This website uses cookies to enhance user experience.

By continuing to use this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Debunking recent statements by Cypriot Deputy Minister of Migration, Dr. Nicholas Ioannides

10.03.2017 Statements




Recent public statements by the Deputy Minister of Migration of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Nicholas Ioannidis, suggest a systemic breach of the principle of non-refoulement and the right to seek asylum in Cyprus. These remarks were made in response to a recent pushback incidents on the 9th and 10th of May involving two boats carrying 62 individuals, who were forcibly returned to Syria. These incidents mark a geographic extension of Cyprus’s ongoing pushback practices previously directed to Lebanon and already ruled illegal in the case of M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus. Everyone has the right to seek asylum, which requires that their individual claims be thoroughly assessed before any return or removal. Pushbacks are illegal because they constitute collective expulsions, denying people the opportunity to have their protection needs examined. 

The Deputy Minister’s statements reflect and reinforce a broader policy characterized by a lack of transparency, the absence of individual assessment, and the systematic denial of access to asylum procedures. These are accompanied by justifications that blatantly disregard core principles of international and EU law.

1. Claim: A reactivated bilateral agreement on search and rescue justifies returns to Syria 

“In the context of two [recent] search and rescue operations [...] the Cyprus-Syria bilateral agreement on search and rescue was activated so that the authorities of the two states can cooperate, coordinate their efforts for the safe rescue and disembarkation of those rescued.”

This claim is misleading: no bilateral agreement can override international and EU obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. The text of the agreement has not been made public, undermining transparency, accountability, and legal scrutiny.

 2. Claim: International law requires rescue and safe disembarkation, but not asylum processing

“The International Conventions provide for an obligation of states to rescue people from danger at sea. But they do not provide that the rescuing state must accept them into its territory. [...] While an inflatable boat is sinking, we will not deal with an asylum claim at that time. We will save people.”

This claim is incorrect: search and rescue operations do not eliminate the state’s duty to process asylum claims. Saving lives cannot be used as a pretext to deny access to protection. This reflects a flawed humanitarianism vs. human rights logic: rescue without rights.

3. Claim: the two pushbacks do not constitute violations of the European Convention of Human Rights because they took place in international waters

“Under international law, the rescuing country has no obligation to take the rescued into its territory. The rescue took place further closer to the Syrian coast. So under the agreement for the search and rescue, the disembarkation had to take place at the nearest safe port. [...] international law and international jurisprudence [...] says that return takes place when a person is within the territory of a state and is removed either to another state or, if at sea, to the sea, where his or her life is in danger. This did not happen. Because no life was endangered

This claim is incorrect: under ECtHR case law (Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy), if a state exercises effective control over individuals, even outside its territory, it bears legal responsibility. In this case, Cypriot authorities intercepted and transferred the individuals, making it a clear instance of refoulement. 

4. Claim: All Returned Individuals Were Men

“The latest arrivals from Syria [...] are single Sunni men. [...] I know they were men. I certainly know that one [boat] were men.”

This claim is discriminatory: asylum rights apply to everyone, regardless of gender. The fact that the individuals were men has no legal bearing on their right to seek protection. This argument is discriminatory and legally irrelevant.

The current policy direction of Cyprus suggests a deliberate and systematic effort to undermine international protection. The use of secretive agreements, militarized language, and discriminatory justifications for mass expulsions is incompatible with Cyprus’ obligations under international and regional legal frameworks.

We call on Cypriot authorities to refrain from engaging in misleading and untruthful statements that aim to cover up their failure to genuinely consider their obligations under international law.

End pushbacks now!

Signatories