U.K. Government Responds to British Supreme Court Decision on Migrant Policy with New Treaty

By: Christina Bradic

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 UNITED KINGDOM – On December 5, 2023, the government of the United Kingdom responded to a November Supreme Court decision, declaring the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership unlawful. They signed a new treaty that will relocate migrants arriving in the United Kingdom to Rwanda for asylum processing and thereby barring their return to the United Kingdom.

 
Migrants claiming to be from Darfur, Sudan cross the English Channel in an inflatable boat near Dover, Britain, 8/4/21 | Photo courtesy of Reuters.
  

According to The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, approximately 46,000 people crossed the English Channel in 2022 in small boats, with over 90 percent of those people making claims for asylum. In response to the large number of migrants crossing the English Channel, the British Government proposed a plan in April 2022 that would deport migrants arriving in the United Kingdom to the country of Rwanda for asylum processing and relocation. There, Rwandan officials would oversee Asylum conditions and decisions. Under the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, the United Kingdom would provide Rwanda up to £120 million ($152 million USD) over five years.

The first flight to deport migrants to Rwanda was scheduled for June 14, 2022. However, on the morning that the flight was scheduled to depart for Kigali, the European Court for Human Rights issued an injunction against the United Kingdom, prohibiting the flight until there was further investigation into the legality of the policy.

On December 19, 2022, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that the policy was legal and did not breach Britain’s obligations under the U.N. Refugee Convention or other international agreements. On June 29, 2023, a Court of Appeals of England and Wales overruled the lower court decision, declaring the deportation plan as unlawful and violating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision was unanimously upheld by the U.K. Supreme Court on Nov. 15, 2023.

At the heart of the decision is not whether relocation to a third country is lawful; the Supreme court has affirmed that sending migrants to a safe third country is not illegal in itself. However, the European Court for Human Rights has declared that when asylum applicants can arguably claim that there is no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the authorities in the third country, and that there could be a possible violation of Article 3 of the U.N. Refugee Convention, that relocation is unlawful. This is the stance the U.K. Supreme court has taken regarding Rwanda.

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled that current Rwandan policy risks violations of Section 3 of the United Kingdom’s Immigration Act of 1971. The Act states that a country is only considered a “safe third country” if there is not a policy of refoulment. The act of returning asylum seekers to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is risk of inhumane torture or treatment. The court also stated the policy was at risk of violating Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requiring asylum claims to be properly determined under human rights law.

The court cited political repression in Rwanda, political killings, Rwanda’s total rejection of all asylum applications from Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen between 2020 and 2022.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, on December 5, the British Home Secretary, James Cleverly, and the Rwandan Foreign Minister, Vincent Biruta, signed a migration treaty that is binding under international law. The treaty addresses concerns raised by the U.K. Supreme Court, including prohibiting refoulment, setting up an independent monitoring committee and an Appeal Body, comprised of judges with humanitarian protection expertise, representing multiple nationalities. Cleverly stated, “Rwanda cares deeply about the rights of refugees.”

Critics say that the treaty is the British government’s plan to circumvent a human rights ruling of the Supreme Court, making it discreditable and susceptible to being overturned.

For further information, please see:

Aljazeera – UK home secretary signs new asylum treaty in Rwanda – 5 Dec. 2023

Associated Press – UK top court says a plan to send migrants to Rwanda is illegal. The government still wants to do it – 15 Nov. 2023

Barron’s –The UK’s Rwanda Migration Policy: A Timeline – 5 Dec. 2023

BBC News – Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful – 15 Nov. 2023

BBC News – What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? – 5 Dec. 2023

CNN – UK’s Rwanda deportation plan ‘unlawful,’ court of appeal rules – 29 Jun. 2023

European Court of Human Rights – Guide on case-law of the European Convention of Human Rights-Immigration – 31 Aug. 2022

GOV.UK – Treaty signed to strengthen UK-Rwanda Migration Partnership – 5 Dec. 2023

Royal Courts of Justice – AA-v-SSHD judgment – 29 Jun. 2023

The Guardian – What is the ECHR and how did it intervene in UK’s Rwanda flight plans? – 15 Jun. 2022

The Migration Observatory – People crossing the English Channel in small boats – 21 Jul. 2023

United Kingdom Supreme Court – R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – 15 Nov. 2023

Family Requests IACHR Recognition of Columbian Human Rights Violations

By: Paola Andrea Suárez Luján

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

BOGOTÁ, Columbia – It has been 39 years since the imprisonment and murder of Luis Fernando Lalinde, a young college student from Colombia and member of the Communist Party. He was detained without due process on October 3rd, 1984, tortured, and executed by members of the Colombian military. In November 2023, his family petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to recognize the human rights violations committed by the Columbian state.

 
Photo of Luis Fernando Lalinde Lalinde | Photo courtesy of Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz.
  

The truth of the circumstances of his death was the life search of his mother Fabiola Lalinde, who spearheaded Operation Siriri, a search campaign for the truth of his disappearance that lasted more than 30 years. Fabiola Lalinde’s efforts come to life in the hundreds of handwritten notebooks, family photos, and more than 1200 documents recording all information regarding the disappearance of his son. Almost four decades after his death, Luis Fernando Lalinde’s family continues their search for the truth. 

In 1988, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights adopted Resolution 24/87, declaring the Colombian State responsible for the detention, torture, and extra-judicial murder of Luis Fernando Lalinde. They urged Colombian authorities to investigate and find the people responsible for his murder. However, it was not until 1992 that Lalinde’s family was presented with his remains, and it was in 1996, exactly 4,428 days after his disappearance, when American scientists confirmed with 99.999% certainty that those remains belonged to Luis Fernando Lalinde. The identity of the perpetrators of his detention and extra-judicial execution, however, remains unknown to the Lalinde family.

For the lack of action from the Colombian government, in 1999 the Colombian Commission of Jurists requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to declare the State responsible for the harm to the psychological and moral integrity of Lalinde’s family members. They alleged that the State deliberately obstructed Lalinde’s family’s access to adequate remedies for the investigation and punishment of those responsible for his detention and execution, depriving them of their right to obtain justice.

Lalinde’s case investigation was performed mainly under military criminal jurisdiction. The Commission stated in its Merits Report No. 292/21 that, by leaving the investigation to military jurisdiction, the Colombian State violated judicial guarantees and protections. There was no independent and impartial authority in the case that could allow for a fair investigation and adequate sanction of the people responsible for the acts committed against Luis Fernando Lalinde.

Following that petition, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, representing Luis Fernando Lalinde’s family members and following his mother’s lifelong mission, has requested the Inter-American Court on Human Rights on November 6th of this year, on behalf of the Commission, to declare the Colombian State responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, judicial guarantees and judicial protection in detriment to Fabiola Lalinde, Jorge Iván Lalinde, Mauricio Lalinde, and Adriana Lalinde.

Lalinde’s family is requesting that the Court order the Colombian State to fully redress the human rights violations committed against them and that measures be adopted so they can receive comprehensive medical care. Following a 40-year-long plea, they also ask that the Colombian government conduct and conclude an impartial and effective judicial investigation to establish the circumstances of the disappearance and death of Luis Fernando Lalinde, as well as identify and sanction all individuals involved in the events.

The ongoing fight for truth by the Lalinde family is accompanied by the families of more than 60,000 disappeared individuals in Colombia in the last 45 years. The request to the Court calls for an analysis of the impact of the prolonged impunity of serious human rights violations on the personal integrity of the victim’s families.

For further information, please see:

IACHR – Petition Before the Inter-American Court Of Human Rights Case 12,362 – 6 Nov. 2023

CCJ – Luis Fernando Lalinde was Disappeared 37 Years Ago by Military Forces – 3 Oct. 2021

El Colombiano – The Long Flight of the Ciriri, the History of Fabiola Lalinde – 13 May 2022

Hacemos Memoria – “The Archive of a Ciriri Has to be Uncomfortable for a Country as Unjust and Violent as Ours”: Fabiola Lalinde – 17 Apr. 2018

Cero Setenta – Operation Siriri or How to Find a Missing Child – 30 Apr. 2018

Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica – Until We Find Them. The Drama of Forced Disappearance in Colombia – 2016

UNAL – Data base: The Fabiola Lalinde and Family Fund – 20 Apr. 2022

Dissenting Opinion Issued in Three Tanzanian Capital Punishment Cases

By: Rachel Wallisky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

DODOMA, Tanzania — Of the nine new judgments the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) issued during its opening ceremony on November 7, 2023, three are appeals of capital sentences imposed in the United Republic of Tanzania. Arguments for these cases were all heard by the AfCHPR during its September 2023 term.

 
Gavel in the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights | Photo Courtesy of the AfCHPR.
  

Background

In Tanzania, a person convicted of murder or treason must be sentenced to death with few exceptions. While murder convictions are relatively rare, courts in Tanzania have interpreted the law to say that a capital sentence is mandatory for these cases. Tanzania has taken an abolitionist stance on the death penalty, having not carried out an execution since 1994. However, the law mandating capital punishment is still codified in statute and many are sentenced to death. Most murder sentences are commuted to life imprisonment. The AfCHPR has held in the past that mandatory death penalty statutes violates the right to life as guaranteed under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter). Additionally, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) condemns mandatory capital punishment.

The Cases

The first case, John Lazaro v. United Republic of Tanzania, is an appeal from the murder conviction of Mr. Lazaro, a Tanzanian national. Mr. Lazaro argued that several of his rights were violated during his trial by the domestic courts, including his right to life under Article 4 and right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter. The Court agreed that Mr. Lazaro’s right to life under Article 4 had been violated by the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, and his right to dignity under Article 5 had been violated due to the method of execution prescribed by the domestic courts, namely hanging.

The second case, Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanania, is an appeal from the murder conviction of Mr. Misalaba, a Tanzanian national. Mr. Misalaba was granted a presidential pardon, and his capital sentences was commuted to life imprisonment. Mr. Misalaba stated several of his rights were violated during his trial by the domestic courts, despite his pardon, including his right to life and right to dignity under Article 4 and Article 5 of the Charter, respectively. The Court agreed that Mr. Misalaba’s right to life was violated but disagreed that his Article 5 rights were violated, awarding him with TZS 500,000 in moral damages.

The third case, Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanania, is an appeal from the murder conviction of Mr. John, a Tanzanian national. Mr. John also argued his Article 4 and 5 rRight to Life and Right to Dignity, among other rights, were violated during his trial by domestic courts. Uniquely, Mr. John called upon the Court to order Tanzania to remove the mandatory death sentence provision for the offense of murder. The Court agreed that Mr. John’s Article 4 and 5 rights were violated and ordered Tanzania to pay TZS 500,000 in moral damages.

The Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion was written by Judge Blaise Tchikaya regarding all three cases. Judge Tchikaya criticizes the court for “retreat[ing]” from the AfCHPR’s power to interpret the law. He argues that the court should have taken the initiative to state that the death penalty is contrary to Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter and States should take measures to remove it from their national legislation.

Additionally, Judge Tchikaya argues these decisions are contradictory. In the Chrizant John judgment, Judge Tchikaya criticizes the Court for finding that Mr. John’s Article 7 right to be heard was not violated because the right requires the sentence imposed to be “legally unobjectionable.” Because the death penalty is not a “legally unobjectionable” sentence, Judge Tchikaya finds Mr. John’s Article 7 rights to have been violated. In the Makungu Misalaba judgment, Judge Tchikaya argues that the majority contradicted itself by finding that Mr. Misalaba’s Article 5 right to dignity was not violated while at the same time finding his Article 4 right to life was violated, because to sentence someone to death is to violate both Article 4 and Article 5 of the Charter. For similar reasons, Judge Tchikaya argues the John Lazaro judgment is subject to the same criticisms.

For further information, please see:

AfCHPR – Dissenting Opinion of Judge Blaise Tchikaya, John Lazaro v. United Republic of Tanzania, Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanzania – 7 Nov. 2023

AfCHR – Judgment on Merits and Reparations, Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania – 7 Nov. 2023

AfCHR – Judgment on Merits and Reparations, Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanzania – 7 Nov. 2023

AfCHR – Judgment on Merits and Reparations, John Lazaro v. United Republic of Tanzania – 7 Nov. 2023

Amnesty International – Case on death-row detainees challenging mandatory death penalty – 25 June 2023

Parlementarians for Global Action – Tanzania and the Death Penalty

Chile to Vote on Whether to Adopt New Constitution with Right to Life Provision

By: Carlos Dominguez Scheid

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

SANTIAGO, Chile – On November 7, 2023, the Chilean Constitutional Council presented President Gabriel Boric with a proposal of a new constitution that includes a right to life provision and outlaws the death penalty.

 
President Gabriel Boric is presented with the proposal of the New Constitution by Beatriz Hevia, President of the Constitutional Council | Photo courtesy of the Associated Press
  

The current Chilean Constitution, in effect since 1981 and approved by referendum in 1980 during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, has been a point of contention due to its undemocratic origins despite undergoing significant reforms in 1989 and 2005. In response to major social unrest in October 2019, political parties agreed to initiate the process of drafting a new constitution, seeking to address the popular demands for improvements in the quality of life. In a 2020 referendum, with a 50.95% turnout, 78.28% of voters supported the creation of a new constitution and endorsed the establishment of a new, independent body, distinct from Congress, tasked with drafting it. The election for the 155 members of the Constitutional Convention was held in May 2021, and the results yielded a supermajority for the left and far left. In the September 2022 referendum, the people rejected their drafted Constitution, with 62% voting against it. The referendum had a historic 85.86% turnout.

Subsequently, a new political agreement led to a different process, involving a Commission of Constitutional Experts appointed by Congress to prepare a draft constitution. This was to be reviewed and voted on by the Constitutional Council, a 50-member body elected in May 2023. With a supermajority held by the right and center-right, the Council is poised to introduce changes to the proposed constitution.

Article 4.1 of American Convention of Human Rights (About the Right to Life), from 1969, states that:

“Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

In Chile, the current Constitution states that:

“The Constitution ensures to all persons the right to life and to the physical and mental integrity of the person. The law protects the life of the one about to be born. The death penalty may only be instituted for a crime established in a law approved by a qualified quorum.” (Article 19 N° 1)

The Commission of Constitutional Experts proposed the following change:

“The Constitution ensures to all people the right to life. The death penalty is prohibited.”

The Constitutional Council’s final proposal, which will be voted on in the December 17th Referendum, states:

“The Constitution ensures to all people the right to life. The law protects the life of the one who is to be born. The death penalty is prohibited.” (Article 16 N° 1)

This constitution is the first in Chile’s history to prohibit the death penalty. If approved, it would close the debate on this issue. Although the death penalty was abolished in the Penal Code in 2001, it remains in effect for military crimes during wartime. This has allowed for legislative proposals to reintroduce it in the Penal Code, arguing that Chile has not fully abolished it and therefore is not bound by Article 4.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

The issue about the protection of the right to life of the unborn was subject to a strong debate. In Chile, abortion is governed by the Penal Code and the Sanitary Code. A total ban on abortion was implemented in 1989, during the last year of the dictatorship, through an amendment to the Sanitary Code. It was only in 2017 that abortion was legalized again, but strictly under three distinct situations: if the woman’s life is at risk, if the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that renders it nonviable outside the uterus, or in cases where the pregnancy has occurred due to rape, with the gestation period capped at twelve weeks (fourteen weeks for those under 14 years of age). This legislative change, stemming from a constitutional mandate ​to protect ‘the life of​ the one about to be born,’ was hotly debated. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court upheld the legality of this limited decriminalization of abortion in a 6-4 decision.

The right and center-right dominated Council proposed a key change to the current constitution and to the draft of the Commission of Constitutional Experts, focusing on enhancing the protection of the unborn. In the debate, ​Article 4.1 of the American​ ​Convention on Human Rights​ was referenced. The distinction between ‘the law protects the life of the one about to be born’ and ‘the law protects the life of the one ​who is about to be born​’, while subtle, underscores crucial legal and ethical interpretations regarding the protection of the nasciturus. The use of ‘who’ suggests personhood, advocating for the recognition of the unborn as individuals with rights from conception. This implies a broader scope of protection, viewing the fetus as an individual entity, rather than an extension of the pregnant woman.

A referendum was announced for December 17, 2023, where Chileans will vote on whether to adopt the new constitution.

For further information, please see:

Reuters – Chile voters sour on right-wing constitution as abortion clause stirs debate – 6 Oct. 2023

Bloomberg – Chile’s Right Takes Aim at Abortion, Gender in Amendments to Constitution Draft – 18 Jul 2023

Le Monde – Chile’s draft constitution calls into question right to abortion – 24 Sept 2023

The Guardian – Chile’s right wing presents draft conservative constitution – 7 Nov 2023

AP News – Chile president calls for referendum on new constitution proposal drafted by conservative councilors – 7 Nov 2023

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights – The Death Penalty in the Inter‐American Human Rights System: From Restrictions To Abolition – 31 Dec 2011

Rodrigo Delaveau Swett – Constitution of Chile – 2021

 

ICJ Issues Provisional Measure to Syrian Arab Republic: “Take all Measures to Prevent Acts of Torture” and Preserve Evidence ICJ

By: Darleen Marie Patacchia,

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations Associate Articles Editor

The Hague, Netherlands – On November 16, 2023, with a vote of thirteen to two, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mandated that the Syrian government “take all measures within its power to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Court further compelled the Syrian government to safeguard evidence linked to accusations of violations of the international Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention). The ICJ’s provisional measure is not a ruling on the merits, but it is the first step towards international legal accountability.

 
Families of the disappeared and detained placed in front of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) October 10, 2023 | Photo Courtesy of Human Rights Watch.
  

Under the Convention, which Syria became a party to in 2004, a party state may bring an action erga omnes partes, against any other party to the treaty for a violation. The signatories have a common legal interest to ensure “that acts of torture are prevented and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity.”

On June 8, 2023, Canada and the Netherlands brought suit against Syria in the ICJ for violating the Convention. They sought a declaration by the Court that Syria breached its duty to international law under the Convention and requiring Syria to accept responsibility for the violations, to cease ongoing violations, and to provide guarantees the acts will not be repeated. The Syrian government denies all torture allegations despite significant evidence from refugees, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and United Nations Observers. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) estimated that as of May of 2023, 15,275 civilians had been tortured to death, 154,817 were disappeared or arbitrarily arrested, and over 230,224 were killed.

The ICJ’s ruling marks a significant moment in the pursuit of justice for the thousands of victims of the Syrian government’s “enforced disappearances, abhorrent treatment of detainees, inhumane conditions of detention, [and] other acts committed in order to coerce, punish or terrorize the civilian population, and sexual and gender-based violence.” It came only twenty-four hours after France issued arrest warrants for President Bashar al-Assad, his brother, Maher al-Assad, and two other senior Syrian officials for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The warrants charge the officials with “complicity in the use of banned chemical weapons” against Syrian civilians.

While the International Court of Justice may not have enforcement capability, its decisions are binding and can potentially trigger U.N. Security Council action. International legal condemnation and publicized trial evidence may prompt supporters to distance themselves from the current Syrian government. The progression of the trial could also prove to be a valuable blockade to President Bashar al-Assad’s efforts to normalize international relations with Syria under his regime.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – World Court Rules Against Syria in Torture Case – 16 Nov. 2023

ICJ – Allegations of Torture under the Convention on Torture (Canada and The Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic), Provisional Measures, Order – 16 Nov. 2023

N.Y. Times – International Court Orders Syria to Stop Torture of Political Opponents – 16 Nov. 2023

Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) – Press Release – 15 Nov. 2023

Syrian Network for Human Rights – Report on the Twelfth Anniversary of the Popular Uprising –  15 Mar. 2023

UN Human Rights | OHCHR – Behind the Data: Recording Civilian Casualties in Syria – 11 May 2023

UN Human Rights | OHCHR – Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – 10 Dec. 1984