UK invoice to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda ‘undercuts human rights’: UN rights chief | EUROtoday

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

“You cannot legislate facts out of existence,” stated UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, calling on the UK Government to rethink the invoice in mild of latest reviews elevating a variety of considerations.

“It is deeply concerning to carve out one group of people, or people in one particular situation, from the equal protection of the law – this is antithetical to even-handed justiceavailable and accessible to all, without discrimination.”

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill requires each “decision maker”, be it a authorities minister, immigration workplace, or court docket or tribunal reviewing asylum choices, conclusively to deal with Rwanda as a “safe country” by way of defending refugees and asylum seekers in opposition to refoulement, no matter proof that exists now or might exist sooner or later, he stated.

Bill strips courts’ talents

The invoice would additionally drastically strip again the courts’ skill to scrutinize elimination choices.

“Settling questions of disputed fact – questions with enormous human rights consequences – is what the courts do, and which the UK courts have a proven track record of doing thoroughly and comprehensively,” he stated.

“It should be for the courts to decide whether the measures taken by the Government since the Supreme Court’s ruling on risks in Rwanda are enough.”

Problematically, the invoice considerably restricts the applying of the Human Rights Actwhich offers authorized impact throughout the UK for the requirements set out within the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr. Türk stated.

The invoice additionally renders discretionary the implementation of interim protecting orders of the European Court of Human Rights, that are internationally binding on the UK, he added.

Incompatible with worldwide refugee legislation

The UN human rights workplace (OHCHR) has reiterated the considerations expressed by the UN refugee company (UNHCR) that the scheme is just not suitable with worldwide refugee legislation.

“The combined effects of this bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles,” stated Mr. Türk. “Independent, effective judicial oversight is the bedrock of the rule of law. It must be respected and strengthened. Governments cannot revoke their international human rights and asylum-related obligations by legislation.”

The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights final week issued an necessary report elevating a variety of significant human rights and rule of legislation considerations with the proposed laws as a complete, the UN rights chief stated.

“I urge the UK Government to take all necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the UK’s international legal obligations and to uphold the country’s proud history of effective, independent judicial scrutiny. Such a stance is today more vital than ever,” Mr. Türk burdened.

Fails to satisfy required requirements

The invoice stems again to the UK’s announcement in April 2022 of a brand new migration and financial improvement partnership with the Government of Rwanda, later re-named the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership.

After the 2 governments signed the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty on 5 December 2023, the UK Government printed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill a day later.

After an evaluation of each, the UN refugee company stated in January that they do “not meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of asylum seekers” and “are not compatible with international refugee law”.

https://news.un.org/feed/view/en/story/2024/02/1146662