IRCT REGIONAL REPORT 2016 Procedurally, there have also been challenges in the asylum process, particularly due to long asylum procedures and with respect to access to medico-legal reports (MLRs) for torture victims. According to the asylum authorities, asylum seekers wait seven months between their initial interview at the police station and their substantive asylum interview with the authorities. However, in the experience of Zebra, most people wait for at least a year and cannot work during this time.6 This long period of idleness and uncertainty causes significant anxiety and stress for clients of Zebra, particularly if their families remain in conflict zones. Zebra provides MLRs for torture victims to have their torture claims documented for the asylum procedure. However, there is currently no specific administrative procedure, which automatically requires the case owner to request an MLR where asylum seekers allege or otherwise show signs of torture and ill-treatment. As such, even if an asylum seeker mentions past torture there is no guarantee of an evaluation. According to Zebra, this lack of systematised identification and referral procedures also affects victims’ access to rehabilitation services. Most victims received by Zebra are not referred from the Federal Agency for Immigration but rather through social workers, volunteers, other NGOs, lawyers or even family members. Those that do get referred often experience waiting lists of up to one year. Zebra and a few other NGOs are the only providers of specialised rehabilitation services in Austria and the current demand far exceeds their capacity. For most torture victims, this waiting period significantly complicates the provision of adequate rehabilitation services. All new Zebra clients see a staff member within two weeks of contacting the organisation. This initial interview serves as a triage point and the client will also see a therapist. If the therapist decides that the individual is acutely in need of care, then the person will be placed on a priority list. This situation is directly linked to funding, as the Austrian state has not increased funds to NGOs despite the significant surge in demand for services. Adequate funding would allow Zebra to provide better care to their clients as they could shorten waiting lists and see clients more regularly. Funding would also be beneficial for internal and external capacity building, such as for producing MLRs and training NGO staff working with torture victims. In addition to the absence of identification procedures and the barriers to rehabilitation services, reception facilities also negatively impact the wellbeing of torture victims. At the beginning of the refugee crisis, reception facilities were the most widely publicised failure of the situation in Austria. Domestic and international public opinion was outraged by the terrible conditions in the large refugee camps, particularly in Traiskirchen. As a response to the influx of people, Austrian authorities set up various emergency accommodation facilities to provide temporary residence for those transiting through Austria to claim asylum elsewhere. Due to the shortage of housing facilities, these were gradually also used to house people who have applied for asylum in Austria on a longer-term basis. Since these facilities were only intended for a short-term stay, they were inadequate for long-term residence, and in the opinion of Zebra, are certainly not conducive to the mental and physical wellbeing of torture victims. page 13 “We had some of these large refugee camps in Styria and the conditions were not at all good. Well below what we would consider adequate standards.” — Alexandra Köck