limited due to economic
constraints, in particular for those in need of specialised care.

While only a few returnees to northern Iraq were in immediate need of health care, all
but one of those returning to Kosovo needed extensive medical care, including
specialised care. In Serbia, several returnees were in need of basic medical care.

4.5 Activities in Sweden

To start working on issues related to return has been a major challenge. Many aspects
were new, both to the project team and to Red Cross staff and volunteers working
with asylum seekers and refugees.

However, initial trainings (step I) during the first year of the project resulted in an
increased awareness of the needs and constraints involved, and generated great
interest in learning more about counselling methods relevant to work with rejected
asylum seekers. These signals were of course very encouraging for the project team.
Visiting regional branches, holding trainings, and meeting volunteers and regional
refugee advisers, provided good opportunities for discussions and exchange of
experience, and for answering questions about the project. All of this was very
important in order for the project team to be able to give the right kind of support
within the organisation. It was also import to learn more about how each regional
branch is working with asylum seekers.

Additional training sessions (step II) during the second project year exposed an
increased commitment among the staff and volunteers participating. This could be due
to return-related activities having become a more “familiar” topic and a regular part of
assistance to asylum seekers. These trainings were also more practical and included
concrete examples, which usually led to questions, discussions and exchange of
experience. This further inspired the project team.

In early 2010, tangible results of the trainings could be observed when an increasing
number of regional refugee advisers and volunteers began to handle return cases and
registering them in the Red Cross case management system Reunit. They also
contacted the project team more frequently to ask for case support and to discuss other
return issues.

There is still some way to go until support to returnees will become a truly integral
part of Red Cross activities to protect and assist asylum seekers, but the most difficult
steps are now behind us.

14
Relations with the officers responsible at the Swedish Migration Board have been
very good. They were often the first to inform rejected asylum seekers about the
project. In some cases, where additional time was needed to arrange assistance in
countries of origin, they showed understanding and were willing to adjust the timing
of the return journey. This was crucial for those returning, especially considering that
it concerned individuals who needed much support to succeed in their reintegration.

The same goes for the police. It was not uncommon for police officers to be the ones
informing rejected asylum seekers about the project. Nevertheless, in most cases
handed over from the Migration Board to the police, it was the person concerned who
requested the Red Cross to contact the police officer responsible for her/his case. The
project’s experiences of working with these “police cases” are of great importance for
future action to assist returnees. In particular, it proved critical to be in close contact
with the police in cases involving particularly vulnerable returnees, such as sick and
elderly persons. The project team could monitor the police’s preparations and help
safeguard that return journeys were organised in way that assured both a humane and
dignified return and – equally important – a dignified reception in countries of origin.

The project team did not experience that it was a problem for any of the officers at the
Migration Board or the police to accept that the Red Cross only acts based on the
wishes of the individual or family concerned. Regrettably, however, there were
instances when the Red Cross was contacted by the police and where the police
officer responsible was unwilling to allow direct contact between the Red Cross and
the returnees. In these cases, the project was unable to provide support.

It is important to mention that the project team also had many contacts with private
persons, lawyers, priests, psychiatric staff and organisations engaged in individual
return cases. This did not involve only informing about the project, but also
discussing return more generally. Overall, the possibility of contacting the Red Cross
to receive support and answers to questions concerning return was considered very
positive. Many also appreciated that they could share their thoughts and their despair,
especially private persons helping rejected asylum seekers to stay in Sweden,
sometimes in hiding, and who had started to realize that the situation of the persons
they were trying to help had become untenable.

Moreover, it is clear that many consider that the Swedish Red Cross, as part of a
global network, should do more to support returnees and expand its services to
rejected asylum seekers from other countries than those covered by the project.

Being in contact with the project’s target group has been the most important part of
the return counsellors’ daily work. It has also been the most difficult part. Most of
these contacts were by telephone, some by personal visits. Telephone counselling was
very common during the first year of the project, when most cases were handled
directly by the return counsellors, due to Red Cross staff and volunteers working with
asylum seekers not yet having received the necessary training. Subsequently, more
and more return cases started to be initiated locally and handled by volunteers and
staff all over Sweden.

It is essential that rejected asylum seekers have the opportunity to meet someone from
the Red Cross to talk about their situation. Obviously, there are many persons whose

15
asylum applications have been rejected and who primarily want to get help to stay in
Sweden. However, once the Red Cross has analysed an individual asylum case and it
can be concluded that all possibilities to challenge the rejection have been exhausted,
the person(s) concerned become more receptive and open to talk about return.
Moreover, it appears that rejected asylum seekers feel more secure if they are
informed by an independent organisation about their options and about the support
available during the return process.

There is also a great need among the target group for more comprehensive
information about the return process. Despite the fact that rejected asylum seekers
receive information from the Migration Board officers handling their return cases,
knowledge gaps and misunderstandings are common. In particular, this concerns
information about possible consequences for the individual if she/he acts based on
poor or non-existent information. From the point of view of the Red Cross, it is not
about motivating a person to return, but above all to inform about the consequences of
the decisions that she/he might take, e.g. to remain in Sweden without regular status,
migrate to another country, comply with the obligation to return, or be (forcibly)
removed by the police.

Finally, it should be underlined that none of the returnees who were in contact with
the project found it strange that the Swedish Red Cross provides support during the
return process. For many, it was only natural to turn to the Red Cross to ask for
assistance when preparing to return home to their countries of origin.

4.6 Activities in countries of origin

It is increasingly clear that there is a need for reintegration strategies in countries of

origin, if return is to be sustainable. It is also evident that such a strategy must be
implemented in cooperation between different stakeholders, both in host countries and
in countries of origin. Obviously, the public authorities in the country of origin bear
the primary responsibility for its returning citizens. However, in the light of past
difficulties and a present post-conflict situation in many countries of origin, and
taking into account the mutual interest of ensuring sustainable return, it should be
reasonable to consider the returnees’ well-being a shared responsibility.

During the past two years, the project team had the privilege of working together with
other components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in three countries
origin, although as regards Serbia cooperation was limited. In Serbia, the project
primarily worked together with the Ecumenical Humanitarian Organization, and given
that the majority the returnees supported by project were of Roma ethnicity, this
proved effective as the organisation is specialised on Roma and their situation.

The project team also investigated the possibilities of expanding return-related

services to include persons returning to southern and central Iraq. While not presented
in the present report, the results of this work will be taken into account in the further
development of support to returning migrants.

It is important to point out that providing support to persons returning from western
Europe was a new activity for the Red Cross and Red Crescent in the concerned

16
countries of origin, and it should be acknowledged that it was initially viewed with
scepticism. Gradually, however, it was recognized that having been an asylum seeker
is not a guarantee against vulnerability after return. The time is past – if it ever was
the case – when returnees brought with them significant resources. Yet, there are of
course those returning who cope very well on their own after return and,
consequently, do not belong to the target group of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

It is also apparent that, despite belonging to the same global network, the components
of the Movement work in different ways in different countries. This sometimes led to
misunderstandings, but in general relations were characterized by good will and a
focus on problem-solving.

Essential tasks for the Red Cross and Red Crescent have been to identify existing
needs and the capacity of the components of the Movement to respond to those needs,
as well as to identify other relevant stakeholders and create networks to maximize the
effectiveness of the support provided in the reintegration process.

As mentioned earlier, the authorities of a country bear the primary responsibility for
its citizens and for meeting their needs. In cases where the public authorities have not
fulfilled their responsibilities, it has been considered necessary to undertake advocacy
work to bring their attention to the vulnerability many returnees are exposed to.

17
5. International outlook
Migration is a global phenomenon. It is by no means a recent occurrence, and the
concept may be viewed as a generic term for movements between areas, regions and
countries. Naturally, migration involves many different aspects. On aspect of
migration is return, which is a term that indicates a prior movement to somewhere. In
the context of the project, it concerns persons who have applied for asylum and who,
after having had their applications rejected, have to return to their countries of origin.

What can be said to be at least relatively new, however, is the increasingly close
cooperation between States on how to handle return migration.

In the European Union, the Return Directive provides a common framework for the
return and removal process1. Moreover, in the Stockholm Programme, the following
intention can be noted: “In order to create a comprehensive approach on return and
readmission, it is necessary to step up cooperation with the countries of origin and of
transit within the framework of the Global Approach to Migration and in line with the
Pact on Migration and Asylum, while recognising that all States are required to
readmit their own nationals who are staying illegally on the territory of another
State”. There is also a clear focus on the need for the EU and its Member States to
encourage so called “voluntary return, including through the development of incentive
systems, training, reintegration and subsidies”2.

The issue of return is also a current topic within the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement. Migrants are a large and important target group when the
Movement, in accordance with its mission to “prevent and alleviate human suffering
wherever it may be found …” is working to develop methods and support that reduces
the vulnerability of persons in vulnerable situations.

In the fall of 2009, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies adopted a comprehensive Policy on Migration, which should be used as a
tool when working with and for vulnerable persons who are at different stages of the
migration process. One of the principles of the policy highlights the return stage of
migration. It is important, however, to note that the Red Cross and Red Crescent is
not focusing on the concept of return as such, nor its forms. The starting point is
always the individual and her/his needs in a specific situation.

Policy Principle 8: Assist Migrants in Return

”Return to the place of origin is not the necessary end or solution of

migration. Migrants may prefer to stay where they are, for an extended period
or permanently. While providing counselling and informing migrants about
their options, National Societies cannot and shall not decide what solution is
the best, and must at all times maintain their impartiality, neutrality and

1
DIRECTIVE 2008/115/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16
December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying
third-country nationals (2008)
2
The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, Council
of the European Union, 17024/09 (2009)

18
 independence. When migrants do return they face particular challenges; to
assist and protect them, cooperation and agreement between National
Societies in countries of destination and return is essential.”3

During 18 months, ending in the summer of 2009, a number of National Red Cross
Societies implemented a community action project, the European Red Cross Return
Initiative (ERCRI). The project aimed at surveying on-going return-related activities
within and beyond the Red Cross in the EU and at strengthening cooperation between
existing stakeholders (primarily within the Movement). Importantly, it recommended
continued cooperation, including through joint operational pilot projects, and
proposed a so called “best practice model” for work with returning migrants.4

Dialogue and cooperation between different stakeholders, both nationally and

internationally, must be viewed as a vital part of efforts to develop strategies that,
from a humanitarian perspective, give people a fair chance to live in dignity, before
and after return.

3
Policy on Migration, Principle 8, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(2009)
4
European Red Cross Return Initiative – A study on how to support sustainable return in safety and
dignity, Swedish Red Cross (2009)

19
6. Final discussion
The Swedish Red Cross has since a long time had a well-articulated objective of its
return-related activities: “Asylum seekers who are deported against their will should
have the opportunity to return in safe and dignified conditions”.

How do we go about it to achieve this objective?

There is much to consider before activities are initiated. Should the Swedish Red
Cross provide support during the return process? Would we risk being perceived as
acting on behalf of the public authorities? How would such activities be perceived by
asylum seekers and other migrants? Is it possible to assist a migrant returning to
her/his country of origin, while at the same time publicly stating that we consider it
unsafe to return to that particular country?

How should activities be organised? What kind of support is needed? What types of
action can be undertaken by the Red Cross and Red Crescent?

Based on previous experiences of working with returning migrants as well as the

Swedish Red Cross’ daily contact with asylum seekers, it was concluded that there
was a need for a more structured approach to achieve the agreed objective.

The Swedish Red Cross therefore decided to develop and implement the project
Information Network for Return to Northern Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo.

Accordingly, it is the role of the Swedish Red Cross to assist and protect returning
migrants by providing support and advice, should they request our help.

Our point of departure is the individual and her/his needs. This also means that the
Swedish Red Cross may well be of the opinion that return should not be enforced to a
certain country, while at the same time responding to the humanitarian needs of a
person who is obliged to return and who requests our assistance in the return process.

At all times, it is crucial to be clear about the role of the Red Cross when working
with and for returnees – vis-à-vis asylum seekers and other migrants, public
authorities, as well as other stakeholders.

We cannot say that all rejected asylum seekers consider it self-evident that the Red
Cross should provide return-related support and advice. However, none of the
returnees who were in contact with the project expressed any negative views about it
– on the contrary, many voiced their approval. This is how one person put it: “If it has
to happen, I’m glad the Red Cross is there, it feels more secure.”

Monitoring and follow-up after return is of utmost importance, partly as a way of

assessing the quality and fairness of the Swedish asylum process, and partly because it
is seen as very positive by those who have returned, as it shows that someone cares
about what happens to them.

20
The present project aimed at providing support and advice to rejected asylum seekers
and at assisting them in the reintegration process, as well as at developing methods
and approaches for future Swedish Red Cross action to assist returnees.

While it can be concluded that there is a real and pressing need for support during the
return process, we are nevertheless surprised by the great interest shown in the
project. It is difficult to determine the reasons behind this, but a factor that comes into
play could well be the increasingly clear signal from the Swedish authorities that very
few persons from the countries concerned can expect to be granted a residence permit.
Furthermore, it is possible that the actual availability of support is another factor, in
particular the possibility to contact the Red Cross and Red Crescent in countries of
origin, which is likely to create a sense of security. In many ways, the Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement can serve as a bridge between countries, thanks to its local
presence in countries of origin and the special status it enjoys in many countries.

Developing return-related activities, with a view to help ensuring that rejected asylum
seekers have the opportunity to return in safe and dignified conditions, can perhaps
best be described as a journey sometimes characterized by rapidly travelled stretches,
at other times by frequent stops as well as the occasional uphill slope.

It takes time to create new platforms and tools that can be used to reduce the
vulnerability of a group of people who often find themselves in an extremely
vulnerable situation. The journey is not yet over, but we have come a long way and
are looking forward with confidence to the next steps.

With these concluding words we would like to thank all those who have contributed
to achieving the objective of our joint efforts: “Asylum seekers who are deported
against their will should have the opportunity to return in safe and dignified
conditions”.

For more information about the project Information Network for Return to Northern
Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo, please contact the Swedish Red Cross, International Law
and Refugee Department.

21
This is the Red Cross
• The Red Cross is an organisation above politics and religion
represented in 186 countries.
• The Red Cross mission is to prevent and alleviate human suffering
– wherever it exists.

This is what you can do

• Become a Red Cross volunteer. Spare some of your time.
• Become a Red Cross member by sending 200 SEK
to the giro no. 900-8004.
Please don’t forget to fill in your name and address.
• Make a monthly contribution, www.redcross.se
• Make a donation by using the giro account no. 900-8004.
• Enrol your company in Red Cross work.
• Your last will can save lives.
Make the Swedish Red Cross a beneficiary.

Please contact our head office for more information.

We will be pleased to help you.

Swedish Red Cross, head office

P.O. Box 17563 | SE-118 91 Stockholm
Visiting adress: Hornsgatan 54
Phone: +46 (0) 8-452 46 00 | Fax+46 (0) 8-452 46 01
E-mail: info@redcross.se | Visit our website: www.redcross.se
22