By Dionysia Kang
Background
On a summer night of 2024 in Oulu, Finland, a 15-year-old youth used a swastikas-decorated knife, to stab Rakibul Hasan Ridoy, a Bangladeshi restaurant worker who was leaving work, multiple times. This was the second out of two stabbing incidents in Oulu within a week; all three victims of these incidents were persons with a foreign background[i]. The Oulu District Court convicted the 15-year-old perpetrator of attempted manslaughter, but he was not sentenced as he was deemed mentally unfit. Prior to the stabbing, the 15-year-old perpetrator already had anti-immigrant sentiments and expressed intentions to commit violent acts towards a “black person or someone of a different ethnic background.”
A year after Ridoy was stabbed, he was interviewed and is no longer an anonymous victim. He described how the physical injuries made heavy lifting or sleeping on the wrong side painful. More significantly, the psychological trauma had caused him to lose his ability to continue working and carry on his daily life as usual such as going out, forcing him to relocate to Vantaa. Ridoy is a third-country national with a work-based residence permit in Finland. Since the recent amendment to Finland’s Aliens Act, a work-based residence permit-holder has to find a new job within 3 or 6 months after their previous employment ends. Otherwise, one faces the withdrawal of their residence permit. In October 2025, Ridoy received a letter from the Finnish Immigration Service asking why he has not worked since November 2024, informing him of the possibility of facing deportation which could ban him from entering the entire Schengen area.
Victim’s Rights Directive protection of third-country national victims
The Victim’s Rights Directive (Directive 2012/29/EU) was adopted at the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on 25 October 2012, with revisions proposed on 12 July 2023. The Directive acknowledges that “victims of crime should be recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner without discrimination of any kind based on any grounds” which includes race, colour, ethnic or social origins, disability, health, residence status, and so on.[ii] Interestingly, the grounds of discrimination recognised in this directive includes neither nationality nor national origin.
The principle of territoriality retains primacy in the Directive with regards to the residence status of third-country national victims of crimes. Article 10 of the Directive “does not address the conditions of residence of victims of crime in the territory of the Member States”, and states that “reporting a crime and participating in criminal proceedings do not create any rights regarding the residence status of the victim.” Nevertheless, there are limits as to how much Member States can exercise the principle of territoriality when determining third-country national victims’ residence situation. The Directive makes clear that “Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that the rights set out in this Directive are not made conditional on the victim’s residence status in their territory or on the victim’s citizenship or nationality.”
Secure residence situation is complementary with protecting victim’s rights
Ridoy’s rights as a victim of a crime and his rights to residence are closely interlinked. He is unable to work because of the crime he was made a victim of; in effect, causing him to be unable to fulfil the work-based residence permit requirements. A victim-centred interpretation of the Directive should take into account victims’ complex personal characteristics, circumstances and vulnerabilities. Reading the Directive in light of its goal (i.e. the protection of victim’s rights), and in order not to hollow out the protection it provides (as clarified in Art. 10), member states must approach the issuance of residence permit to third-country national victims of crimes as complementary or underlying to the entire process of victim protection process, from criminal proceedings to recovery. More than 60 organisations have made an urgent call to EU negotiators to further strengthen the rights of all victims of crime regardless of residence status. The organisations have warned that being in an irregular(ised) situation or having insecure residence permit heightens one’s susceptibility to abuses and severe forms of exploitation.
Addressing the interlinks of secure right to residence and victim recovery allows for attentiveness towards vulnerabilities linked to precarious residence status. It can, at the same time, encourage vulnerable victims with precarious/ without rights to reside in Member States to report a crime that they have been made victim of. Making the Ridoy’s residence situation even more insecure is not only paradoxical by prioritising migration control over his rights as a victim, but also unjust towards a victim of a violent crime in Finland. Therefore, the crime that prevented Ridoy from fulfilling his requirements should be taken into account by the Finnish Immigration Services in his residence permit decision. If granting an employment-based residence permit is not feasible, there is a compelling argument to be made that Ridoy’s situation warrants the attribution of a residence permit on compassionate grounds. Ridoy’s victimhood and the physical and mental trauma that he suffers are clear factors in preventing him from working and easily justify this avenue.
Supporting third-country national victim’s recovery
The Directive recognises that persons who fall victim to crime in a Member State where they are not nationals or residents are particularly vulnerable and “should be provided with specialist support and legal protection.”[iv] The Directive expand on the roles of specialist services and staff, mentioning their important role in supporting victims’ recovery from the trauma and harm of the crime.[v] Member States have obligations to “encourage victim support services to pay particular attention to the specific needs of victims who have suffered considerable harm due to the severity of the crime”.[vi] Withdrawing Ridoy’s rights to stay prevents victim support services from protecting Ridot’s rights as a victim since he cannot access services that support his dignified recovery if he does not have the right to reside in Finland. Should this scenario actualise, it potentially sends a discouraging message to both non-national victims and victim support services that seeks to provide dignified care to victims.
In Finland, victims of human trafficking[vii] and exploitation by employers can be granted temporary residence on grounds of human trafficking when criminal investigation or court proceedings are ongoing, or extended residence permit on other grounds if they are established as victims of human trafficking, or extended permit or expanded certificate to find a new employer on grounds of exploitation by employer. This is a positive sign that exploitation and human trafficking victims, who are third-country nationals, are explicitly protected from precarious residence situation. Nevertheless, not explicitly recognising other forms of crimes – such as attempted manslaughter in Ridoy’s situation – risk overlooking severity of different forms of harm, including physical, mental, emotional and economic harm, that was inflicted on them. Not recognising other crime victims as possible grounds to issuing right to stay risks a reductive and dismissive understanding of how complex trauma, resulting from a crime, is experienced. Therefore, the interpretation of issuing residence permit on grounds of victimhood should widen beyond crimes of human trafficking and exploitation. This is to enhance the effectiveness of protecting and strengthening the rights of Third-country national residents who are victims of crime that has taken place in Finland.
Conclusion
At the time of writing, it is uncertain whether Ridoy’s residence permit will be withdrawn. As the Directive is undergoing revision, the Finnish Immigration Services decision with regards to Ridoy’s residence permit is one to pay particular attention to. The decision will show the boundaries of Finland’s interpretation of the Directive’s protection when addressing the residence situation of third-country national victims. Protecting Ridoy’s right to reside in Finland as complementary to his rights as a crime victim supports a victim-centered interpretation of the Victim’s Rights Directive. In the Hufvudstadbladet interview, Ridoy said that he had “run, run and run”[viii] to physiotherapy, doctor, to social services, employment authorities, online adult education for Finnish language courses to do everything that was asked of him to get well. His access to the specialist services to support his recovery is a positive sign of victims’ access to specialist services. To issue Ridoy a residence permit is the very least Finland can do to support the specialist support services in providing Ridoy a “supportive environment that treats them with dignity, respect and sensitivity”.[ix] A secure right to reside in Finland can prevent further distress as Ridoy “runs, runs and runs” to get by and recover from the traumas of the violent crime that took place there.
Dionysia Kang is a PhD Researcher at the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University. She is currently researching how migration law fosters racial structures that underlie exploitative work conditions found in the Finnish food systems.
[i] Finland does not collect statistics based on racial categories. Often, racially minoritised persons are described using signifiers such as “persons with foreign background”, or “persons who first languages are neither Finnish or Swedish”.
[ii] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph 9
[iii] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph 10
[iv] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph 38
[v] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph 38
[vi] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph Article 9 (2)
[vii] Finland has obligations under the Palermo Protocol for countering trafficking and protecting trafficking victims.
[viii] Author’s translation. Author will bear the responsibility for any mistakes with translation.
[ix] Victim’s Rights Directive paragraph 38; Article 9
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the co-editor-in-chief, Michel Rouleau-Dick, reviewers and Raija Hanski whose insightful comments supported the process of writing this blog post.