The main differences between the Council of Europe and the European Union explained after the disorder in Rwanda

The European Court of Human Rights stopped the first Rwandan flight from leaving the UK

Last night the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) launched a last minute intervention to stop the flight carrying seven migrants to Rwanda.

There has been much consternation over the way the Court was able to overrule the rulings of the UK High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

The authority of the ECHR to intervene in this case is based on the United Kingdom’s membership of the Council of Europe (CoE).

The CoE is an organization which aims to uphold human rights in all its member states. It differs from the European Union because it is based solely on the protection of human rights.

For example, Turkey and Monaco are members of the CoE without being members of the European Union, as is the United Kingdom.

Membership of the Council of Europe means that countries are subject to the authority of the ECHR. The ECHR rules on potential violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The plane that was to leave for Rwanda

Individuals can file applications with the ECHR which, if successful, would overrule decisions of the state in which they reside. In this case, an Iraqi national applied to the ECHR to indicate an urgent interim measure.

Interim measures are an order of the ECHR to delay the implementation of a policy or decision in their member states. They are normally issued in the event of expulsion or deportation.

In the rules of the ECHR Court, it is written that “provisional measures are applied only in exceptional cases.

“The tribunal will only issue an interim measure against a Member State if, after considering all relevant information, it considers that the claimant faces a real risk of serious and irreversible harm if the measure is not applied.”

In this case, the ECHR told the British government in a press release that the Iraqi national should not be deported to Rwanda until “three weeks after the delivery of the final internal decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings”.

Demonstrators at a removal center in Gatwick protest against plans to send migrants to Rwanda

Demonstrators at a removal center in Gatwick protest against plans to send migrants to Rwanda

The press release also outlines their reasoning. They argue, in line with the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “that asylum seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient refugee status determination procedures. refugee”.

Further, they argue that “the High Court’s finding that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient investigation gave rise to ‘serious questions which may the subject of a lawsuit”.

As such, the ECHR concluded that there was a “risk resulting from treatment contrary to the rights of the applicant recognized by the Convention”.

The court also pointed out that Rwanda is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which casts further uncertainty on the fate of migrants once deported.

The European Convention on Human Rights is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. This means that the articles of the convention are enforceable in UK courts.

Interim measures have already been ordered in cases relating to expulsion and removal. In September 2010, the ECHR indicated an interim measure to the French government in the case of YP and LP c. France.

The applicant was a former Belarusian resident who had sought asylum in France following repeated persecution and targeted violence due to his opposition to the regime in place.

The Ministry of Defense confirms that 444 people were detected crossing the Channel on the same day. Rwanda flight was grounded

The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected their request. YP then appealed to the ECHR, arguing that returning to Belarus would cause significant harm to him and his family.

This led to the issuance of an interim measure which delayed the deportation until the legal proceedings before the ECHR itself were completed.

Eventually, the applicant was allowed to stay because of the court ruling that deportation would contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This article enshrines the protection of individuals against torture or degrading punishment.

Comments are closed.