CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

BIRUTĖ PRANEVIČIENĖ – VIOLETA VASILIAUSKIENĖ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ Another aspect that is faced by any ship participating in search and rescue in the Mediterranean is not directly related to legal status but to the human rights and the well- being of the rescuers and those working on first assistance and reception. Such work has high risks, causes much stress and requires long hours of service, therefore, there is a significant risk of burnout, 32 which may hurt the rescuer as well as the rescued persons. Taking into account this factor, coastal states (in the case of the Central Mediterranean route, mostly Italy and Malta), EU institutions coordinating the Triton and EUNAVFOR mission Sophia, and the NGOs operating should pay attention to this fact and make available psychological support services and also enable the shipmasters to recognize such situations and have tools to support crew members involved in stressful or traumatic situations. 33 Disembarkment of Rescued Persons and Human Rights Issues SAR convention stipulates that “the rescue co-ordination centre or rescue sub-centre concerned shall initiate the process of identifying the most appropriate place(s) for disembarking persons found in distress at sea. It shall inform the ship or ships and other relevant parties concerned thereof.” 34 Therefore, the coastal state coordinating the operation has the obligation to search for an appropriate place to disembark persons saved at sea. The convention also stipulates that “the Party responsible for the search and rescue region in which such assistance is rendered shall exercise primary responsibility for ensuring such co-ordination and co-operation occurs, so that survivors assisted are disembarked from the assisting ship and delivered to a place of safety, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and guidelines developed by the Organization. In these cases, the relevant Parties shall arrange for such disembarkation to be effected as soon as reasonably practicable.” 35 Firstly, of course it sets out the obligation for the coastal state to provide such places of safety. A place of safety is a location where “rescue operations are considered to terminate, and where: the survivors’ safety or life is no longer threatened; basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met; and transportation arrangements can be made for the survivors’ next or final destination.” 36 The guidelines further stress that “Disembarkation of asylum- seekers and refugees recovered at sea, in territories where their lives and freedom would be threatened should be avoided.” 37 The question is open in situations where the shipmaster (were it a NGO ship or EU ship, or Italian Coast Guard ship) does not consider the place appropriate for disembarking persons saved, which opinion should prevail? Furthermore, in this situation the shipmaster may also be bound by refugee law and other human rights considerations and may be obliged not to disembark the persons on-board in a particular state. In this case the question arises – which of these obligations prevail? The opinions of the UN Human Rights Commissioner and EU differ regarding Libya being a safe place or not to disembark the saved persons. The High Commissioner for Human Rights stresses that the operations of search and rescue must allow migrants to “disembark 32 Ibid , para. 22. 33 Ibid . 34 SAR Convention, supra note 15, Annex, Article 4.8.5. 35 Ibid , Article 3.1.9 36 Rescue at Sea , supra note 23. 37 Ibid .

132