The British Parliament has passed a law allowing people who entered the UK illegally to be returned to Rwanda. Under discussion since the mandate of Boris Johnson in 2019, who handed over to Liz Truss, the bill then fell into the hands of Rishi Sunak, current British Prime Minister, who intends, according to his argument, to put an end to the crossings perilous crossings of the Channel by thousands of people. The fact remains that this text is in contradiction with certain rules laid down by international law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
A text already sanctioned by the judge
In November 2023, the British Supreme Court declared the bill contrary to international conventions, in that it would undermine the principle of non-refoulement of asylum seekers, established by article 33 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of refugees. According to the judges, there was a risk that people returned to Rwanda would be returned to a country where their lives and their freedom would be threatened.
The ECtHR itself had suspended the transfer of an Iraqi to Rwanda in June 2022, planned as part of the agreement between the United Kingdom and this East African country. The Court expected guarantees regarding fair access to justice in Rwanda and also required that this country be considered safe, a condition for a person to be expelled there, again according to Article 33 of the 1951 Convention. clarify that each State draws up its own list of safe countries of origin to which it can return people. It should be noted, however, that there is no “global list” of safe countries. In France, it is the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra), a jurisdiction which processes asylum requests, which draws up this list, according to article L121-13 of the entry and stay code. foreigners and the right to asylum.
The choice to circumvent international law
The British government has already made it clear that it will ignore the decisions of the courts, whether national or European. Through this law which has just been adopted and which ratifies the transfer agreement with Rwanda, the United Kingdom unilaterally considers this country to be safe. In doing so, the British legislator provides a solution to the main sticking point of the British Supreme Court.
This being said, the wording of Article 33 of the 1951 Convention which prohibits sending a person to a country in which they fear for their safety leaves a certain margin of appreciation to British judges and legislators. Unlike France, the United Kingdom is not subject to harmonization by the Court of Justice of the European Union in matters of asylum.
The British national judge will therefore not be able to oppose the application of this law by considering that Rwanda is not a safe country. But the ECtHR will be able to condemn the United Kingdom, still party to the European Convention on Human Rights, if it is demonstrated before it that Rwanda is not a safe country and that despite this the United Kingdom continues his transfers. Many appeals in perspective.
An error in this content? Do you want to submit information for verification? Let us know using our online form. Find our correction and information submission policy on the Our method page.
