Ashraf iraq camp where is

When is the camp going to be able to accept them? Or is this first sort of a test group? We believe that the first are ready to move soon. But under the circumstances, we think that the should move as soon as possible, and this should be followed up by more moves. There are issues of how the new facility will run.

Some of these issues were addressed in the MOU. But in reality, they can be worked out on the ground. So we very much hope that as many people will move out as fast as can be accommodated. The first is a good start; it needs to be followed up. I understand in the past there was some demands on the part of the Camp Ashraf or MEK that they be done in groups, that they want inaudible all go together.

What can you — just walk us through what the current understanding is of how and where they might go? We are very glad that they decided to do so. So they have done the right thing by working with Ambassador Kobler. We know of only two left there, but we — there could be more. If they send out those with the strongest ties, those will be the easiest to move out of Iraq. Move — our view is move those who can most easily move. There are — in terms of numbers, there are a lot of unknowns.

But if you start with a topline of 3, people, there is — you have to subtract the number of people who may have left. Then you take away the number of people with citizenship or strong compelling ties to foreign countries. Then you — what you have left is the group which will be interviewed individually for refugee status by the UNHCR. And for reasons having to do with history and the history of the MEK in Iraq, there was no way that the Government of Iraq was going to allow a Camp Ashraf to exist as it was.

So for those reasons, this move is critical to start the process in earnest. Have you offered them anything? Like, will it be easier for them to get off the terrorism list if they cooperate?

They had the full engagement of the U. Embassy in Ambassador Jeffrey. They had the strong interest of Secretary Clinton and other senior people in the U. And I think they realized that now was the time to deal seriously. That apparently, as it has been explained to me by those very familiar with American immigration laws, is not true.

We will — the United States will look at people at Camp Ashraf or future Camp — those who will be at former Camp Liberty on a case-by-case basis. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right of every individual to seek asylum in another country, but it is the responsibility of states to determine whether or not an individual is granted asylum.

It is in the interest of the camp residents to move to a place where they can be safe and accepted and resume normal lives. It is in the interest of the Iraqi government to close the camp, to find a solution in which the residents leave the country, and to assert control over its territory. It is in the interest of the United Nations to find a fair and rapid solution for the camp residents, to ensure that international standards are upheld, and to be seen as a useful and impartial actor by the Iraqi, US and Iranian governments.

Finally, it is in the interest of the Iranian government to find a resolution to Camp Ashraf. No government is comfortable with a group of dissidents close to its border and who in the past have launched military attacks across that border. Resolving the situation would remove this irritant and would perhaps open the doors to closer relations with Iraq.

So, what does it take to resolve the situation? Although the terminology differs, under the international refugee system, there are three possible durable solutions. These durable solutions, in refugee terminology, are: voluntary return in safety and in dignity , local integration, or resettlement in a third country. A fourth solution, keeping people alive in some kind of camps or legal uncertainty is unfortunately used in many refugee situations, but it is not a durable solution.

Different situations have been resolved through different combinations of solutions. Our present refugee regime is based on the Refugee Convention and the Protocol which has been signed by Iran but not Iraq , the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which is mandated to protect and assist refugees and 60 years of policies and practices which have supported solutions.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that given the extraordinary politicization of Camp Ashraf, if durable solutions are to be found, the situation needs to be de-politicized by relying on multilateral actors applying internationally-recognized standards and practices.

The system is set up to be fair and impartial. Regardless of the political views of a particular group of asylum-seekers, determination of refugee status is based on whether or not a person satisfies the criteria in the Convention and Protocol which is whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five specified reasons: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. If a person is found to be a refugee, then solutions need to be found which will protect him or her.

If a person is found not to be a refugee, then the government of the state where he or she resides should respect the basic rights of the individual to life and security of person while in the country but has the right to deport that person to the country of origin.

If a person is excluded from being considered as a refugee, under article 1F of the Refugee Convention, for having committed serious crimes, he or she should continue to be protected under international human rights law.

However, it should be noted that in article 33 [2], an exception is possible in the event that the individual is considered as a danger to the security of the country. The present situation is complicated by the fact that the residents of Camp Ashraf have not been determined to be refugees. They have not gone through a process to determine whether they meet the definition of the Convention.

Iraq is not a signatory to the Convention and although it has a responsibility not to refoule people from its territory to a country where their lives might be in danger, the Iraqi government is not legally bound to set up an asylum system or to allow the foreign residents of Camp Ashraf to remain on its territory.

In situations where governments whether signatories to the Convention or not do not have asylum systems, UNHCR has often played the role in refugee status determination.

And there are cases, such as Turkey, where UNHCR determines whether or not an individual is a refugee under the Convention, and the host government insists that people found to be refugees will not be allowed to remain in Turkey but must be resettled elsewhere. In other words, for a government which is not a party to the Refugee Convention, determination of refugee status does not mean that the government has a responsibility to allow people found to be refugees to remain in its territory.

Earlier this year deadly attacks were launched against Camp Liberty. On 15 June Camp Liberty, now home to more than Iranian exiles, came under rocket attack. Two residents were killed and dozens were wounded. An earlier rocket attack on Camp Liberty on 9 February left eight residents dead and scores wounded. No effective investigations are known to have been conducted into either attack. A leader of the Mukhtar Army, a Shi'a militia, has told the media on several occasions that his group was responsible for attacks on Camp Liberty.

Despite these admissions, no effective measures to prevent possible attacks by the Mukhtar Army against the Iranian exiles are known to have been taken by the Iraqi authorities.

After the March US-led invasion of Iraq the Camp and its residents were placed under US protection but this ended in mid following an agreement between the US authorities and the Iraqi government. Barely a month later, on July , Iraqi security forces stormed the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured.

Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. The troops used excessive force, including live ammunition, against the residents who tried to resist them.