3.4 Analysis and conclusions based on the interviews
76. As noted above, 24 people were interviewed in the course of the research.96 This section
outlines some of the conclusions that can be drawn from the information collected in
these interviews.
77. The interviewees originated from countries that particularly appear to shun responsibility
for some of their nationals or people with former habitual residence on their territory. The
risk groups identified in this way largely overlap with the people who proved statistically
speaking most likely to be stateless.97 Only one of the 24 people interviewed was actually
registered as stateless in the GBA and only a handful were designated as “nationality
unknown”. All the others were simply living invisible lives. Taking the commonalities between
statistics and practice into account, there is nevertheless no immediate reason to doubt
how representative the statistical data available is. The interviews do confirm, however, that
a significant percentage of stateless people stay completely “under the radar”.
78. People from the following backgrounds emerged as regularly stateless or unreturnable
from both quantitative and qualitative sources: Roma (mainly from former Yugoslavia),
ex-citizens of the former Soviet Union, Palestinians, and people of Sudanese, Somali,
West African (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone), Burundian, Ethiopian, and Chinese
backgrounds. Each of these origins is represented by at least one, but generally two,
respondents.98 Though not demonstrated to be at significant risk statistically speaking, two
people with roots in Surinam were also interviewed, due to the direct Dutch responsibility
for their statelessness and the historical ties between the two countries.
79. Various issues, both procedural and practical, revolve around the most pervasive and
disturbing problem experienced by all but four of the interviewees: the incidence of
lengthy, repeated, and hopeless periods of detention. As the UN Secretary-General has
noted: “Stateless persons are also uniquely vulnerable to prolonged detention and States
should be sensitized to respect the rights of stateless persons to be free from arbitrary
detention as a result of their stateless status.”99 The interviews undertaken in the course of
this research show that this appears to be the case in the Netherlands, as it is in a number
of other countries including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.100 Every
year approximately 8,000–10,000 people are being held in alien detention facilities in
the Netherlands.101 About 20 per cent of these people (1,575 individuals according to
Amnesty International) were in custody for more than six months.102 How many people
34
96
or information on the selection criteria for interviews, see section 1.3 Demographic and legal
F
methodology above. Further information about the interviews is contained in a version of this report
to be published independently by the consultants.
97
nly Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo appear statistically relevant, but were not
O
mentioned by any of the law firms or NGOs as of particular significance.
98
Due to time constraints was impossible to speak to respondents of Chinese origin.
99
UN Secretary-General, Guidance Note of the Secretary-General: The United Nations and
Statelessness, June 2011, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e11d5092.html
[accessed 9 October 2011], p. 6.
100
qual Rights Trust, “Unraveling Anomaly: Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of
E
Stateless Persons”, chapter 4.
101
ienst Justitiële Inrichtingen (Ministerie van Justitie), “Vreemdelingenbewaring in getal. 2005-2009”,
D
(2010).
102
mnesty International, “Vreemdelingendetentie: In strijd met mensenrechten (updated version)”,
A
(2010), 12.
Mapping statelessness