Threats to human rights are always a massive challenge for societies, but above all for lawyers, who are defenders and those on the front line of a fight to protect rights and liberties. Particularly nowadays in Poland lawyers undertake massive actions to help our Ukrainian friends. You may read the information on actions performed by the Polish National Bar of Attorneys-at-law below. But lawyers must also act in cases that are against public opinion. That was the case when European lawyers helped refugees on the Greek islands during the 2015 migration crisis. The same issue was repeated last year when Polish lawyers stood for the rights of migrants and refugees used by the Belorussian regime to destabilise the Polish Eastern border. We strongly encourage you to read the below interview with lawyers from the Białystok Bar of Attorneys-at-Law engaged in legal aid for people stuck between Belarus and Poland. Janusz Trochimiak Jakub Ławniczak Magdalena Bartosiewicz Why did you get involved in helping people in the border area with Belarus? We simply did not consider any other possibility. Protecting human rights is the essence of our craft, and it applies equally to a resident of the border town of Grodek as it does to a foreigner crossing the border illegally. To a certain extent, this decision was also influenced by the specifics of my practice, which is primarily concentrated in border areas (and this translated into a pretty good grasp of the situation – significantly different from that apparent from the limited media coverage). We were also fortunate to meet people very involved in the work of the Border Group quite early on. What does this assistance consist of? The assistance has proved to be multi-faceted. Contrary to popular belief, it does not consist of wandering through the forest searching for people who are then handed power of attorney to represent them before the competent authorities. We are taking a very subjective approach to people caught up in the current border crisis. And it has to be said that they often did not want to be assisted. Therefore, these are activities in direct contact with foreigners, such as explaining: procedures, legal situations, and possible courses of action. But representation in cases with direct contact is significantly more complex (also due to the epidemic) before the Border Guard, the Office for Foreigners, and the Courts. Finally, it also included applying to the European Court of Human Rights with complaints and requests for interim measures. We focused on ensuring that refugees can enter the procedure related to granting international protection. It turned out – as in 2015 – that this is usually very difficult, if not unrealistic, due to the policy of intensive use of the procedure referred to in Article 303b of the Aliens Act (push back) and unjustified refusal to accept applications for protection by Border Guard officers – even at border crossings (vide the Kuźnica case). Such a choice of priorities turned out to be particularly important in winter when even a short stay in the forest posed a real threat to health and led to the loss of life by foreigners in a dozen or so cases. Therefore, we quickly noticed that the procedures described in the law do not work or work in a way that significantly limits foreigners’ rights. We began the practice of applying to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for an interim measure that the Court may order under Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure before a formal complaint is filed. I can say that this is currently the only legal measure that suspends (and de facto excludes) the possibility of applying the legally and ethically questionable so-called push back procedure described in Article 303b of the Aliens Act (introduced into the legal order on 26 October 2021) Do you cooperate with other persons or organisations? If so, in what way? We are working with the ‘Border Group’, which is probably a well-known informal group of NGOs currently involved on the border. It is striking to see the picture of the group that is painted in the mass media favourable to the authorities. On Friday (4 February 2022), We read in one of the articles that it is an “anti-government organisation”. Such a narrative has nothing to do with the subject of activity of the affiliated organisations and independent activists. Our cooperation evolved as the crisis at the border continued. The first engagement period – August / September 2021 – consisted of providing legal advice to people active in these organisations and assisting in formulating letters to public administration bodies. With time, it was more structured work accepting specific cases (including administrative and court cases) for legal services. Cooperation in coordinating the collection of information and sending applications to the European Court of Human Rights on their basis and then providing refugees with a formal opportunity to apply for protection is crucial. Sometimes I use analyses prepared by migration specialists working for these organisations (e.g., information on the situation in a particular country of origin of foreigners). How do the police and border authorities deal with this activity? What is the experience of both of you? If we talk about the procedure in specific cases, including direct contact with the officers in charge, we cannot, in general, have reservations. In principle, personal communication at branch offices or access to clients apprehended by border guards has not been obstructed (we ignore the COVID-19-related conditions). There have been instances of obstruction by officers, but we believe this was due to a lack of relevant training rather than a lack of friendliness. The evaluation of our work, however, sometimes varied. But even when there were attempts to question the attorney’s role (most often, it concerned the circumstances of granting a power of attorney), a calm conversation and argumentation made it possible to come to a constructive agreement. […]
