Expulsion to face torture? non-refoulement in international law

International Journal of Refugee Law

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 373-390

  Duffy, Aoife ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; INTERNATIONAL LAW; REFUGEE;

EID: 52749090633     PISSN: 09538186     EISSN: 14643715     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/een022     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, (1954) 189 UNTS 137, Article 33(1).
2. (1935) 159 LNTS 3663, Article 3.
3. For further information on issues relating to the defi nition of 'persecution' in international law, see, J. Pirjola, 'Shadows in Paradise - Exploring Non-refoulement as an Open Concept' 19 IJRL 639-60 (2007).
4. 'The idea that people must not be deported or extradited to countries in which they face a serious risk of torture has been seen as implicit in the prohibition of torture', S. Marks and A. Clapham, International Human Rights Lexicon (Oxford; New York 2005), 373.
5. J. Allain, 'The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-refoulement' 13 IJRL 533-58 (2001).
6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 Jan. 1980, UN Treaty Series, vol. 1155, 331.
7. C. L. Rozakis, The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties (Amsterdam [etc.]; Oxford 1976), 2.
8. , last accessed 29 Apr. 2008.
9. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, (1954) 189 UNTS 137, Article 33(2), hereinafter referred to as the Refugee Convention.
10. J. C. Hathaway and C. J. Harvey, 'Framing Refugee Protection in the New World Disorder' (2001) 34 Cornell Journal of International Law 290.
11. Ibid., 292.
12. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 UNTS 137, Article 1(F).
13. Hathaway and Harvey, above n. 10, 259.
14. G.A. Res. 217A, art. 14(2), UN doc. A/810, at 74 (1948).
15. Hathaway and Harvey, above n. 10, 263.
16. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN GAOR, 53rd Sess., art 7.1, UN doc. A/CONF. 183/9, at 6-9 (1998).
17. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, above n. 12, Article 1(F)(c).
18. Although the 1984 Cartagena Declaration states: 'To reiterate the importance and meaning of the principle of non-refoulement (including the prohibition of rejection at the frontier) as a corner-stone of the international protection of refugees. This principle is imperative in regard to refugees and in the present state of international law should be acknowledged and observed as a rule of jus cogens'.
19. Hathaway and Harvey, above n. 10, 262.
20. W. A. Schabas, Non-refoulement, Human Rights and International Cooperation in Counter-terrorism (Liechtenstein 2006), 4.
21. EXCOM General Conclusion on International Protection, No. 81 (XLVIII) 1997.
22. Other instruments, which also have non-refoulement provisions, include, the American Convention on Human Rights, (1979) 1144 UNTS 123, OASTS 36, Article 22.8 and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN doc. A/HRC/RES/2006/1, Article 17.
23. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the European Convention), Rome, 4 Nov. 1950.
24. See the Council of Europe website: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=005&CM=10&DF=4/29/2008&CL=ENG>, last accessed on 29 Apr. 2008.
25. H. Lambert, 'Protection Against Refoulement from Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue' (1999) 48 ICLQ 515-44.
26. The European Convention, above n. 23, Art. 3.
27. Recommendation 434 'Concerning the granting of the right of asylum to European refugees' Assembly Debate on 1st Oct. 1965 (15th Sitting) (see Doc. 1986, report of the Committee on Population and Refugees).
28. Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) ECHR, Series A, No. 25.
29. Ibid., para. 65.
30. Soering v. United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A, No. 161, 11 EHRR 439, para. 88.
31. Chahal v. United Kingdom, 15 Nov. 1996, Reports 1996-V, para. 80
32. see also, Saadi v. Italy, 37201/06, S. Ct. H.R. (Grand Chamber), 28 Feb. 2008.
33. Cases that have attested the jus cogens nature of the prohibition on torture: Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 10 Dec. 1998, para. 153
34. and Judgment (1999) - Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet; Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division).
35. Although it should be noted that in Jones v. Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [2005] 2 WLR 808, the House of Lords granted sovereign immunity to Saudi Arabia, rather than find that the Torture Convention granted universal jurisdiction, on the grounds that there was no evidence that states had agreed to pursue violations of peremptory norms.
36. , last accessed 29 Apr. 2008, (hereinafter referred to as the Convention Against Torture).
37. See also, the UNGA Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by consensus by the UNGA in 1975, which states that 'torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' and declares that such acts are 'a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' United Nations, General Assembly Resolution No. 3452, 30 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 34) at 91, UN doc. A/10034 (1975).
38. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 189 UNTS 150, Art. 3.
39. General Comment 2, CAT/C/GC/2/CRP.1/Rev.4, 23 Nov. 2007, para. 3.
40. Marks and Clapham, above n. 4.
41. Committee Against Torture, General Comment 1 (Implementation to art. 3 of the Convention in the context of art. 22: Art. 3), 21 Nov. 1997, para. 2.
42. See also, The Committee Against Torture's Conclusion in the Mutombo case: 'in the present circumstances, his return to Zaire would have the foreseeable and necessary consequence of exposing him to a real risk of being detained and tortured' 'The danger of torture involves the foreseeable and necessary consequence that a real risk will occur that the person in question will be subjected to torture as a risk of deportation'. Mutombo v. Switzerland, Communication No. 13/1993, 27 Apr. 1994.
43. Convention Against Torture, above n. 35, Art 3.2.
44. B. Gorlick, 'The Convention and the Committee Against Torture: A Complementary Protection Regime for Refugees', 11 IJRL 484 (1999).
45. C. Ingelse, The UN Committee Against Torture: An Assessment (The Hague/London/Boston 2001), 307.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1976) 999 UNTS 171, Art. 13 (hereinafter referred to as the ICCPR).
49. Ingelse, above n. 41, 310.
50. Kindler v. Canada, Communication No.470/1991, at para. 13.2.
51. General Comment 20, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994), 30, s. 9.
52. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 52-165, Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, 15 Dec. 1997.
53. Manickavasagam Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 SCC 1. File No.: 27790.
54. Other cases that involve 'terrorists' and non-refoulement: Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman, [2001] 3 WLR 877
55. Ahani v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2002] OJ No. 81 (CA)
56. Chahal v. the United Kingdom, (15 Nov 1996), European Court of Human Rights, Appl.no. 22414/93.
57. See also, Ahmed v. Austria, (17 Dec. 1996), Appl.no. 25964/94.
58. 'Extraditions, Expulsions, Deportations' in, Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights - Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11 (The International Helsinki Federation, 2003).
59. The customary status of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is apparent in the UN General Assembly's Res 39/ 118 14 Dec 1984, which refers to the 'existing prohibition under international law of every form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. Lauterpacht and Bethlehem, below n. 70, suggest that this statement indicates that the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was part of the existing 'corpus of customary international law'.
60. H. Steiner and P. Alston, International Human Rights in Context (Oxford/New York, 2nd edn., 2000), 731.
61. Ng v. Canada (No. 469/1991), UN doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991, UN doc. A/49/40, Vol. II
62. Cox v. Canada, Communication No.539/1993
63. G.T. v. Australia (No. 706/1996), CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996.
64. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (1992), HRI/HEN/1/Rev.1, 28 July 1994, at para. 2.
65. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 24 (52) (1994), CCPR/C/21/ Rev.1/Add.6, 2 Nov. 1994, at para. 8.
66. Ibid.
67. 1967 United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, Article 3: 1 No person referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, shall be subjected to measures such as rejection at the frontier or, if he has already entered the territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any State where he may be subjected to persecution. 2 Exception may be made to the foregoing principle only for overriding reasons of national security or in order to safeguard the population, as in the case of a mass influx of persons. 3 Should a State decide in any case that exception to the principle stated in paragraph I of this Article would be justified, it shall consider the possibility of granting to the persons concerned, under such conditions as it may deem appropriate, an opportunity, whether by way of provisional asylum or otherwise, of going to another State.
68. UNGA Res 37/95, 18 Dec. 1982, Similar wording was used in resolutions adopted between the years 1983-1988.
69. UNGA Res 48/116, 21 Dec. 1993.
70. Sanremo Declaration on the Principle of Non-refoulement (2001): The International Institute of Humanitarian Law, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, issued this statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
71. Ibid.
72. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ, Judgment of 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
73. Ibid.
74. UNHCR Refugee Policy and Practice, 'The Principle of Non-Refoulement as a Norm of Customary International Law', document to be found at: .
75. ICJ Reports 1986, 88, para. 186.
76. Above n. 65.
77. Ibid.
78. Schabas, above n. 20, 7.
79. E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, 'The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement: Opinion' in E. Feller, V. Türk and F. Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law, (Cambridge 2003), 140.
80. Ibid., 151.
81. For further information on Lauterpacht & Bethlehem's conclusions with regard to non-refoulement as a component of the prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment see, above n. 70, 153-6.
82. Lauterpacht and Bethlehem, above n. 70, 155.
83. See also, R. Bruin & K. Wouters, 'Terrorism and the Non-derogability of Non-refoulement' 15 IJRL 5 (2003), 24-6
84. Allain, above n. 5.