During the interaction, the explanation for why I was being taken, how long I would be gone, and whether I would be returning changed multiple times over the course of the conversation. The interaction was first framed as going to the police station for paperwork, then as a possible absence for several days, and ultimately as a permanent removal from the reception center.

The following audio was recorded on the morning of May 19, 2026, when police arrived at approximately 7:21 a.m. at the Redange reception center and informed me that I was being removed from the facility.

During the interaction, the explanation for why I was being taken, how long I would be gone, and whether I would be returning changed multiple times over the course of the conversation. The interaction was first framed as going to the police station for paperwork, then as a possible absence for several days, and ultimately as a permanent removal from the reception center.

I was awakened this morning by the police at 7:21 am CET and removed from me from the foyer where I was staying. I was told to take all of my things. I was taken in the police car to the police station where I am now.

I was told an interpreter is on the way. The interpreter must be present to sign documents. I have been told the ministry of immigration will open at 8amand they will make a decision about my stay in Luxembourg.

My appointment with the the ministry is on Thursday May 21 at 8:30 am to do a second application. So, I am unclear why I would be awakened from bed and removed from my assigned housing.

There is an officer standing at the door.

I just called the State department. No onne is available until 8 am EST.

I called the embassy. They attempted to speak with police but police would not speak to them. They will call me back on my cell phone.

I was treated at emergency on Friday of last week for toxic conjunctivitis and bilateral lesions on the sclera of the eyes. I am supposed to follow up with an ophthalmologist today as symptoms have not resolved.

Waiting to find out what is happening.

I am writing to address an incident that occurred on Friday at the Redange reception center involving exposure to an airborne chemical irritant on the property. Shortly after exposure, I experienced burning in my eyes and on my skin. I subsequently developed toxic conjunctivitis with bilateral lesions on the eyes.

I went to the security desk to ask the guard on duty to call the poison center, as they are the unit with expertise in toxic exposure and/or toxicology-related concerns. Although I have unlimited international calling via my cell phone plan, I had difficulty dialing the phone number with international roaming. The guard on duty refused to call the poison center and instead contacted her supervisor for guidance or authorization, who advised her that she could not call the poison center, only 112. When she telephoned 112 and passed the phone to me, 112 agreed that I needed to contact the poison center. 112 spoke to security, and I could overhear the individual on the phone asking why she had not contacted them first. The security guard answered that it was her supervisor, not her, who forbade her from making the call. She stated she would do it now. The poison center was finally reached. 112 was subsequently engaged.

The security guard’s response revealed that there does not appear to be an emergency protocol in place for residents who need urgent medical care. Security did not know how to arrange transport to the emergency room, how a resident would return after hours, or how emergency transportation would be paid for. There was no bus available at that hour, and there were no funds available for a taxi or other transport. In the end, I had to go to the hospital by ambulance, and the hospital later arranged my return by taxi.

 The delay and uncertainty caused by the lack of an emergency protocol may have caused additional eye damage. In addition, had I been experiencing bleeding, choking, or a cardiac event, the same delay could have cost me my life. It is imperative that the facility have a clear emergency response plan in place that security and staff are prepared to follow.

On Sunday, a second incident involving the same security guard occurred in a shared common area of the facility. While I was seated in the communal television room, another resident entered the area and began using a hair product containing a strong ammonia odor in the enclosed indoor space.

Ammonia in hair dye products can irritate the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs, especially in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces. In higher concentrations or prolonged exposure, ammonia fumes can cause more significant respiratory irritation and chemical injury to the eyes. People with recent eye injuries, conjunctivitis, asthma or respiratory conditions may be more vulnerable to irritation. For this reason, ammonia-based products are generally recommended for use in well-ventilated areas, and many newer hair products are formulated to be ammonia-free to reduce these irritation risks.

As I had recently experienced a medical emergency involving exposure to an airborne chemical irritant in the reception center that resulted in bilateral scleral lesions and toxic conjunctivitis, I politely asked whether she could continue the activity in the bathroom or in her room rather than in the common area.

The resident left the room and returned with the security guard. The security guard was hostile, yelled at me, and was verbally aggressive. She informed the resident that she could remain in the communal space. I was told to go to my room.

I raised a health and safety concern, yet I was told to leave the communal space instead of the person using the ammonia-based product. The situation escalated when the security guard threatened to call the police. When I asked on what basis the police would be called, I was told it was because I was “being mean” to the other resident.

The response was inappropriate and disproportionate to a minor disagreement between residents. Security and staff in an asylum reception environment should focus on de-escalation and professional conflict resolution, rather than escalating minor disagreements into police matters. Under no circumstances should staff or security personnel be yelling at residents.

Using threats of police intervention to coerce and intimidate residents over a minor dispute, rather than for genuine safety or security reasons, is an abuse of power. The security guard manufactured a baseless accusation that I was “being mean” in order to justify and legitimize police involvement. This conduct is reckless, unethical, and creates a dangerous precedent for future abuses of authority against asylum seekers.

In an asylum reception facility, there is an inherent power imbalance: security personnel hold institutional authority. They control movement, access to services, and can involve police, while asylum seekers are in a position of vulnerability. They are often uncertain of their legal status, dependent on the facility for housing and other services, and less familiar with local laws and language. This power dynamic makes the guard’s conduct  especially insidious.

Security and staff in an asylum reception environment are expected to exercise professionalism, restraint, and sound judgment when interacting with residents.

International and European human rights standards, including principles reflected in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, emphasize that vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers must be protected from arbitrary or disproportionate uses of authority.

The security guard’s demonstrated inability to appropriately handle an actual medical emergency, followed by her subsequent abuse of authority and unethical conduct during the Sunday incident, raises serious concerns that warrant formal investigation and corrective action.

Sincerely,

Tamara Dixon

These photos show two bilateral raised lesions on the ocular surface and toxic conjunctivitis, from the incident described in my earlier toxic exposure post: Redange Toxic Exposure Incident

Photo 2 - Right Eye

The rapid evolution of digital surveillance technologies has outpaced the legal frameworks originally designed to regulate government monitoring activities. This subsection argues that, rather than redesigning surveillance law for the digital era, democratic states have stretched and repurposed legacy frameworks, creating a persistent gap between technological capability and legal oversight.
Most surveillance laws in democratic states were written during a period when intelligence gathering depended on physical access to telecommunications infrastructure, targeted wiretaps, and case-specific investigations. These legal regimes assumed that surveillance would be limited in scope, directed toward identifiable suspects, and conducted through identifiable technical channels such as telephone networks.

Historically, oversight of surveillance activities operated primarily through criminal procedure frameworks. Law enforcement agencies were typically required to obtain judicial authorization, such as a warrant, before intercepting communications or accessing private information. Courts played a central role in determining whether surveillance requests met legal standards related to probable cause, necessity, and proportionality, in contexts where authorities sought evidence connected to specific criminal offenses.

Contemporary surveillance technologies operate within a fundamentally different technological environment. The widespread use of digital communication platforms, mobile devices, and networked data systems generates large volumes of behavioral information about individuals and social networks. Advances in computing power and data analytics allow this information to be aggregated and analyzed at scales that were not technologically feasible when many surveillance statutes were first drafted.
As a result, governments have gradually adapted existing legal authorities to accommodate new forms of intelligence collection and analysis. Rather than relying exclusively on traditional investigative techniques governed by criminal procedure, security institutions increasingly operate under national security authorities that permit broader intelligence gathering. These frameworks emphasize threat prevention and strategic intelligence analysis rather than the collection of evidence for prosecution.

At the same time, much of the data used in modern surveillance systems originates outside the state. Digital service providers, telecommunications companies, and online platforms generate extensive datasets describing patterns of communication, mobility, and economic activity. Intelligence and law enforcement institutions increasingly rely on access to these privately generated data environments, whether through legal process, regulatory mandates, procurement of commercially available data, or technical partnerships.

The legal adjustments that enabled this transition were frequently incremental rather than dramatic. Legislative reforms introduced after major security crises expanded the ability of intelligence agencies and law enforcement institutions to share information, analyze emerging risks, and coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries. Courts and regulatory institutions were often required to interpret existing statutes in ways that extended their application to technologies that lawmakers had not originally anticipated.

This gap between technological capability and legal regulation has become a defining feature of modern surveillance governance. While surveillance technologies have advanced rapidly through developments in data analytics, communications interception, and software engineering, legal oversight mechanisms have struggled to adapt at the same pace. The result is an institutional environment in which governments possess powerful tools for monitoring digital activity while the legal frameworks governing their use remain in a process of ongoing, often opaque, interpretation and adjustment.

Section 5.3.5.2 examines why traditional oversight mechanisms have struggled to adapt to secrecy regimes, fragmented institutional structures, and large-scale, data-driven surveillance systems.

To Whom it May Concern,

I appreciate the single-room accommodation provided to me at this facility. However, since my arrival, I have experienced serious challenges that I wish to bring to your attention, including a pattern of harassment by a specific individual across multiple placements, a physical assault on the premises on May 12, 2026, and concerns about how on-site security and Red Cross staff responded to both matters.

The following concerns should also be read in conjunction with my prior written correspondence to ONA dated January 15, 2026, in which I raised concerns regarding transnational repression, private military and security contractor linked activity, resident safety, and the risk of potential harm within the asylum reception system. The concerns raised in that correspondence have now materially escalated into an actual physical assault following repeated reports of harassment across multiple placements.

I. Pattern of Harassment Across Multiple Placements

Since my arrival in Luxembourg, I have been subjected to a repeated pattern of harassment by a specific individual across every ONA placement I have occupied. At the Tony Rollman Reception Centre in Kirchberg, this individual harassed me on multiple occasions. I reported this harassment to Red Cross staff at Tony Rollman. I also reported multiple incidents directly to Luxembourg police.

Following my transfer to an emergency placement, this same individual appeared at that facility within days of my arrival and was found positioned outside my door. Security staff at that facility stated that she did not appear to reside on my floor and had no basis to be present at my door.

Upon my transfer to the Redange Reception Centre as a permanent placement, this individual was present here as well. Red Cross staff confirmed to me that I was the last resident to occupy a room at this facility at the time of my arrival. Despite this, the individual was present from the second day of my placement. She has repeatedly positioned herself in the common area adjacent to my room and appears to position herself to have a direct line of sight to my door.

I reported this pattern to Red Cross staff member Claudia at this facility. Claudia explicitly told me that neither the Red Cross nor ONA could take any action regarding the bullying and harassment I was experiencing on the property. In her view, I should not contact ONA about these matters as this was exclusively a matter for the police.

I note that this instruction is inconsistent with ONA’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and has been applied by the European Court to require that reception facilities for asylum seekers provide conditions that meet a basic standard of dignity and safety. Article 13 guarantees the right to an effective remedy. I have reported this harassment pattern on multiple occasions without any effective response from police, Red Cross, or ONA. Being instructed by Red Cross not to contact ONA about safety concerns, and then having Red Cross staff refuse to call police on my behalf when I was assaulted, leaves me without any effective remedy whatsoever.

II. Physical Assault, May 12, 2026

On May 12, 2026, upon leaving my room, I observed the individual described above from prior placements seated on the couch in the common area directly facing my door. Immediately thereafter, the door of the room directly across the hall was opened forcibly into me, causing immediate pain and resulting in a bruise that remains painful as of the date of this letter.

Immediately following the assault, the resident who struck me went directly to Red Cross staff before I was able to report the incident. She provided a false report stating that she accidentally struck me and that I verbally assaulted her. This statement contradicts the fact that after immediately striking me with the door, she did not apologize to me and appeared to be in communication with the individual who had been positioned watching my door when the incident occurred . When I went to Red Cross staff to report the assault, rather than investigating the incident or hearing my account, Red Cross staff member Melanie scolded me and stated that I needed to be nicer to the residents of the building. She was referring to the same residents participating in the harassment and bullying that I had previously reported to Claudia. I was the individual who had been assaulted and was the victim of harm. Yet, no investigation was initiated and the individuals involved were not spoken to. The effect of this response was to place responsibility for the assault on me rather than on the individual or individuals who perpetrated the harm. It also signals to them that they may continue to harm me as they will face no consequences from the staff supervisors in the building.

III. Failure of Staff to Call Police and Conduct During Police Interaction

I first reported the assault to Red Cross staff and subsequently security was also engaged. I asked Red Cross and security to call the police. They stated they could not call police on my behalf regarding the incident. While I was attempting to contact police myself using my American cell phone which has difficulty dialing 113 while roaming abroad, police officers arrived at the facility. It appears Red Cross and or security called the police of their own accord in spite of emphatically stating they could not do so at my request. Security staff immediately approached and engaged them as they exited the vehicle before I could speak to them to provide an account of the assault. The assault against me was not reported to police by staff. The individual who struck me and other residents who were identified as participating in the bullying and harassment were not identified to police by staff. Instead, police focused their inquiry on me after it appears they were informed by staff I was the problem as opposed to the victim of an assault and harassment who had been harmed,

I had specifically asked police to step outside the building to speak with me privately as residents appeared to be positioning themselves so they could observe what was happening. Police agreed and followed me outside. In the interim, the security staff first positioned herself in the doorway of the building watching the interaction. She then came outside and began vaping in close proximity to both myself and the officers while I was attempting to report the assault. She then engaged police officers directly in conversation, distracting them and preventing me from giving a full account of what had occurred. This conduct was inappropriate during an active resident safety complaint and interfered with my ability to communicate privately and effectively with police. In addition, other residents were permitted to observe the interaction, creating exactly the public spectacle I had tried to avoid by asking police to step outside. Red Cross staff, who had been present and engaged prior to police arrival, did not come outside at any point during the police interaction and provided no support or advocacy on my behalf during that time.

Police focused their inquiry on my immigration papers, did not take a report, did not ask me to identify the individuals involved in the assault or harassment, and did not speak to any residents or witnesses before leaving the premises. I was told an investigation would be forthcoming. When I asked to provide evidence, I was told the investigation would occur without me. It was unclear to me why or how an investigation of a crime would or could take place without taking a statement from the victim or interviewing suspects at the scene of the crime. In addition, it is unclear why police would decline to review or take evidence of a crime. It appeared police were not engaging seriously with concerns brought to their attention.

I shared safety and security concerns as a victim of transnational repression as well as a human rights defender having fled persecution in the United States across 10 states and across 4 countries in Europe before seeking asylum in Luxembourg. I told police I sought asylum because I could not outrun the repression. I also shared with them that I was being targeted and harassed by foreign actors (private military and security contractors in coordination with local proxies) on Luxembourg soil. I also informed them these actors appear to be exploiting vulnerable asylum seekers to subject myself and other victims similarly situated to coordinated harassment at asylum reception centers (as well as off premises in the Luxembourg community).

Asylum residents participating and perpetuating harm against myself and others similarly situated are not facing consequences by Red Cross, security, police and ONA. As a result, perpetrators may feel emboldened to continue to engage in harmful conduct or escalate.

Recall at the emergency placement, a man attempted to assault me. Now at this residence, a woman actually assaults me and nothing is done. At the previous foyer, Police left the premises without even speaking to the man who attempted the assault. Days after the assault, Red Cross staff had still not spoken to the individual prior to my transfer to Redange. Now things have escalated to where after an actual assault, the same pattern is repeated as not a single person was spoken to or held accountable.

IV. Requests

I respectfully request the following from ONA:

First, formal written acknowledgment of this complaint and confirmation that it has been placed on record.

Second, an investigation into how the individual identified in this complaint has been present at every ONA placement I have occupied, including an emergency placement where resident location is not disclosed, and this permanent placement where I was confirmed to be the last arriving resident. The consistency of this individual’s presence across every placement I have occupied raises serious concerns about the integrity of ONA’s housing assignment system and warrants examination.

Third, a formal review of the conduct of security staff and Red Cross staff on May 12, 2026, including the refusal to call police on my behalf, the conduct of security staff during the police interaction, the failure to investigate the assault as well as statements that they could not do anything about bullying and harassment on the premises by residents.

Fourth, confirmation of what protective measures ONA will put in place to ensure my safety as a resident of this facility.

Fifth, preservation and review of any available security camera footage relating to the May 12, 2026 incident, including the hallway outside my room, the common area adjacent to my room, and the exterior entrance area where the police interaction occurred.

Sixth, confirmation in writing that ONA will not respond to this complaint by transferring or relocating me. Repeated relocation has been the consistent institutional response to every safety concern I have raised across every placement. This pattern removes me rather than addressing the conduct causing harm. It treats me as the source of the problem rather than the victim of it. It allows perpetrators to face no consequences. I am requesting that ONA address the harm where it is occurring.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Seventh, copies of all internal documentation, notes, and records held by ONA and Red Cross pertaining to my case, including any incident reports, case notes, and internal communications generated in connection with my placements and any complaints I have filed.

The concerns described in this complaint have already escalated from repeated harassment across multiple placements into an actual physical assault. I am deeply concerned that the continued absence of meaningful intervention, investigation, accountability, or protective measures creates a foreseeable risk of further escalation, including the possibility of serious bodily injury or other potentially fatal harm within the asylum reception environment.

I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Tamara Dixon

I have previously experienced similar symptoms associated with toxic exposure, specifically toxic conjunctivitis. The sudden onset of eye irritation coupled with bilateral scleral lesions indicated possible exposure to an airborne chemical irritant. I went directly to the front desk and asked security to contact Poison Control.

The audio documents events as they transpired as well as my attempts to obtain emergency assistance and medical care. What it also reveals is something that affects every resident of this facility: the ONA reception center in Redange has no emergency preparedness protocol in place. Security had no clear procedure for responding to a medical emergency. No one knew whether to call Poison Control or 112. No one knew how to arrange transport to emergency services. No one knew who would pay, or how a resident would get back. These are not minor administrative gaps. If I had been choking, bleeding, or having a cardiac event, the response would have been the same: confusion, delay and uncertainty. For any resident of this facility, this institutional failure could have been life threatening.

Two days prior, I was evaluated by a family physician regarding suspected toxic exposure. He ordered laboratory work including a cholinesterase test. In addition, I was referred to another specialist for a more in depth toxicological evaluation.

Eventually, I was transported by ambulance to the ER in Ettelbruck for treatment. The ER physician stated that the symptoms could be consistent with toxic exposure. The physician prescribed antibiotic drops. However, the condition does not appear to be responding to the antibiotics. The physician told me if my symptoms persist through the weekend to see an ophthalmologist on Monday.

I have previously experienced similar symptoms associated with toxic exposure, specifically toxic conjunctivitis. The sudden onset of eye irritation coupled with bilateral scleral lesions indicated possible exposure to an airborne chemical irritant. I went directly to the front desk and asked security to contact Poison Control.

The audio documents events as they transpired as well as my attempts to obtain emergency assistance and medical care. What it also reveals is something that affects every resident of this facility: the ONA reception center in Redange has no emergency preparedness protocol in place. Security had no clear procedure for responding to a medical emergency. No one knew whether to call Poison Control or 112. No one knew how to arrange transport to emergency services. No one knew who would pay, or how a resident would get back. These are not minor administrative gaps. If I had been choking, bleeding, or having a cardiac event, the response would have been the same: confusion, delay and uncertainty. For any resident of this facility, this institutional failure could have been life threatening.

Two days prior, I was evaluated by a family physician regarding suspected toxic exposure. He ordered laboratory work including a cholinesterase test. In addition, I was referred to another specialist for a more in depth toxicological evaluation.

Eventually, I was transported by ambulance to the ER in Ettelbruck for treatment. The ER physician stated that the symptoms could be consistent with toxic exposure. The physician prescribed antibiotic drops. However, the condition does not appear to be responding to the antibiotics. The physician told me if my symptoms persist through the weekend to see an ophthalmologist on Monday.

The audio link can be found here: Redange Toxic Exposure Audio

Please find below the formal notice submitted to ONA on May 15, 2026, regarding a pattern of harassment across multiple placements, a physical assault on May 12, 2026, and the failure of on-site staff and police to respond to resident safety concerns. Police audio from May 12, 2026 is also included below.

To Whom it May Concern,

I appreciate the single-room accommodation provided to me at this facility. However, since my arrival, I have experienced serious challenges that I wish to bring to your attention, including a pattern of harassment by a specific individual across multiple placements, a physical assault on the premises on May 12, 2026, and concerns about how on-site security and Red Cross staff responded to both matters.

The following concerns should also be read in conjunction with my prior written correspondence to ONA dated January 15, 2026, in which I raised concerns regarding transnational repression, private military and security contractor linked activity, resident safety, and the risk of potential harm within the asylum reception system. The concerns raised in that correspondence have now materially escalated into an actual physical assault following repeated reports of harassment across multiple placements.

I. Pattern of Harassment Across Multiple Placements

Since my arrival in Luxembourg, I have been subjected to a repeated pattern of harassment by a specific individual across every ONA placement I have occupied. At the Tony Rollman Reception Centre in Kirchberg, this individual harassed me on multiple occasions. I reported this harassment to Red Cross staff at Tony Rollman. I also reported multiple incidents directly to Luxembourg police.

Following my transfer to an emergency placement, this same individual appeared at that facility within days of my arrival and was found positioned outside my door. Security staff at that facility stated that she did not appear to reside on my floor and had no basis to be present at my door.

Upon my transfer to the Redange Reception Centre as a permanent placement, this individual was present here as well. Red Cross staff confirmed to me that I was the last resident to occupy a room at this facility at the time of my arrival. Despite this, the individual was present from the second day of my placement. She has repeatedly positioned herself in the common area adjacent to my room and appears to position herself to have a direct line of sight to my door.

I reported this pattern to Red Cross staff member Claudia at this facility. Claudia explicitly told me that neither the Red Cross nor ONA could take any action regarding the bullying and harassment I was experiencing on the property. In her view, I should not contact ONA about these matters as this was exclusively a matter for the police. 

I note that this instruction is inconsistent with ONA’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and has been applied by the European Court to require that reception facilities for asylum seekers provide conditions that meet a basic standard of dignity and safety. Article 13 guarantees the right to an effective remedy. I have reported this harassment pattern on multiple occasions without any effective response from police, Red Cross, or ONA. Being instructed by Red Cross not to contact ONA about safety concerns, and then having Red Cross staff refuse to call police on my behalf when I was assaulted, leaves me without any effective remedy whatsoever. 

II. Physical Assault, May 12, 2026

 On May 12, 2026, upon leaving my room, I observed the individual described above  from prior placements seated on the couch in the common area directly facing my door. Immediately thereafter, the door of the room directly across the hall was opened forcibly into me, causing immediate pain and resulting in a bruise that remains painful as of the date of this letter.

Immediately following the assault, the resident who struck me went directly to Red Cross staff before I was able to report the incident. She provided a false report stating that she accidentally struck me and that I verbally assaulted her. This statement contradicts the fact that after immediately striking me with the door, she did not apologize to me and appeared to be in communication with the individual who had been positioned watching my door when the incident occurred . When I went to Red Cross staff to report the assault, rather than investigating the incident or hearing my account, Red Cross staff member Melanie scolded me and stated that I needed to be nicer to the residents of the building. She was referring to the same residents participating in the harassment and bullying that I had previously reported to Claudia. I was the individual who had been assaulted and was the victim of harm. Yet, no investigation was initiated and the individuals involved were not spoken to. The effect of this response was to place responsibility for the assault on me rather than on the individual or individuals who perpetrated the harm. It also signals to them that they may continue to harm me as they will face no consequences from the staff supervisors in the building.

III. Failure of Staff to Call Police and Conduct During Police Interaction

I first reported the assault to Red Cross staff and subsequently security was also engaged. I asked Red Cross and security to call the police. They stated they could not call police on my behalf regarding the incident. While I was attempting to contact police myself using my American cell phone which has difficulty dialing 113 while roaming abroad, police officers arrived at the facility. It appears Red Cross and or security called the police of their own accord  in spite of emphatically stating they could not do so at my request. Security staff immediately approached and engaged them as they exited the vehicle before I could speak to them to provide an account of the assault. The assault against me was not reported to police by staff. The individual who struck me and other residents who were identified as participating in the bullying and harassment were not identified to police by staff. Instead, police focused their inquiry on me after it appears they were informed by staff I was the problem as opposed to the victim of an assault and harassment who had been harmed,

I had specifically asked police to step outside the building to speak with me privately as residents appeared to be positioning themselves so they could observe what was happening. Police agreed and followed me outside. In the interim, the security staff first positioned herself in the doorway of the building watching the interaction. She then came outside and began vaping in close proximity to both myself and the officers while I was attempting to report the assault. She then engaged police officers directly in conversation, distracting them and preventing me from giving a full account of what had occurred. This conduct was inappropriate during an active resident safety complaint and interfered with my ability to communicate privately and effectively with police. In addition, other residents were permitted to observe the interaction, creating exactly the public spectacle I had tried to avoid by asking police to step outside. Red Cross staff, who had been present and engaged prior to police arrival, did not come outside at any point during the police interaction and provided no support or advocacy on my behalf during that time.

Police focused their inquiry on my immigration papers, did not take a report, did not ask me to identify the individuals involved in the assault or harassment, and did not speak to any residents or witnesses before leaving the premises. I was told an investigation would be forthcoming. When I asked to provide evidence, I was told the investigation would occur without me. It was unclear to me why or how an investigation of a crime would or could take place without taking a statement from the victim or interviewing suspects at the scene of the crime. In addition, it is unclear why police would decline to review or take evidence of a crime. It appeared police were not engaging seriously with concerns brought to their attention. 

I shared safety and security concerns as a victim of transnational repression as well as a human rights defender having fled persecution in the United States across 10 states and across 4 countries in Europe before seeking asylum in Luxembourg. I told police I sought asylum because I could not outrun the repression. I also shared with them that I was being targeted and harassed by foreign actors (private military and security contractors in coordination with local proxies) on Luxembourg soil. I also informed them these actors appear to be exploiting vulnerable asylum seekers to subject myself and other victims similarly situated to coordinated harassment at asylum reception centers (as well as off premises in the Luxembourg community). 

Asylum residents participating and perpetuating harm against myself and others similarly situated are not facing consequences by Red Cross, security, police and ONA. As a result, perpetrators may feel emboldened to continue to engage in harmful conduct or escalate.

Recall at the emergency placement, a man attempted to assault me. Now at this residence, a woman actually assaults me and nothing is done. At the previous foyer, Police left the premises without even speaking to the man who attempted the assault. Days after the assault, Red Cross staff had still not spoken to the individual prior to my transfer to Redange. Now things have escalated to where after an actual assault, the same pattern is repeated as not a single person was spoken to or held accountable.

IV. Requests

I respectfully request the following from ONA:

First, formal written acknowledgment of this complaint and confirmation that it has been placed on record.

Second, an investigation into how the individual identified in this complaint has been present at every ONA placement I have occupied, including an emergency placement where resident location is not disclosed, and this permanent placement where I was confirmed to be the last arriving resident. The consistency of this individual’s presence across every placement I have occupied raises serious concerns about the integrity of ONA’s housing assignment system and warrants examination.

Third, a formal review of the conduct of security staff and Red Cross staff on May 12, 2026, including the refusal to call police on my behalf, the conduct of security staff during the police interaction, the failure to investigate the assault as well as statements that they could not do anything about bullying and harassment on the premises by residents.

Fourth, confirmation of what protective measures ONA will put in place to ensure my safety as a resident of this facility.

Fifth, preservation and review of any available security camera footage relating to the May 12, 2026 incident, including the hallway outside my room, the common area adjacent to my room, and the exterior entrance area where the police interaction occurred.

 Sixth, confirmation in writing that ONA will not respond to this complaint by transferring or relocating me. Repeated relocation has been the consistent institutional response to every safety concern I have raised across every placement. This pattern removes me rather than addressing the conduct causing harm. It treats me as the source of the problem rather than the victim of it. It allows perpetrators to face no consequences. I am requesting that ONA address the harm where it is occurring.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Seventh, copies of all internal documentation, notes, and records held by ONA and Red Cross pertaining to my case, including any incident reports, case notes, and internal communications generated in connection with my placements and any complaints I have filed.

The concerns described in this complaint have already escalated from repeated harassment across multiple placements into an actual physical assault. I am deeply concerned that the continued absence of meaningful intervention, investigation, accountability, or protective measures creates a foreseeable risk of further escalation, including the possibility of serious bodily injury or other potentially fatal harm within the asylum reception environment.

I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

 Tamara Dixon 

Redange Police Audio 1

Redange Police Audio 2

Redange Police Audio 3

Redange Police Audio 4

Redange Police Audio 5

Redange Police Audio 6

The following notice was submitted to the Luxembourg State Intelligence Service (SREL) on May 15, 2026.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please be advised that I will be submitting shortly information regarding foreign interference and transnational repression on Luxembourg soil, perpetuated by private military and security contractors in coordination with local proxies.

Sincerely,

Tamara Dixon

The following notice was submitted to the State Prosecutor’s office on May 15, 2026.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please be advised that I will be submitting shortly a formal complaint to your office concerning foreign interference and transnational repression perpetuated by private military and security contractors in coordination with local proxies operating on Luxembourg soil.

Sincerely,

Tamara Dixon

Today while reviewing correspondence connected to my asylum case and human rights advocacy work, I identified modifications in documents that I did not write and do not recognize. The discovery raises serious concerns regarding the integrity and security of my devices and communications. This is further evidence suggesting that my devices or accounts are compromised and written correspondence manipulated, although without forensic analysis this cannot be unequivocally proven.

This concern does not exist in isolation. It emerges within the broader context of ongoing unlawful surveillance, monitoring of my devices consistent with intrusive spyware, coordinated harassment, and repeated toxic exposure incidents that I have reported across multiple jurisdictions in both the United States and Europe.

At this stage, two distinct situations are developing in parallel.

First, I remain within an international protection process connected to my asylum case in Luxembourg. Second, despite fleeing across ten U.S. states and multiple European countries, the underlying harm has not stopped. The continuity of the harassment across borders has raised serious concerns regarding organized transnational activity involving private military and security contractors, local proxies operating across jurisdictions.

Yesterday and today, I again spoke with ONA staff and Red Cross personnel regarding the situation inside the current placement. One individual who has allegedly participated in prior harassment incidents in previous placements is now present again in the current location alongside others involved in ongoing intimidation and harassment.

The photograph below shows a door diagonally facing my room propped open with a rock in the hallway. The key can also be seen hanging from the exterior lock of the door, meaning the room remains fully accessible and capable of being locked or unlocked without any need for the door to be held open in this manner. Each room in the building has windows, and all doors lock from both the inside and outside. There is no rational reason for the door to be intentionally propped open in this manner. However, if someone wanted to engage in covert harm such as environmental exposure, this setup could present an opportunity to do so.

When concerns were raised, the response I received was revealing. I was told that the property had “never had crimes here before.” But that statement misses the central issue entirely.

The problem is not whether staff have personally witnessed transnational repression before. The problem is that most people have no frame of reference for it at all.

Although transnational repression is documented in United Nations reports, European Parliament resolutions, and international human rights literature, ordinary civilians and many front-line personnel have never been trained to recognize it, document it, or respond to it. As a result, when victims report transnational repression or covert harm, the reaction is often disbelief, minimization, or referral elsewhere.

That institutional vacuum creates ideal conditions for covert abuse to continue unchecked.

People assume that if something this serious were occurring, it would already be publicly recognized, openly discussed, and actively investigated. But transnational repression frequently operates precisely because it exists below the threshold of public comprehension. Individuals witnessing one isolated incident within a larger pattern often do not recognize that they may be observing one aspect of a coordinated operation.

Covert harms such as toxic exposure subject victims to a unique form of psychological torture because they create conditions resembling an invisible prison. Without environmental or toxicological testing, the harm is often difficult to document or externally verify in real time. As a result, many individuals reporting these experiences are unable to conclusively prove what is happening to them through ordinary means, leaving victims isolated and suffering largely in silence while the underlying harm continues. Further details regarding the means by which exposure is occurring are being withheld at this stage pending communication with Luxembourg state intelligence, in order to avoid alerting those responsible.

The Red Cross staff member ultimately stated that bullying and harassment issues are matters for police and that the organization could not stop such conduct on the property. But this exposes another structural problem: local police officers are often not trained to identify or investigate transnational repression. To date, I have had 8 interactions with police authorities regarding these concerns, none of which resulted in meaningful investigation, protective intervention, or cessation of the harm.

For that reason, concerns described here require assessment by units with expertise in organized criminal structures, cross-border coordination, intelligence-linked activity, and network analysis.

In Luxembourg, state intelligence serves as the national security apparatus, fulfilling a function analogous to the FBI in the United States or equivalent agencies in other countries. It is therefore the appropriate authority for concerns involving transnational repression. Because of the escalation and continuity of these concerns across multiple countries, as well as the absence of institutional understanding, which is itself part of the danger, yesterday I initiated outreach to Luxembourg state intelligence.

Notably, the receptionist at the state intelligence agency did not know what transnational repression was when I explained the reason for my call. I had to define the term and explain that it involves state linked actors crossing borders to harass an individual. I also explained, in substance, that when people hear the term “transnational repression,” they often associate it with countries such as Russia or China, whereas I am an American national reporting concerns spanning ten U.S. states and multiple European countries. After hearing the explanation, the receptionist stated that he knew someone to forward the information to and advised that someone would return my call.

When a form of repression exists outside public awareness, victims are frequently left navigating systems that were never designed to recognize the abuse in the first place. The result is paralysis: no investigative pathway, no protective mechanism, and no coherent institutional response.

Meanwhile, the harm continues.

References to European Parliament documentation relate to a petition that has been filed and is currently under review by the relevant committee for admissibility, and is being circulated among members of the European Parliament. References to United Nations documentation relate to a Special Procedures application submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland.

A detailed timeline of events will be appended to this document shortly.

Live today at 4 PM CET, Tamara Dixon, founder of the Global Repression Studies Institute, discussing protest surveillance, harassment, and emerging patterns.

https://open.substack.com/live-stream/186581?utm_source=live-stream-share-button

Live Stream Link

https://open.substack.com/live-stream/180600?utm_source=live-stream-share-button

On April 27, 2026, a formal request for a meeting was submitted to the office of Senator Jeff Merkley concerning unlawful surveillance, device monitoring, harassment, and related harms involving private military and security contractors, the Oregon TITAN Fusion Center, the Portland Metropolitan Police Department, and local proxies.

The request was directed to the Senator’s scheduling office to initiate formal contact and seek staff level engagement. This communication forms part of an ongoing effort to establish a documented effort of outreach.

The correspondence is reproduced below in full.

Hello,

My name is Tamara Dixon. I am a constituent living in Portland, Oregon 97239. I would like to schedule an appointment to speak with a staffer or Senator Merkley regarding unlawful surveillance, device monitoring, harassment as well as related harms by private military and security contractors working in tandem with the Titan Fusion Center, Portland Metro Police and local proxies.

Please let me know your availability for a meeting.

Thank you,

Tamara Dixon

Origin and Context

Prior to the events described, I was subjected to human experimentation without my consent. During that period, it appeared that a distinctive physiological and/or cognitive anomaly was identified and subsequently studied and mapped, including pattern recognition and anomaly detection abilities.

Following that period, I began to experience unlawful surveillance, monitoring of my devices, coordinated harassment/stalking, and toxic exposure. These events did not occur in isolation, but continued without interruption over time and across jurisdictions and/or locales with seamless transitions.

The events described here are not isolated but part of a continuing sequence.

The exposure functions as a form of pharmacological intervention/suppression directed at a specific cognitive or physiological variable, which appears to be connected to the previously identified anomaly. The purpose appears to be to assess whether the exposure produces a specific effect, specifically whether suppression or erosion of the targeted variable is taking place or has already occurred. Observation is conducted both remotely through devices i.e. via camera and or microphone and, at times, through proximity based in-person methods.

The mechanism, technology, and variables involved remain unknown. The interpretation is based on repeated exposure events, continued observation, and the persistence of this pattern over time.

A. Observations

• I visited a park located behind the European Parliament, near the Novotel hotel.

• There is construction on both sides of a street crossing: one site adjacent to the asylum accommodation at 90 Konrad Adenauer, and another directly across the street.

• Due to construction, a temporary pedestrian walkway has been created that forces individuals into a specific path toward the crossing light. This functions as a chokepoint, meaning all pedestrians must pass through a narrow, controlled space.

• As I approached this walkway, I observed a man wearing a construction vest.

• It was Sunday, and there was no active construction work taking place.

• There were vehicles in the area, but none were associated with the company displayed on his work vest. There were no other workers present.

• The man was positioned within the constrained pedestrian route, at a point where I would have to pass close to him.

• The individual remained stationary with no task-related activity until I approached, at which point he began to move - consistent with a trigger -response pattern rather than work activity.

• As I approached, I observed that he was holding a handheld device with two antennas.

• There also appeared to be a second object on his person at the back waist area.

• I raised my phone to document the situation, specifically attempting to capture the device.

• The man turned his head when I did so, but I was able to capture an image of the device in his hand.

• Immediately prior to this, I had exited the park.

• While in the park, I experienced an unusual odor as well as symptoms.

• Two sets of Individuals carrying backpacks and/or tote bags entered the park area during the period of exposure.

• Vehicles also passed repeatedly through or near the same area during the exposure period. The combination of what appeared to be coordinated movement of the individuals on foot with totes and backpacks in my vicinity as well as repeated vehicles passing on the street which did not resemble normal traffic, created a saturation corridor.

• I changed positions within the park twice, and however my symptoms did not diminish. At that point, I chose to leave.

Sequence:

• While in the park, I experienced an unusual odor along with symptoms.

• During this period, individuals entered the area carrying bags, totes, or backpacks, and vehicles passed repeatedly through or near the same space.

• I changed positions twice within the park; in each instance, a lone woman entered the area after the first move and man and a woman following the second.

• The conditions did not resolve, and I chose to leave the park.

• I exited the park and moved toward the street crossing.

• Construction barriers created a chokepoint and pedestrian pathway leading to the crossing.

• As I approached this pathway, a single individual wearing a construction vest was standing midway within the path at a point where I would have to pass in close proximity.

• The individual was holding a handheld device with two antennas, and there appeared to be a second object at the back waist area.

• As I approached, I took a photo of the device without visibly raising my phone.

• The individual changed body position, turning his back toward me as I passed, suggesting awareness and deliberate avoidance of being documented.

• I passed the individual at close range within the pathway.

C. Pattern

This account is not an isolated incident, but consistent with a broader pattern I have observed:

• The pattern involves unlawful surveillance, monitoring of my devices, coordinated harassment/stalking, and toxic exposure.

• Monitoring occurs through compromised devices, such as access to my camera and microphone, as well as monitoring my live streams across platforms, and may be supplemented by proximity-based observation.

• During exposure periods, individuals and/or vehicles move through or position within the same area in ways that facilitate continued exposure.

• This includes individuals passing repeatedly through the area (on foot, bicycles, or scooters) and positioning nearby with bags (e.g., totes, backpacks, reusable store bags), while vehicles may pass in repeated patterns through the same space, contributing to what I describe as a saturation corridor.

• Use of devices such as vape devices and/or concealed portable devices may occur during these periods.

• The use of a cover to obscure monitoring activity is present, meaning the use of a visible role or setting that provides a plausible reason for someone’s presence while concealing their actual activity.

D. Hypothesis

Based on the observations, sequence, and repeated pattern:

• The exposure appears to be intentional and used as a form of pharmacological intervention/suppression directed at a specific physiological variable.

• The positioning of the individual at the chokepoint immediately after the exposure suggests post-exposure monitoring.

• The purpose appears to involve assessing effects following the exposure with proximity used as part of that observation.

• Feedback appears to already be obtained through compromised devices via microphone access, camera access, and monitoring of my live streams across platforms.

• The presence of a physical individual with a handheld device in close proximity suggests an attempt to obtain a different type of information than what is available through those remote channels.

• It is unclear whether the visible handheld device, the object at the back waist area, or both were being used, or whether one was being used as a cover while the other was concealed.

• The purpose appears to include assessing whether the exposure produced the intended effect.

• This event appears consistent with a broader pattern of human experimentation without consent involving toxic exposure, observation, and post-toxic exposure assessment.

• The exact mechanism, technology, and variables being measured remain unknown.

Image Note:

The individual shown does not appear to have a visible id badge on the front of the vest. Baseline images of the construction site, workers, and standard activity will be uploaded shortly for comparison.

I will be live at 11pm CET discussing how to build a strong evidentiary record. A Q & A will follow. Join me.

https://open.substack.com/live-stream/178284?