Media Home
UN Web TV
UN Audiovisual Library
UN PhotoUnifeed
OHCHR / UK RWANDA BILL
STORY: OHCHR / UK RWANDA BILL
TRT: 01:08
SOURCE: OHCHR
RESTRICTIONS: NONE
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH / NATS
DATELINE: 19 FEBRUARY 2024, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND / FILE
FILE -GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
1. Various shots, Palais Wilson exteriors
19 FEBRUARY 2024, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
2. SOUNDBITE (English) Liz Throssell, Spokesperson, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR):
“Settling questions of disputed fact - questions with enormous human rights consequences – is what the courts do. And UK courts have a proven track record of doing this thoroughly and comprehensively. You cannot legislate facts out of existence. The combined effects of this Bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles. 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. We 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.”
3. Close up, OHCHR sign, Palais Wilson
Legislative moves by the UK Government to facilitate the prompt removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda – including by drastically stripping back the courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions - run contrary to the basic principles of the rule of law and risk delivering a serious blow to human rights, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned today (19 Feb).
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill requires every “decision maker”, be it a government minister, immigration officer, or court or tribunal reviewing asylum decisions, conclusively to treat Rwanda as a “safe country” in terms of protecting refugees and asylum-seekers against refoulement, irrespective of evidence that exists now or may exist in the future.
“Settling questions of disputed fact - questions with enormous human rights consequences – is what the courts do. And UK courts have a proven track record of doing this thoroughly and comprehensively,” said UN Human Rights Office spokesperson Liz Throssell.
OHCHR spokesperson also said, “You cannot legislate facts out of existence.”
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 Bill also substantially restricts the application of the Human Rights Act, which provides legal effect within the UK for the standards set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. It also renders discretionary in this context the implementation of interim protective orders of the European Court of Human Rights, which are internationally binding on the UK.
The High Commissioner noted how it was deeply concerning to carve out one group of people, or people in one particular situation, from the equal protection of the law.
“The combined effects of this Bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles,” said Throssell.
She added, “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.”
“We 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,” Throssell stressed.
Download
There is no media available to download.
