“We grant such requests only on an exceptional basis, when the applicants would otherwise face a real risk of irreversible harm.” So reads the comments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that last night granted an urgent interim measure in the case of K.N. v. the United Kingdom, an asylum seeker facing imminent removal to Rwanda. The court had succeeded where opposition politicians, senor bishops and others had failed.
ECHR rules against Rwanda plan
The court ruled that:
“In the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the government of the United Kingdom, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings.
“The court had regard to the concerns identified in the material before it, in particular by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that asylum-seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status as well as the finding by the High court that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient enquiry gave rise to ‘serious triable issues’.
“In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.”
First deportation flight to Rwanda cancelled
A succession of following judgments across several courts resulted in the planned first deportation flight due to take asylum seekers to Rwanda being cancelled, much to the fury of Conservative politicians. This resulted in the usual knee-jerk reaction with not-so-veiled threats to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, something that would put Britain in the same dubious grouping as Russia and Belarus.
Home Secretary Priti Patel commented that, “It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts. These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next. We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders”.
What is the ECHR?
The ECHR is the body responsible for overseeing that member countries comply with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is an institution of the Council of Europe. The court sits in Strasbourg and is not, as some politicians would have you believe the Court of Justice of the European Union, which sits in Luxembourg and deals with a separate legal system, the EU.
In May 1948 following the end of the war, the ‘Congress of Europe’ was held in The Hague. This gathering of over 750 delegates from across European society and politics, included Winston Churchill who stated:
“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
From this congress, the Council of Europe was eventually formed, focusing on human rights. It aims are to “encourage democracy, integration, human rights and freedom in Europe”.
Abiding by international law
Amnesty International takes up the story:
“The European Convention on Human Rights was formally drafted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg during the summer of 1949. Over one hundred members of parliament from across Europe assembled to draft the charter. The United Kingdom was the very first nation to ratify the convention in March of 1951.
“We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly, and expression as well as the right to form political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter.”
In recent years though, there have been increasing tensions between successive Conservative administrations and the various European courts. There have been repeated claims that the courts are interfering in issues already dealt with by our national courts.
Having yet another argument with Europe will no doubt play into the hands of those on the right of the Conservative party and be a welcome distraction from their numerous problems of the last few weeks. It might well turn out to be nothing more than tough political rhetoric, but with the real possibility of legal battles over the Northern Ireland protocol as well as over refugees, it will do absolutely nothing for the country’s rapidly diminishing international reputation.
