Beating occurs in as many as 75% of the testimonies reported through our network. Sometimes with hands, sometimes with police batons, and sometimes with other weapons, these acts of physical violence can cause injuries ranging from bruises and contusions to more serious harm, such as broken bones and internal injuries. With such an extreme lack of medical care on the move and in many transit/detention camps, these injuries can be fatal or leave people with lifelong injuries.

This form of state and police violence violates fundamental human rights and breaches several international laws and standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), as well as the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Furthermore, beating individuals can violate national laws related to the use of force by law enforcement officers.

Although law enforcement officials may, under certain circumstances, use force, international human rights law states that it must be applied in a manner that respects the principles of necessity, proportionality, and humanity. It must be the minimum necessary for certain permitted aims like ‘maintaining public order’. The violence reported goes far beyond this: it is excessive, systematic, indiscriminate, unprovoked, and is a clear violation of international human rights law. The scale on which we see and hear beating happening on the borders proves there it is systematically being used as a mechanism of terror and control.

“They did not beat us up to beat us  up, but to kill us”
Respondent in Svilengrad

Testimonies of beating, such as this quote from Svilengrad, show the severity and potential lethality of beating people experience on the move. It indicates the viciousness of the border regime:  rather than offering protection or assistance to people on the move, as mandated by international law, police and border forces systematically use violence to degrade and humiliate people on the move, and justify it through the falsified political ‘need’ to ‘manage migration’. This shows a profound disregard for human dignity and rights, contributing to a culture of impunity where the use of force is seen as an acceptable method of controlling borders and state authorities are not penalised for their widespread violence.

The denial of access to a toilet is a widespread and dehumanizing practice reported in around 8% of the testimonies we collect. This form of abuse occurs in detention centres, transit camps, and at temporary cells, where individuals are often held for extended periods without being allowed to use sanitary facilities. The medical consequences of this denial range from severe discomfort and humiliation to significant health risks, including urinary tract infections, kidney issues, and other gastrointestinal problems.

Inadequate access to sanitation violates basic human dignity and infringes upon several fundamental human rights. It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 8, which ensures the right to respect for private and family life. Furthermore, it breaches the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which emphasize the importance of sanitation and hygiene in detention settings. Denial of access to toilets also violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), particularly Articles 11 and 12, which relate to the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, respectively.

‘As one person asked to go to the toilet the respondent recalls that they have been laughed at.’

– Testimony taken in Bihać

Testimonies like this one from Bihać reveal the dehumanising element of this practise. Denying individuals access to toilets is not just a failure to meet basic needs but is also used as a tool of control and humiliation. It is a deliberate tactic to dehumanize and degrade people on the move, reflecting a broader pattern of abuse and mistreatment at borders. This practice underscores the extreme neglect of human rights and dignity in border control policies and practices, contributing to an environment where violence and abuse are normalized and perpetuated without accountability.

The denial of access to food and water is a severe and potentially life-threatening form of abuse which occurs in around 15% of the testimonies. This practice involves withholding basic necessities, such as food and clean drinking water, from people held in detention centers or whilst being held by border authorities. Although it is also used as a means of humiliation, the medical consequences can be dire, potentially leading to dehydration, malnutrition, weakened immune systems, and exacerbating existing health conditions. In extreme cases, it can result in death.

“We even offered to pay for our food if they could buy some for us and they shouted, “Fuck you!”. We only managed to drink the tap water in the room.”

– Respondent in Bihać

This form of abuse is a blatant violation of fundamental human rights and international humanitarian standards. It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 2, which protects the right to life. It also breaches the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), particularly Articles 11 and 12, which pertain to the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food and water, and the right to standards of physical and mental health.

“if they are not going to give us water, they won’t give us asylum”

– Respondent in Bihać

Testimonies like this one from Bihać highlight the use of food and water deprivation as a coercive tool. The denial of basic necessities is employed not just to punish, but to control and manipulate individuals, often to force compliance or deter migration. This practice is a clear reflection of the broader strategy of using inhumane treatment in Europe’s border regime, rather than providing the protection and assistance mandated by international law.

The refusal to provide food and water to individuals in custody underscores a profound disregard for human dignity and the right to life. It transforms what should be a fundamental duty of care into a weapon of control and intimidation.

The destruction of personal belongings occurs in 70% of the testimonies we report – it is one of the most common forms of violence experienced by people on the move, throughout Europe. It is the intentional theft and damage of essential items such as clothes, phones, documents, and money. This can leave people extremely vulnerable, without access to emergency support, without necessary documents to protect them, or without clothes to protect them from harsh weather conditions.

The theft of phones is particularly common in this: most people use phones to help them navigate, to contact family and friends, and also to document violence and poor living conditions. Police and border authorities are well aware of this, and consequently phones are stolen and sold on the black market, or destroyed to ensure no evidence of violence is recorded. This is also why it is so rare to have photographic or video evidence of pushbacks and border violence – because it is systematic practise to destroy peoples phones to allow their violent operations to continue.

The phone of one respondent which the Croatian police smashed over his friends head, 1 May 2024.

Phones destroyed by the Croatian police near Velika Kladusa, 28 November 2022.

This practice is a blatant violation of fundamental human rights and international standards. It breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 8, which ensures the right to respect for private and family life. Additionally, it contravenes the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), particularly Articles 11 and 12, which relate to the right to an adequate standard of living – a standard which is deliberately destroyed by the destruction of people’s personal and necessary items.

Detention is a widespread and often arbitrary practice used within various asylum regimes, serving both as an attempt to stop people moving and as a coercive tool in other forms of administrative violence – like forcing people to claim asylum. Detention might be legal in some cases, but the way it is used in many countries’ asylum reception systems frequently violates international human rights standards. In border contexts, detention is often used punitively, without due process, and in conditions that exacerbate the vulnerability and suffering of those detained.

Despite clear legal guidelines around detention, like necessity, individual assessment (so never used systematically), the right to appeal and due process, and measures to ensure minimum conditions, detention on European borders often operates outside these legal parameters.

For example, Bulgaria’s asylum regime has been criticized for systematically detaining people on the move, including those who are vulnerable such as minors and families. Detention centers are often overcrowded, with substandard living conditions marked by insufficient access to healthcare and legal services. Reports indicate that detention is used as a first response rather than a last resort, with individuals held for extended periods without clear legal grounds or recourse to challenge their detention. In pushback operations, individuals are often detained in unofficial holding facilities or police stations where they face abuse before being forcibly expelled.

Inside Busmantsi detention centre in Bulgaria, 03/07/2023, InfoMigrants

In Croatia, detention is closely linked to pushback practices. People who are intercepted near the border are often held in temporary detention centres or police stations, where they are denied access to legal aid or proper asylum procedures. The conditions in these facilities are frequently harsh, with limited food, poor sanitation, and exposure to physical violence. Detainees are often subjected to degrading treatment before being expelled back across the border. Despite legal provisions requiring individualized assessments and humane conditions, detention in Croatia is applied in a manner designed to intimidate and deter those attempting to seek asylum.

The use of detention in these contexts almost always fails to meet international legal standards, leading to widespread rights violations and the systemic use of detention. Detention is routinely applied without legal justification, individualized assessments, or time limits, resulting in prolonged and unlawful deprivation of liberty. Detention facilities are overcrowded, unsanitary, and lack adequate access to healthcare, food, and legal assistance. Many people are also denied access to legal representation or the ability to appeal their detention, leaving them trapped in a cycle of arbitrary detention and pushbacks without recourse to justice.

According to him the room was filled with 20 individuals, including him and the other 3 individuals he was traveling with. He reports that inside this room, there were no toilets. In addition, he recalls asking multiple times for food and water to the officers, but they repeatedly said “No”. He recalls turning to the other men in the room saying, “if they are not going to give us water, they won’t give us asylum”. According to him they were kept for about 5 hours in this room with no food, water, or access to a toilet.

-Respondent in Bihać, 21/12/2023

Detention in these contexts functions less as a legal safeguard and more as a method of control and punishment. It is a cornerstone of broader strategies aimed at discouraging migration by inflicting hardship and denying basic rights – a cornerstone of fortress Europe’s ‘deterrence regime’.

Dog attacks involve the deliberate use of trained police or military dogs to inflict physical harm and instill fear in individuals on the move. Border authorities may release dogs on detained or fleeing individuals, leading to serious injuries such as bites, lacerations, and puncture wounds, which can become infected due to lack of medical care.

The psychological impact of being attacked by a dog can leave lasting trauma. This method of violence serves not only as a direct physical threat but also as a tool of dehumanization – a technique we have also seen used against many protest movements.

Dog attacks constitute a violation of multiple international legal frameworks, including Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore, this practice breaches the United Nations Convention against Torture, underlining the degree of cruelty often embedded within border enforcement operations.

The application of electric shocks as a means of punishment and control is a particularly cruel form of violence frequently reported in border regions. This method involves using electric batons or stun guns to deliver painful shocks to the body, often targeting sensitive areas such as the neck, chest, or limbs.

People who experience this describe a sudden, intense jolt of pain that can lead to muscle contractions, burns, and in some cases, loss of consciousness. These shocks can also have severe psychological impact, often leading to lasting trauma and nightmares.

The use of such devices is a gross violation of human rights and international law, contravening the United Nations Convention against Torture, which explicitly prohibits any act that inflicts severe physical or mental pain for the purpose of coercion, punishment, or intimidation.

In many testimonies, people report being subjected to extreme temperatures as a form of punishment or psychological pressure during transportation. During pushbacks, people are often forced into overcrowded vehicles where air conditioning is turned to freezing levels, or, conversely, where heaters are set to unbearable highs. Sometimes this also takes place during car rides in cold winter conditions, where windows are forcibly kept open.

Prolonged exposure to these conditions can lead to hypothermia, wind burns, heat exhaustion, dehydration, and exacerbation of existing health issues. The deliberate infliction of suffering through temperature manipulation is a subtle yet highly effective method of coercion and degradation, violating the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment as established in the ECHR (Article 3) and other international frameworks. This tactic illustrates how everyday systems, like climate control, are weaponized as tools of violence, with authorities exploiting vulnerability and their control during transport to intensify suffering.

The forced taking of fingerprints is a common procedure during border interactions and detentions, often carried out without informed consent or legal representation. For many on the move, the act of taking fingerprints represents a significant threat, as it ties them to particular jurisdictions under the Dublin Regulation, limiting their ability to seek asylum elsewhere. Later, this can potentially destroy the legal possibility of claiming asylum in another European country, seperating you from family or loved ones or trapping you in a country which is not safe for you.

This coercive practice often involves threats (of violence or detention), physical force, or the withholding of basic needs (like food or water) until compliance is achieved. While taking fingerprints is presented as a routine administrative step, in many cases, it becomes a tool of control, contributing to systemic efforts to restrict asylum seekers’ movements and rights. The lack of transparency, combined with the use of force, violates basic rights to privacy and legal protection, as outlined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other human rights instruments.

Extorting money from people in transit is a widespread practice in various border regions. People on the move are often forced to pay fees, bribes, or fines under threat of violence, further detention, or denial of passage. These “fees” are rarely official and are instead forms of corruption carried out by law enforcement, border guards, or police.

The sums demanded can be substantial. This practice violates the right to protection from extortion and arbitrary demands, as well as basic economic rights as outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The coercive extraction of money reflects a predatory environment where state actors and their proxies see border crossings as opportunities for financial gain at the expense of those on the move.

Forcing individuals to undress is a degrading and dehumanizing practice frequently reported in testimonies. People who experience this often stripped in public or semi-public settings, either as part of body searches, as a form of humiliation, or as a means to exert control. The act is often accompanied by verbal abuse, mockery, and, in some cases, violence, creating a deeply traumatic experience.

The violation of privacy and dignity inherent in such acts contravenes both the ECHR (Article 3) and the United Nations Convention against Torture. Forcing people to undress strips them not only of their clothing but also of their sense of autonomy and humanity, turning a basic search procedure into a method of psychological torture and intimidation.

Forcing individuals to undress during border procedures can legally occur under certain circumstances, such as during strip searches aimed at uncovering contraband or ensuring safety. According to international and national legal standards, strip searches must adhere to strict guidelines: this includes legal grounds (like ‘reasonable’ suspicion that the person is concealing prohibited items (like weapons, drugs, or evidence of a crime), necessity (by the least intrusive means necessary), and with respect for dignity. Instead, in the context of pushbacks these legal conditions are entirely violated. People report being forced to undress where there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime (recall that irregularly crossing a border is not a crime which would justify the use of strip searching). Testimonies make clear that strip searches are motivated more by a desire to intimidate, humiliate, or degrade than by any legitimate security concern. In addition, they are frequently humiliated, with people stripped entirely naked or in public. The use of strip searches in this way is absolutely and unequivocally violent and illegal.

Gunshots fired during pushbacks or border confrontations are a method of intimidation and control frequently reported in testimonies. While these shots are often aimed at the air or ground, they serve as a stark warning of the lethal force that states exert over people. In some cases, gunshots are fired closer to individuals, escalating the threat and causing injuries from stray bullets or ricochets.

The use of firearms in such contexts highlights the violent militarization of border enforcement, where lethal force is normalized as part of the control mechanism. This practice breaches numerous international laws, including the ECHR (Article 2, right to life) and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which emphasize the need for proportionality and restraint. The presence of firearms and their use to terrorize rather than protect speaks to the extreme and often illegal measures employed to police borders.

In reports we commonly hear the use of verbal abuse, including racial slurs, personal attacks, and threats, against people on the move. This type of psychological violence can cause significant emotional distress and harm to individuals, particularly when targeting vulnerable groups such as refugees and asylum seekers. Insulting behaviour violates fundamental human rights and breaches international laws and standards, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), as well as the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

“We told the police we wanted to apply for asylum, they laughed and said we were all Talibans”

— Respondent in Bihać

The prevalence of racist and sexist comments which occur during pushbacks and incidents of border violence demonstrate the discrimination which is rife in the forces which perpetrate violence against people on the move. Border violence is racist not only because it operates as a mechanism of a racist and exclusionary border regime, but also because we consistely see racist, nationalistic, and facist comments directed against people on the move while violence is enacted.

Kicking is one of the most frequently reported forms of physical violence in pushback scenarios. People describe being kicked by border authorities or police officers, often while they are restrained, on the ground, or attempting to comply with orders. The kicks are commonly targeted at vulnerable parts of the body, such as the ribs, abdomen, or head, leading to serious injuries like fractures, internal bleeding, or concussions.

Image from testimony “Kicked by Croatian Police every time we crossed the border”, 21/12/2023.

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT), all forms of torture or inhuman treatment are prohibited. Kicking, especially when targeted at vulnerable areas or inflicted on restrained individuals, falls under this definition.

They drove and stopped in a blind alley, brought him down and then 3 of out of the 4 officers started kicking him. He reports: “They gave me the beating of my life, I have never had this kind of torture. I was treated like an animal. I was beaten so hard, I was tortured, they beated me like a snake, I was just trying to protect my face because I didn’t want my face to be smashed. Why did they do this to me? I am not a criminal”.

-Respondent in Šid, 18/07/2024

Involving children in acts of violence, detention, and mistreatment is a vicious violation of international law and human rights standards – and yet it continuous to happen in many incidents. This includes physical abuse, denial of basic needs, and exposure to degrading treatment.

The 17-year-old brother of the main respondent wished to add: “This is not the first time. It happened 7 times like this. I don’t know if they will kill me if I try one more time. Why wouldn’t they kill me, is there a camera inside the forest to record if they decide to kill us? It’s the middle of nowhere. We don’t even want to stay in their country. We just want to pass through it. We’re not harming their citizens, we’re not stealing anything. They see us going through the forest, we don’t disturb anyone, we just try to pass by unseen. They know we’re just kids, why do they treat us like terrorists? ”

– Respondent in Bihać

Testimonies like this from Bihać demontrate that even children are not spared from European border violence. As well as exemplifying a utter disregard for safety, development, and well-being, it is also a direct violation of the Convention on the Rights if the Child, such as Article 37 which prohibits the torture, inhuman treatement, or unlawful deprivation of the liberty of children. These acts can also cause severe long-term psychological and physical harm to the children involved, and yet the vast majority of these cases (including where children are involved) continue unprosecuted and without response or accountability from the EU or member states.

It is common practise for authorities – either during pushbacks or in other situations – to try to force people on the move to sign documents or engage in legal procedures without access to a translator. This is against international law: it violates the right to due process (such as Article 9(2) ICCPR, and the right to fair procedure established in the European Convention on Human Rights.

He reports that the transit group was brought to a police station near the town of Slunj and were detained there for what the respondent described felt like around 8 hours. According to him the 4 members of the group had no access to food, water or the possibility to use the toilet. As one person asked to go to the toilet the respondent recalls that they have been laughed at.  The respondent states that The police took their fingerprints and made them sign a form. Recalls  that the form was in a language they couldn’t understand. There was no translator present.

–Respondent in Bihać

Without access to a translator, people do not have the opportunity to understand or object to the procedures which are being taken against them. For this reason, we often meet people who have been forced to sign documents they did not understand by police. Sometimes these documents are asylum applications, meaning that if they try to apply for asylum in another country they will be deported back, and sometimes the documents are admissions of guilt to legal charges, or ‘voluntary return’ documents. Despite this practise being systemic, widely documented, and a blatant violation of international law, authorities in other EU countries will often try to hold people to the documents that they were forced to sign, even if a translator was not present and the person did not understand the documents they were signing.

Coercing people into signing papers, either through direct force or by threat of detention/deportation/further violence, is a widespread abuse which links the physical violence of European borders to the European administrative system which controls and oppresses people from a migration background.

Sometimes these documents are asylum applications, meaning that if they try to apply for asylum in another country they will be deported back, and sometimes the documents are admissions of guilt to legal charges, or ‘voluntary return’ documents. Despite this practise being systemic, widely documented, and a blatant violation of international law, authorities in other EU countries will often try to hold people to the documents that they were forced to sign.

The respondents claims that the police officers asked him to sign a testimony against a person that was accused of smuggling. The respondent refused to do so, because he didn’t know that person at all. He states that the police told him that it didn’t matter if he knew him or not, by signing the paper he would do something good for the country that granted him protection (Bulgaria). According to the respondent, the police officers became very angry after he refused to sign for a second time. He reports that they then took his fingerprints and finally let him go. He claims that he was told by his friends that 2 other persons from the camp were asked to sign the paper and actually did it.

– Respondent in Harmanli

The illegality, and the impacts of this practise for people’s livelihoods, are staggering: international law mandates that people should be informed, in a language they understand, of legal proceedings affecting them, but this practise instead denies the right to due process (such as Article 9(2) of the ICCPR) and the right to an effective remedy (Article 2(3) of the ICCPR).

During a pushback or incident of violence, ‘papers signed’ refers the the practise of forcing people to sign documents under threat of pushback, physical violence, detention, or using fear. Sometimes these documents contain false of misleading information, such as statements renouncing their intent to claim asylum, or agreeing to ‘voluntary’ return. Recently, we have even received testimonies of the police attempting to force people to sign papers testifying against other people as being ‘smugglers’.

After the fifth day in detention, according to the respondent, the group was forced to sign a document. The respondent states that they did not understand what they were signing, because the document they were made to sign was only in Serbo-Croatian. The respondent states that the police didn’t offer any mean of translation for the document. According to him all the members within the transit group were forced to sign this document to be allowed to leave the cell.

-Respondent in Bihać, 23/12/2023.

Forcing people to sign paperwork in this way is a blatant violation of International Human Rights and Refugee Law. It breaches the principle of informed consent and fails to uphold the right to asylum. It also violates Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantee the right to a fair trial and legal process, including the right to understand and challenge any legal actions taken against them. By not providing access to legal representation or proper translation, authorities effectively deny individuals the ability to make informed decisions about their legal status.

When these papers are signed, it can result in peoples’ asylum claims being unfairly rejected, or legal support being denied to them, despite having legitimate claims to protection and a legal right to have their situation considered. Some of these agreements, such as return agreements, can lead to people being deported to places where they are unsafe. Irrespective of the consequences, it is a gross manipulation of bureaucratic structures to enable violence against people on the move.

Pepper spray, in protests and on the borders alike, is often used as a means of cruelty, causing intense pain, temporary blindness, difficulty breathing, and potentially lasting physical damage. Testimonies report its excessive and often gratuitous use as a tool of humiliation and degradation.

He kept running, but he was reached by one of the officers who started beating him with his baton and he used pepper spray against him. He states: “The Hungarian officer used the pepper spray for 3 minutes on my eyes, I couldn’t see for 3 hours. While he was using it, humiliating me, he asked if it was good.”

– Respondent in Subotica

Whilst pepper spray is frequently used in various different police settings, its use is only lawful if it is not utilised as a degrading treatement (due to the protections of the European Convention on Human Rights) and if it is in line with international policing standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which states (in Article 4) that force can only be used when nonviolent means are exhausted, and always with restraint, minimal damage, and with respect to rights and dignity. Despite these obligations, testimonies such as the above one from Subotica demonstrate that pepper spray is used as a means of degradation.

Personal information of people on the move is sometimes taken by police or border authorities, sometimes without consent, under pressure, or through intimidation/threat such as of detention or violence. This can mean that people’s information is given without knowing how it will be used and stored – a violation of privacy laws, but also a vicious tool of control, surveillance, and intimidation which can put people further at risk of state violence.

Sometimes this information may be taken with the intent of submitting it to EURODAC, alongside biometric data like fingerprints. This infrastructure of surveillance is used not just to manage asylum applications (the official purpose of the collection of personal information and biometrics) but also to criminalise and monitor people on the move and those engaging in solidarity work. Physical force on the borders is accompanied by a bureaucratic violence of surveillance in the form of mass collection of personal information.

The forced taking of photos by border authorities is also a means of criminalisation and mass surveillance, similar to the collection of personal information. These photographs may be taken without consent, under coercion, and without the person knowing what their photo will be used for why it is being taken.

This practise violates international privacy law, particularly the right to privacy and the protection of personal data in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Photos taken, without explanation or transparency, are neither about documentation nor security – it is a means of control, and a consolidation of state intimidation.

Pouring water over people’s heads appears in testimonies as an act of mockery – attempting to degrade people and assert police power and ego. It reveals the intentional cruelty of European border control, because although it may not leave physical scars it reinforces the brutality and total control exhibited in incidents of border violence. In some conditions, such as when a person is already physically weak or the weather/water is extremely cold/hot, it can have lasting health impacts on someone.

The respondents explained that one of the officers was trying to break their feet/ankles one by one. They also explained that the officers were laughing and joking, singing along to the sounds emitted by the drone while they were hitting them. The members of the group explained that they were body checked, and that they were forced to get undressed. Later, the officers would give them back only their underwear or in some cases their underwear and their pants. While the officers were bodychecking them, they found their phones and broke them, except the ones they liked, which they decided to keep. Reportedly, they also stole their money (around 330 euros) and their shoes. At some point, one of the members of the group asked for water, as he was very thirsty, and instead of giving him water, the officers poured a bottle of water over his head.

-Respondent in Bihać

Pushing/forcing people to the ground is not only a violent tactic in itself, but often accompanied by further forms of violence, since forcing people to the ground makes it easier for police to enact physical violence against people. Police and border forces then often take advantage of this to kick, beat, or harm people further. For example:

“According to the respondent, his friend tried to run, but the police officer kicked him on the back of his leg so that his friend would fall to the ground. At this point, according to the respondent, one of the police officers kicked his friend in the face with his boot.”

-Respondent in Bihać”

There escalation and prolonged violence is a breach of various international laws and conventions. The fact that people are already on the ground when more violence is enacted shows the brutality of the border regime, where violence is excessive and punitive. It cannot be defended as a means of ‘maintaining order’, as law enforcement often claims, and is an unambiguous violation of human rights and of international policing law.

Reckless driving by law enforcement during the transport of people on the move is a widespread and dangerous practise. Frequently, people are crammed into overcrowded and poorly ventilated vehicles without safety measures like seatbelts or even seats, and then forced to ensure long, reckless, and high-speed driving.

“The whole group was then pushed inside the van, where the respondent recalls that there wasn’t enough space and seats for everybody: one person had to sit on the ground and the others squeezed together on the seated benches on the sides. The ride took approximately 40 minutes, and the respondent recalls: “It was too much dangerous driving. Fast and brake. Fast and brake. Two people vomited. There was not enough oxygen and it was too hot inside”.”

-Respondent in Bihać

Reckless driving violates several fundamental human rights and legal protections. Under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, which includes reckless endangerment of individuals’ lives and well-being during transportation. This practice also breaches international transport safety standards and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which require law enforcement officers to prioritize the safety and dignity of individuals in their custody.

The practise of reckless driving shows that the actions of police and law enforcement are not about securing safety but about terror – and even car drives are weaponised as a form of intimidation and violence.

The sexualised element of border violence is often left unaddressed, but sexual assault is widely used on European borders as a means of terror and control, against both men and women.

Often this takes the form of strip searches: Whilst strip searches may be permissible if there is ‘suspicion’ of a crime already committed, there are requirements for the way this must take place which are rarely ever met in the pushback scenario, such as being searched in private by somebody of the same gender, and without the use of so-called ‘unreasonable’ force. Strip-searching someone in public, infront of others, without the use of gloves, and by somebody of a different gender is not lawful.

“She still remained to plead with  him, but the police officer responded, “shut up or else I will please  [rape] you”.”

– Respondent in Bihać

Sexual assault is a gross violation of numerous international human rights laws. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment – including sexual assault. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment also condemns such acts. Sexual violence in these settings is not just a crime against an individual; it is a violation of human dignity and a direct breach of international laws aimed at protecting people.

Power structures are often utilized, and during many instances of border violence the legal authority status which police/border officials have is weaponised unlawfully to sexually assault and harass people. These cases demonstrate the pervasive cruelty of border enforcement regimes and the need to address the impunity of police and border authorities.

In many instances of border violence, technology plays a significant role in amplifying the control and surveillance of people on the move and those working in solidarity. From drones and thermal cameras to mobile tracking devices, technology is increasingly used by border authorities to monitor, intercept, and supposedly deter migration. While often framed as tools for “managing” borders, these technologies contribute to a larger system of violence, reinforcing power imbalances and stripping away privacy and autonomy. The use of technology is not neutral; it is weaponized to enhance state control and the regime of fear.

We monitor the use of technology as a specific “tag” in border violence cases to track the growing militarization and surveillance of borders. By documenting how technology is deployed against people on the move, we try to expose its role in creating hostile environments where human rights are violated. Tracking this helps us understand patterns of state violence and how advanced tools are being used not just for monitoring but for controlling, oppressing, and criminalising people resisting Fortress Europe.

Technology also allows for less visible forms of violence, as it can be used to monitor and predict migration routes, enabling authorities to intercept people before they even reach borders. This surveillance-driven violence often goes unreported but is a key part of the broader strategy to make borders impermeable, pushing people into increasingly dangerous paths and strengthening the state’s attack on freedom of movement. By tagging these cases, we highlight how technology, far from being a tool of ‘security’ as it is often framed, is used to expand the reach of border regimes and exacerbate the violence faced by people on the move.

When people on the move express their intent to claim asylum, it is a direct assertion of their internationally recognized right to seek protection from persecution or harm. However, in many cases of border violence, even when individuals clearly state their intention to claim asylum, they are met with hostility, indifference, or outright violence. Instead of being provided with access to legal processes or support, their rights are systematically ignored or violated, as authorities push forward with illegal expulsions, detentions, or violent rejections.

We monitor and tag cases where the intent to claim asylum is expressed because it highlights the deliberate violation of fundamental rights. Under international law—particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol—people fleeing danger have the right to seek asylum and have their claim properly assessed.

By documenting cases where individuals express their intent to claim asylum and are still subjected to violence, we expose the systematic disregard for asylum procedures at borders. It shows that authorities are not merely indifferent but actively complicit in undermining the international legal framework designed to protect people on the move. This practice turns Europe’s rhetoric of a safe haven for rights into an empty promise, as people claiming asylum are consistently met with force on the borders.