International Law
Mohammad Reza Mogadasifar; Farideh Shaygan
Abstract
IntroductionAsylum-seeking has emerged as a critical social issue at the international level in recent decades. Every year, millions of refugees leave their home countries or places of residence, seeking refuge in other countries to escape economic, military, political, and social crises. Refugees embark ...
Read More
IntroductionAsylum-seeking has emerged as a critical social issue at the international level in recent decades. Every year, millions of refugees leave their home countries or places of residence, seeking refuge in other countries to escape economic, military, political, and social crises. Refugees embark on the arduous asylum process due to the fear of torture and persecution in their home country or place of residence, in pursuit of a life that aligns with the minimum standards of human rights. While some successfully obtain refugee status from the host country, some face deportation or repatriation after going through the legal process. In some cases, they may even be returned to a third country, where persecution awaits based on justified evidence. Returning them to their former country is certainly the worst-case scenario for asylum seekers or refugees. The international community has established a legal framework for refugee protection through the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Certain rules and principles outlined in these documents are so fundamental that no reservations can be made to them. A notable example is the principle of non-refoulement which prevents the return of refugees to their home country or a third state where persecution is feared.The present study tried to answer the following question: What prevents the return or deportation of a refugee to their home country or a third state? While the treaties do not explicitly answer this question, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights provides valuable insights into the meaning and legal nature of this principle, as well as methods for assessing the status of a refugee when deciding on repatriation. Although the European Court of Human Rights lacks the authority to review and apply the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, member states of the Council of Europe are obligated to ensure the respect of rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction, including refugees and asylum seekers. At the intersection of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Court of Human Rights examines general conditions in the state concerned and the individual applicant’s situation to determine factors preventing repatriation or expulsion. To this end, the Court has set specific limits on the right of states to expel refugees and asylum seekers from their borders. The Court indirectly supports the principle of non-refoulement, aiming to ensure respect and prevent violations of relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article (3) which prohibits torture. This implies that the reservation cannot be applied to the principle of non-refoulement, which extends beyond the scope of the 1951 Convention.Literature ReviewWhile there are many articles addressing refugee protection and the non-refoulement principle under the European Convention on Human Rights, they have not explicitly delved into the prohibition of reservation to the non-refoulement principle. Therefore, the current study can be regarded as innovative in both its subject matter and content.Materials and MethodsAdopting a descriptive–analytical method, the present research examined national and international legal literature, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and pertinent international treaties.ConclusionThe European Court of Human Rights, functioning as a monitoring mechanism for the European Convention on Human Rights, has encountered numerous cases involving asylum seekers seeking refugee status. Its jurisprudence has significantly contributed to the development and evolution of laws pertaining to refugee protection. By establishing a connection between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Court has effectively offered indirect support to refugees, safeguarding them against deportation, extradition, and repatriation. Its jurisprudence firmly prohibits the application of reservations to the non-refoulement principle.
Farideh Shaygan; Esmaeil Rahmani Klakuob
Abstract
Crimes related to drugs and psychotropic substances are recognized as threats to human rights. They have also a devastating impact on the economic, social and cultural foundations of national societies, as well as, on international order and security. Serious measures have been taken to control and deal ...
Read More
Crimes related to drugs and psychotropic substances are recognized as threats to human rights. They have also a devastating impact on the economic, social and cultural foundations of national societies, as well as, on international order and security. Serious measures have been taken to control and deal with those crimes, yet these actions should be consistent with human rights requirements. Limiting the death penalty to the "most serious crime" is one of the most important human rights requirements in the contemporary world. Since human rights institutions have not considered drug-related crimes as one of the "most serious crimes", the parliament can play an effective role in avoiding the emergence of international responsibility for the Iranian government by limiting the death penalty.
