Evaluation of Administrative Detention Within the Framework of Immigrants’ Impunity in the Context of Migrant Smuggling Crime
Meral BalcıMigrant smuggling is a multifaceted problem with a transnational nature. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime also includes the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, established in 2000, as part of the legal efforts of the States to combat illegal immigration. With this Protocol, the State parties are obligated to criminalize migrant smuggling. Furthermore, the importance of protecting the rights of immigrants has been pointed out in some cases. In this respect, the Protocol presents both State and immigrant-oriented approach.
The peculiarity of this paper is the principle of not punishing immigrants. Protocol art 5 is for this purpose, which states that immigrants are immune from criminal prosecution because they are the subject of the migrant smuggling crime. Emphasizing the fact that immigrants are the subject of the crime necessitates a distinct treatment of the legal status of immigrants within the context ofthe migrantsmuggling crime. The basis and scope of not punishing immigrants will be examined in the context of the mentioned principle. The examination will be carried out on the axis of administrative detention measure. Administrative detention measures are applied in the presence of certain conditions in the admission or deportation process of aliens from the country. The increased administrative detention measures against immigrants necessitated an approach from the perspective of criminal law, particularly in recent years. Administrative detention is important concerning the subject matter because it is founded on the principle of liberty deprivation.
Göçmen Kaçakçılığı Suçu Bağlamında Göçmenlerin Cezasızlığı İlkesi Çerçevesinde İdari Gözetim Tedbirinin Değerlendirilmesi
Meral BalcıGöçmen kaçakçılığı sınıraşan niteliği ile çok yönlü bir konudur. Devletlerin yasa dışı göçle mücadeleyi hukuksal düzlemde ele almaya yönelik girişimleri kapsamında 2000 tarihli Sınıraşan Örgütlü Suçlara Karşı Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesine Ek Kara, Deniz ve Hava Yoluyla Göçmen Kaçakçılığına Karşı Protokol de bulunmaktadır. Bu Protokol ile üye devletlere yasal düzenlemeler ile göçmen kaçakçılığını suç olarak kabul etme yükümlülüğü öngörülmüş ve ayrıca bazı durumlarda göçmenlerin haklarının korunmasının önemine dikkat çekilmiştir. Bu yönüyle Protokol hem devlet hem göçmen odaklı bir yaklaşım göstermektedir. Çalışma bağlamında özellik arz eden husus, göçmenlerin cezalandırılmaması ilkesidir. Protokol md. 5 düzenlemesi buna yönelik olup, göçmenlerin göçmen kaçakçılığı suçunun konusu olmaları nedeniyle cezai kovuşturmaya tabi tutulamayacağı belirtilmiştir. Göçmenlerin suçun konusunu teşkil ettiği vurgusu, göçmenlerin göçmen kaçakçılığı suçu kapsamında hukuki niteliğinin ayrıca ele alınmasını gerektirmektedir. Sözü edilen ilke bağlamında göçmenlerin cezalandırılmamasının esası ve kapsamı incelenecektir. İnceleme, idari gözetim tedbiri ekseninde yapılacaktır. İdari gözetim tedbiri, yabancıların ülkeye kabul veya ülkeden sınır dışı edilmelerine ilişkin süreçte belirli koşulların varlığı halinde uygulanmaktadır. Tedbir, önceleri istisnai niteliği ile anılmakta iken; son zamanlarda yasa dışı göç olaylarının artışı ile tartışma konusu olmaya başlamıştır. Özellikle son yıllarda göçmenlere yönelik uygulanan idari gözetim tedbirinde yaşanan artış, tedbire yönelik ceza hukuku perspektifinden bir yaklaşımı gerekli kılmıştır. İdari gözetimi konu bakımından önemli kılan husus, bu tedbirin kişiyi özgürlüğünden yoksun kılma esasına dayanmasıdır. Bu nedenle ceza hukuku kurumları olarak gözaltı, tutuklama ve hapis cezası ile benzer yönleri ön plana çıkarılmaktadır. İdari gözetimin, kaçak göçmenlere yönelik bir cezalandırma aracı olarak kullanılıp kullanılmadığı ve buna bağlı olarak Protokol md. 5’in ihlaline sebep olup olmadığı çalışmanın temel sorusunu teşkil etmektedir.
The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air supplemented the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This Protocol aims to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants, and promote cooperation among State parties to that end, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants (Protocol Art. 2). Article 3 of the Protocol defines the offense of migrant smuggling. Smuggling of migrants shall refer to the procurement of the unauthorized entry of a person into a State party, of which the individual is neither a national nor a permanent resident, with the intent of obtaining a financial or other material benefit, either directly or indirectly.
Article 5 of the Protocol regards non-criminalization. Migrants shall not be liable for criminal prosecution under this Protocol because they have been the object of the conduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol. This regulation of the Protocol covers all foreigners. In this context, there is no distinction between stateless, asylum seekers or refugees.
The legal status of the immigrant in the immigrant smuggling crime is important. Although certain perspectives on this matter solely consider immigrants as the object of the crime, others consider the immigrant to be both the object and the victim of the crime. Unlike human trafficking, migrant smuggling does not invariably involve the victimization of the immigrant. Conditions that pose a threat to the lives or safety of the migrants in question, or are likely to do so, or involve inhuman, degrading, or exploitative treatment of such migrants, constitute aggravating circumstances. Such are the conditions under which the migrant ought to be classified as a victim of the crime.
As a rule, the fact that immigrants are the object of the immigrant smuggling crime is crucial in terms of evaluating the measures and sanctions applied to immigrants. In the context of this paper, administrative detention is the significant measure. This paper will undertake a more comprehensive examination of administrative detention.
Administrative detention is defined as a non-punitive, bureaucratic measure that is meant to enable the enactment of border control. Immigration detention formally does not constitute a punishment. However, as criminal law institutions, similar aspects of detention, custody, and imprisonment are highlighted. The study’s main question is whether administrative detention is used as a means of punishment for undocumented immigrants and, accordingly, whether it causes a violation of article 5 in the Protocol.
The instrumental function of punishment includes notions of deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. The prevailing inclination toward penalizing immigrants is a result of the unlawful implementation of administrative detention. Because of the imposition of harsh conditions and the deprivation of fundamental freedom, the detention of immigrants is punitive in nature, not because of the justification. The mentioned functions of punishment as a whole can only be accepted in such a case, except that this administrative detention constitutes a tool in managing illegal migration, not the fight against illegal migration.
Regulations under criminal law provide both the source and the limit of the authority to imprison a person. The justification for detaining immigrants is entirely different. The characteristic feature of immigration detention is that it is based on administrative rather than punitive reasons. The assurance provided pursuant to Article 5 of the Protocol pertains to the immigrant’s immunity from criminal prosecution. In other words, this regulation prevents penal and criminal procedure institutions from applying to immigrants. Hence, the detention of immigrants cannot be deemed a form of punishment unless it satisfies the requirements of punishment. Administrative detention should be accepted as a necessary measure to maintain public order, within the framework of exceptional conditions, and in accordance with legal provisions.
