International immigration developments: the right not to hold a belief; South African death penalty extradition and Hisséne Habré

UK Supreme Court says that being forced to adopt particular views doesn't negate refugee claim

In RT (Zimbabwe) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the UK Supreme Court ruled that it is not an answer to a refugee claim by an individual who has no political views and who therefore does not support the persecutory regime in his home country to say that he would lie and feign loyalty to that regime in order to avoid the persecutory ill-treatment to which he would otherwise be subjected. Lord Dyson said that the case was a sequel to the decision of that same court in the HJ (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department case.

In HJ (Iran) it was held that a gay man was entitled to live freely and openly in accordance with his sexual identity under the Refugee Convention and it was no answer to the claim for asylum that he would conceal his sexual identity in order to avoid the persecution that would follow if he did not do so. Lord Dyson held that “the right not to hold the protected beliefs is a fundamental right which is recognised in international and human rights law...There is nothing marginal about it. Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe”.  

Click here to read a post about the case over at the UK Human Rights blog.

Click here to read the full judgment. 

South African extradition to Botswana where risk of death penalty

Middlesex University's Professor William A. Schabas writing on his PhD Studies in Human Rights blog has reported on the recent South African Constitutional Court judgment Tsembe et al. In this case South Africa had tried to extradite two individuals to Botswana where they would be a risk of facing the death penalty. South Africa sought diplomatic assurances that they would not face the death penalty but they were not given. South African authorities then decided that it would extradite despite the absence of such assurances. The two individuals took a case to the Constitutional Court challenging this decision and were successful in their claim.

Professor Schabas writes that the judgment confirms that the standard to be applied in such non-refoulement cases is whether there is a real risk of capital punishment. He notes that there is some divergence in international human rights law on this point to the extent that it relates to the death penalty or rather torture. In torture cases it is commonly accepted that even diplomatic assurances are not sufficient, but with the death penalty diplomatic assurances are generally sought and obtained.

Extradition of former Chad dictator

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Senegal must prosecute “without further delay” or extradite former Chad dictator Hisséne Habré. Habré is allegedly responsible for thousands of political killings and systematic torture when he ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990. He has been living in exile in Senegal for over 21 years. Senegal’s president had announced his intention to prosecute Habré but after proceedings stalled, Belgium indicted Habré in 2005 and requested his extradition a number of times. Belgium then filed a suit against Senegal in 2009 following the refusal to extradite. Belgium argued that Senegal had failed to meet its obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The ICJ found that Senegal had failed to meet its obligations under that convention and ordered Senegal to “without further delay, submit the case of Mr. Hissène Habré to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, if it does not extradite him.”

The International Committee for the Fair Trial of Hisséne Habré has stated that the decision will increase pressure on Senegal to bring Habré to justice. Souhayr Belhasses, President of the International Federation of Human Rights stated that, “today’s decision is a resounding blow to the impunity of torturers and tyrants and a victory for torture victims all over the world. The court has made clear that states that ratify the Torture Convention have a binding legal obligation to investigate and prosecute cases of torture”.

Click here to read more about the case.

Share

Resources

Sustaining Partners