inbetween inhumanity zone

A double-layered 3-meter-tall metal fence studded with watch towers every few hundred meters. Erected in 2015 by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as a response to Europe’s refugee crisis, the wall spans 532 km of the nations’ periphery, a monument of the fall of humanitarian values. The Asylum seekers mostly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are waiting in the transit zone to enter the European Union, but they have to be patient.

“Attention, attention. I’m warning you that you are at the Hungarian border. If you damage the fence, cross illegally, or attempt to cross, it’s counted to be a crime in Hungary. I’m warning you to hold back from committing this crime. You can submit your asylum application at the transit zone.” This automated message is played in several languages from English to Arabic to people waiting in the transit zone.

This map is aiming to show how anti-migrant nationals and people fleeing from wars, inhumanity and poverty live next to each other but are still separated by a wall. By showing individual experiences by quotes, sketches of feelings and architectural design we aim to underline how this “transit zone” in particular and walls in general manifest the inhumanity of today’s society.

One of the refugees from Syria described the scene to Amnesty International:
“We came to this gate to let us pass to Hungary. They shut the gate in our face and in
addition sprayed us with [tear] gas. They hurt children, women, all of us. Where are the
human rights? There is no humanity in this. There is no human rights here, nothing. Maybe
about four or five people they fell down, they collapsed and were taken by ambulance. They
[Hungarians] have to do something for the human rights. They have to open the gates.
Where will all these people go? All these people are sleeping on the street. Where will they
go all these children, women and old people? They are freezing outside without food,
without anything.

“I was told by another person here to go in the container if I wanted to apply for asylum, so I did… I went into the first room, where there was only police. I asked for a translator but I did not receive one. I was given a ticket with a number [and gave] my personal details and fingerprints

Before I was given the decision I was asked how I wanted to go away from there… The translator told me that I could choose to either go back voluntarily… [or] to be deported by force.
One policeman that was standing at the door told me to go back to Syria. He said “we don’t like you, go!” I wanted to complain about [him] but didn’t know how. I didn’t want to leave that place without making a complaint. I told other police officer I wanted to complain about this treatment and because he called me a terrorist. I was then taken to another room for 30 minutes, just waiting. We were three in the room, all from Damascus, locked up. The two others were also told to go back. The Arabic translator just came to us and said he got bad news: we will be deported to Serbia. I said please I can’t go back to Serbia. But I was just given this document [the decision on admissibility] and told to “go out”. The exit was at the end of the row of containers where the cars are parked.
I was given my document but was not told about the content, just asked to sign paper without knowing what’s in there. It was nine pages long and in Hungarian. I realized only later that I have been expelled from Hungary. The other two [Syrian men] said they would appeal. We were told by a woman in green vest [Hungarian Office for Immigration and Nationality] that [we could appeal within a week] … but it would be more difficult. I was told that I would be successful only if I have relatives, family in Hungary, and not even then for sure.” Amnesty International has obtained a copy of the decision on Adnan’s application for international protection issued by the Office of Immigration and Nationality. The rejection of his application is “due to inadmissibility” because he said during the interview he had arrived to Hungary from Serbia.81 The rejection was justified with the reference to the provisions of Section 51 of the LXXX/2007 Asylum Law, under which applications for asylum are inadmissible if there is a “safe third country” where the applicant stayed before entering Hungary, and the Government Regulation 1919/2015 under which Serbia is considered a safe third country. In the decision, the applicant is informed that he is not considered to be at risk of refoulement. Adnan told Amnesty International, that he was not asked any questions about his protection needs during the interview in the transit zone. There was no individualised procedure in his case. Together with the rejection of his asylum application, Adnan also received an expulsion order “from the territory of the EU to Serbia”. He has been also barred from re-entering the EU within the period of one year and his personal details were shared within the Schengen Information System (SIS II).