Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
The testimony of the witness, Ms. LUZ MIRIAM JARAMILLIO, is respectfully offered in
order to prove the following:
a.) The personal circumstances of Ms. Luz Miriam Jaramillio, her qualifications as
chairperson of the IMA Europe section and knoledge of the plight of migrants in
Europe.
c.) The manner how Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) has
further encouraged the criminalization and violations of the rights of undocumented
migrants in Europe through the European Union (EU) Return Directive.
It is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Tribunal admit this Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Luz
Miriam Jaramillio as the Direct Examination of the witness in order to expedite the
proceedings.
With the kind permission of the Honorable Tribunal.
1. Good day, Mme. Witness, for the record, please state your name and other
personal circumstances.
A: I, LUZ MIRIAM JARAMILLIO, Colombian, of legal age, for the purpose of this
action, utilizing the address of our counsel, Panel of Peoples Prosecutors, from the
International Association of Peoples Lawyers (IAPL) and National Union of Peoples
Lawyers (NUPL) at c/o 3rd Floor, Erythrina Bldg. Matatag cor. Maaralin Streets, Quezon
City, Philippines.
I come originally from Colombia but was forced to migrate to Italy to work. Now, I am a
migrant worker in Rome. I am also a migrant organizer and advocate. I am a member of
Comitato Italy, an alliance of several migrant organizations in Italy. I am also the
Chairperson of the International Migrants Alliance (IMA) Europe Section.
2. Mme. Witness, you mentioned a while ago that you are the Chairperson of the IMA
Europe Section. Do you recall if you have executed any document in relation to this case
in your capacity as such Chairperson?
A: Yes, I do.
4. Your Honors, we respectfully manifest that the witness handed a document entitled
Judicial Affidavit.
Mme. Witness, what relation does this document have with the document entitled Judicial
Affidavit you mentioned earlier?
5. On the last page of this Judicial Affidavit there appears a typewritten name LUZ
MIRIAM JARAMILLIO, and above the said typewritten name is a signature. Whose
signature is this that appears above the name Luz Miriam Jaramillio?
A: It is mine.
We also respectfully move, Your Honors, that the Honorable Tribunal mark the Judicial
Affidavit and the succeeding pages as Exhibits A to A-8 for the prosecution and the
signature of the Witness as Exhibit A-9.
Now, Mme. Witness, as Chairperson of the IMA Europe Section, can you tell us what you
know about the situation of migrants in Europe?
6. What details can you tell us about the European Union Return Directive, Mme.
Witness?
The measure took effect beginning January of 2010. Britain, Ireland and Denmark opted
not to bind themselves with the measure.
The return directive adopted a two-step approach: first, a deportation decision is made
and immediately followed with a voluntary departure period, and, second, if the deportee
does not leave, a removal order is issued. The directive has a maximum period of
detention of six months, extendable to 12 months. It imposes a re-entry ban of five years
maximum if the person is deported after the voluntary return period has expired, or longer
if the individual represents a serious threat to public safety.
The EU has set aside 676 million (US$1.1 billion) to implement the deportations,
including financing legal aid.
The return directive, which took years in the planning, is the first of three directives
integrating immigration policies in the EU. Two more directives awaiting approval with
the EU Parliament include: measures to promote skilled workers legal immigration (the
so-called 'Blue Card' directive) and another directive that would punish employers of illegal
immigrants, thus discouraging clandestine work. The 'Blue Card' directive was already also
ratified.
7. What are the reactions of the concerned and affected groups on the European
Union Return Directive?
A: The return directive, having large support from right-wing groups and politicians,
has generated so much condemnation not only from concerned migrant organizations and
advocates, but also from international organizations and progressive political leaders.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour criticized the new regulations,
saying EU countries would do better at ratifying the UN convention on the rights of
migrant workers. Amnesty International assailed the text adopted for not guaranteeing the
return of irregular migrants in safety and dignity. Greens civil liberties spokesperson
Kathalijne Buitenweg said the European Parliament had adopted a law that goes far
"below acceptable standards of civilization."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, Bolivia's President
Evo Morales, Brazil and Uruguay have issued strong statements condemning the EU
Return Directive describing it a hatred initiative and called for its repeal as it attacks
people's lives and rights.
Wilfredo Ardito, director of the Peruvian human rights group Aprodeh, said that It seems
sort of two-faced for European countries to talk about fighting poverty, and then treat
migrant workers like criminals.
Carlos Alvarez, the president of the Mercosur trade bloc grouping Argentina, Brazil,
Uruguay, and Paraguay, said the EU should remember the past, when millions of
Europeans came to our countries victims of hunger, war, injustice and totalitarian regimes,
and were assimilated with no problems whatsoever.
The concern of these Latin American leaders on the return directive does not simply
involve the human rights of undocumented workers, but that the remittances sent back to
poor countries in the region, such as Ecuador and Bolivia, are an important source of
income.
8. What are the reasons for the widespread condemnation of the European Union
Return Directive?
A: Our condemnation of the return directive are summarized and based on the
following reasons:
b) that the EU refuses to understand the fundamental reasons for the forced
migration of many, not only in the EU but also in other countries of the world.
Among these reasons are the economic, political and social conflicts in the countries
of origin of migrants, particularly the economic impositions of the advanced
capitalist countries that cause and exacerbate poverty, hunger, landlessness,
unemployment, economic and financial crises in many oppressed and
underdeveloped countries which in turn breed unbridled forced migration and
displacement of peoples in the world. These conditions leave the people of
oppressed and underdeveloped countries poverty-stricken and persecuted, without
any option: migrate or leave their country and family in order to gain safety and
survive.
c) the EU does not take into account the contribution to the economies in Europe of
these overstayers, who take on legal jobs that common European nationals don't
take on anymore, such as cleaning, care-giving and such other jobs that are
considered dirty, demeaning and dangerous.
d) many of these undocumented migrants send home money they earn that help
support their families and the economies of their home countries.
e) these undocumented migrants, in general, are law-abiding and live quiet lives
and are willing to fulfill their legal and social duties and responsibilities. Their
aspiration is to be recognized and regularized so they can continue to earn their
living without any threat of expulsion.
9. Can you explain to us the framework of the EU Return Directive and of the GFMD's
thrust to manage migration?
A: The EU Return Directive or the forced removal of the undocumented was in the
making has long ago using the framework of managing migration flow to the EU. This is
the same language that the framers and promoters of the GFMD commonly used. Host
countries can manage, use and dispose of Migrants like any commodity.
10. What are the effects of the European Union Return Directive, if you know, Mme.
Witness?
Today, there is a virtual news blackout in the European media on the deportations in
implementation of the directive. Very few incidents are able to trickle into the newsrooms.
But by word of mouth, we learn of the quiet deportations happening around us. In the
Netherlands, for instance, hundreds from Indonesia, Africa and the Philippines were
already reportedly deported. The immigration police allegedly has a quota. Circles of
friends would usually learn that a colleague had already been deported when he/she has
become a desaparecido, missing from work and the community. Very few are able to
contact their relatives and friends and some advocate groups once in the hands of the
immigration police and under detention.
11. Can you give the Honorable Tribunal an overview of the situation of undocumented
migrants in Europe?
A: It was not because of fate that the first GFMD was held in Europe (Brussels 2007)
at the time the EU was in the midst of finalizing the grand European imperialist design of
managing migration through the EU Return Directive and other similar measures.
Architects of imperialist globalization in Europe have in fact already timelined it. The GFMD
was concocted purportedly as a forum to discuss migration and development, but is in fact
designed to follow the monopoly capitalist design of imperialist globalization and managing
migration, and maximize the development benefits of migration and migration flows.
It should not come as a surprise that the GFMD's Steering Group,3 composed of
governments that are firmly committed to offer sustained political and conceptual support
to the Forum process and to the Chair-in-Office, and to ensure continuity of the process,
includes the biggest and most powerful imperialist powers on the planet, and governments
that have long passed-on their citizens as commodities for export, exploitation and abuse
abroad in exchange for cash.
Even before the EU Return Directive, most European governments that are consistent in
promoting the GFMD, have implemented the worst policies against migrants in general
and the undocumented in particular, the government of Mr. Sutherland, Britain, is no
exception, despite opting to be exempted from implementing the directive. The
governments belonging to the EU in the GFMD, have not taken decisive measures to give
justice to the 15,181 victims of fortress Europe, or to publicly commit to prevent future
loss of lives, but instead are now vigorously promoting the forced removal of the
undocumented. Not that forced removals or deportations were not implemented before in
the EU, but that the return directive merely integrates all the initiatives of the EU countries
on deportations, making it more systematic and efficient, and under a stronger legislative
3
The Steering Group is comprised of governments that are firmly committed to offer sustained political and conceptual
support to the Forum process and to the Chair-in-Office, and to ensure continuity of the process. As the Forum evolved
from its inception in 2007, the membership of the Steering Group has also changed. Starting with only about 20
governments in Brussels, the GFMD Steering Group is now comprised of 37 governments, namely:
Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India,
Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic
of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom, and the United States of America.
cover.
Thus, since 2007 when the GFMD started in Brussels and then Manila, Athens, Mexico and
Switzerland, no one among the state representatives from the EU nor anyone among the
pliant civil society office-based groups ever raised a howl about the EU Return Directive
and the plight of the undocumented migrants in the forum that is the GFMD. State-
funded development agencies excluded and starved of financial assistance those
grassroots-based migrant and refugee organizations and groups truly fighting for the
rights and welfare of migrants and refugees so that they cannot participate in the GFMD
so as to allow the promotion of the agenda of the big businesses and enterprises.
14. What actions have the affected peoples undertaken in countering the GFMD?
In a conference that Christian churches initiated on the monitoring of forced returns and
deportations in Europe held in 2007 in Germany, figures and actual cases revealed the
inhuman extent of the forcible removals of undocumented migrants in Europe, including
several reported deaths in the hands of the immigration police. In 2006, for instance,
there were 11,000 deported from Spain, 12,000 from France and 13,000 from Germany.
And this was before the EU Return Directive. The Brussels-based PICUM (Platform for
International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants) offers up-to-date information and
resources on the undocumented, including monitoring deportations.
15. Lastly, Mme. Witness, what are your Pleas and Demands as the representative of
Migrants and Refugees?
A: As migrants and refugees, we plead in unison and strongly demand that
this International Migrants Tribunal declare the GFMD obsolete and useless to
the cries and plight and struggle of us, migrants and refugees. Because of its
defeaning silence on the criminalization, detention and deportation of the
undocumented in Europe and on the EU Return Directive, the GFMD is guilty of
promoting the anti-migrant, anti-refugee and anti-people imperialist
framework of managing migration for the maximum profit of the monopoly
capitalists. Because of its inaction on the serious violations of the rights and
welfare of migrants and refugees, particularly the undocumented, the GFMD is
guilty of violating the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights
and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. The GFMD and the EU Return Directive are imperialist
sugar-coating for the massive violations of the human rights of undocumented
migrants and refugees.
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 28th day of November 2012, in Quezon City.
I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant; that she has voluntarily, knowingly
and intelligently executed the foregoing and that she fully understands it contents.
ADMINISTERING OFFICER