Central Asia: Regional workshop of judges on extradition, expulsion and international law

Central Asia: Regional workshop of judges on extradition, expulsion and international law

Today, the ICJ, together with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan, OHCHR and UNODC are holding a meeting of judges from Central Asia to discuss international law and standards in the field of extradition, expulsion, the rule of law and human rights.

The workshop aims to facilitate exchange of experiences regarding the law and practice of extradition and expulsion in European and Central Asian countries. Presentations at the workshop will analyse international law and standards on effective criminal justice co-operation and the protection of human rights in extradition and expulsion, and their application in practice.

The workshop will present cases from national courts as well as from international mechanisms such as the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Committee against Torture and the UN Human Rights Committee.

The workshop is taking place in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) and is hosted by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan.

Judges from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are participating in the event that includes international experts from UNODC, ICJ,  and Italian Judge Elena Masetti Zannini.

See the agenda of the day in English and in Russian.

Joint Submission on the State of Access to Justice for Migrants in Europe

Joint Submission on the State of Access to Justice for Migrants in Europe

The ICJ and ECRE have presented today to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants a submission on access to justice for migrants in Europe.

The submission is an input for the forthcoming report of the UN Special Rapporteur on access to justice for migrants to the UN General Assembly.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) have provided a brief overview of aspects of access to justice for migrants, with a particular focus on asylum seekers and migrant children, in European countries.

The issues dealt with include:

  • obstructions to access to justice in relation to access to the territory;
  • the undue use of national security exceptions to weaken access to justice in immigration procedures;
  • concerns with access to justice in expulsion and detention procedures;
  • specific obstacles to access to justice for asylum seekers, including when appealing the rejection of their claims by first instance asylum authorities before a judicial or administrative appeal body;
  •  specific obstacles to access to justice for undocumented minors.

ICJECRE-NonLegalSubmission-SRMigrants-Access2JusticeEurope4Migrants-2018-ENG (download the submission)

ICJ and others challenge Hungary’s removals to Serbia before European Court of Human Rights

ICJ and others challenge Hungary’s removals to Serbia before European Court of Human Rights

The ICJ and other organizations have intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights challenging expulsions of asylum seekers from Hungary to Serbia.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted today a third party intervention before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary.

The case challenges the systematic practice by the Hungarian authorities to send back to Serbia foreign nationals asking for asylum under the pretention that Serbia is a safe third country in which to ask for international protection.

The intervening organizations have argued before the Court that:

  • a removal that exposes an applicant to the risk of refoulement and deprives them of protections under international and EU law, is prohibited regardless of whether the decision was taken on the basis of the safe third country concept or the country was included in a “safe third country” list.
  • International law requires, inter alia, a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s arguable claim of potential prohibited treatment, access to an effective remedy following a negative decision, and access to the rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
  • Application of the safe third country concept for EU Member States is contingent on the applicant being admitted to the territory and having effective access to a fair asylum procedure in the safe third country
  • An assessment of whether restrictions on the freedom of movement of migrants, imposed in a border or international zone, amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR must be based on the impact of these measures on the individuals concerned.

Hungary-ECtHR-amicusbrief-cases-Ilias&Ahmed-ICJ&others-2018-ENG (download the third party intervention)

Background

Ilias Ilias and Ali Ahmed, both Bangladeshi nationals, fled their home country in arrived at the Hungarian-Serbian border on 15 September 2015 after having briefly crossed through Serbia during their trip.

Having asked immediately for asylum in Hungary, they were confined for days in a transit zone, a ” a confined area of some 110 square metres, part of the transit zone, surrounded by fence and guarded by officers”.

Their applications were rejected on the very same day of their application on the grounds that they could have asked for asylum in Serbia, considered by Hungary a safe third country, and appeals were rejected.

They were removed to Serbia on 8 October 2015.

Poland: ICJ and others intervene to support the binding effect of interim measures

Poland: ICJ and others intervene to support the binding effect of interim measures

The ICJ, together with other NGOs, intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in MA v Poland, concerning interim measures to protect applicants for asylum at the Polish-Belarus border.

The case concerned a family of asylum seekers who sought to apply for international protection in Poland, at a border crossing with Belarus, but were repeatedly turned away by border guards. The European Court granted interim measures indicating that the applicants should not be returned from Poland to Belarus, and that their asylum application should be examined by the Polish authorities. These interim measures were not complied with.

In their third party intervention in the case, the ICJ, ECRE, AIRE Centre and the Dutch Council for Refugees emphasised the binding nature of the obligation to comply with interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the jurisprudence of the Court and by comparative standards of other international human rights mechanisms.

They further submitted that, where interim measures relate to children, irrespective of whether the children are applicants in the case, the State must abide by the measure indicated with special diligence and take the appropriate protective measures which the age, level of maturity, environment and experiences of the children require.

Poland-MA-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)

Translate »