Application of the Principle of Non-Refoulement Within the Context of the European Convention on Human Rights
Ceren KaragözoğluThe principle of non-refoulement constitutes the foundation of the protection provided by refugee law and has an important scope of application within the framework of human rights treaties. While some human rights treaties clearly include provisions on the principle of non-refoulement, most treaties handle the principle in relation to other provisions. Application of the principle of non-refoulement is mainly handle alongside the right to administrative detention or the right to an effective remedy in connection with the deportation process in doctrine. However, the rights and freedoms evaluated within the scope of this principle are related to deficiencies or illegalities in the national legal order of the state in connection with a deportation, extradition, or refoulement decision. Application the principle of non-refoulement within the scope treaties is independent of these elements. It instead concerns the treatment to which the person being addressed will be subjected to in the territory of the state to which that person will be deported, extradited or refouled. Within the framework of this limitation, this study will examine the application of the principle of non-refoulement in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Non-Refoulement İlkesinin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Uygulanması
Ceren KaragözoğluMülteci hukuku ile sağlanan korumanın temelini oluşturan non-refoulement ilkesi, insan hakları sözleşmeleri çerçevesinde önemli bir uygulama alanına sahiptir. İnsan hakları sözleşmelerinin bir kısmında non-refoulement ilkesine açık bir biçimde yer verilirken önemli bir kısmında ilke, sözleşmelerin diğer hükümleri ile ilişkilendirilerek değerlendirilmektedir. İlkenin sözleşmeler kapsamında ortaya çıkan uygulaması ise öğretide ağırlıklı olarak kişinin gönderildiği ülkede maruz kalacağı muamele ile çerçevesinde yaşam hakkı, işkence yasağı ve sınırlı da olsa kişi özgürlüğü ve güvenliği hakkı, adil yargılanma hakkı, özel yaşama ve aile yaşamına saygı hakkı ve düşünce, vicdan, din özgürlüğü ve sınır dışı etme işlemi ile bağlantılı olarak etkili başvuru hakkı ve uygulanan idari gözetim tedbirine bağlı olarak kişi özgürlüğü ve güvenliği hakkı ile birlikte ele alınmaktadır. Ancak ilkenin sözleşmeler çerçevesindeki görünümü, sınır dışı etme işlemi ile bağlantılı olarak ortaya çıkan uygulamalardan, tedbirlerden ya da hukuki başvuru yollarından bağımsız, kişinin gönderileceği devlet ülkesinde maruz kalacağı muamele sebebiyle muhatap kaldığı duruma ilişkindir. Sınır dışı etme veya geri gönderme sonucunu doğuran eylem veya işleme muhatap kişinin tabi tutulduğu idari gözetim koşulları veya söz konusu eylem ve işleme karşı sahip olduğu adli ve idari başvuru hakkı çerçevesinde değerlendirilen hak ve özgürlükler ise temel olarak devletin ulusal hukuk düzeninde var olan eksiklikleri veya hukuka aykırılıkları konu almaktadır. Bu sebeple ilkenin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi bağlamında uygulanması çalışmada, kişinin gönderildiği devlet ülkesinde maruz kalacağı muamelenin Sözleşme ile koruma altına alınan hak ve özgürlükler bakımından değerlendirilmesi çerçevesinde incelenecektir.
The non-refoulement principle is a concept that prohibits States from returning a refugee or asylum seeker to territories where their life or freedom would be at risk of being threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention includes the most comprehensive regulation on the principle of non-refoulement, according to which:
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee against whom reasonable grounds exist for regarding them as a danger to the security of the country in which they are, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
Although the principle is basically associated with refugee law, the concept is not restricted to refugee law, as it also has an important application area within the framework of human rights treaties. This principle is supported by human rights treaties that preclude refoulement that would expose the concerned individual to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. While the principle of non-refoulement is clearly included in some human rights treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the principle is handled in relation to other provisions of some human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1966, enacted 1974). This principle is especially associated with prohibiting ill treatment, which is a non-derogable right in these human rights treaties, notwithstanding circumstances of public emergency. In other words, no exceptional situation is stipulated when applying the principle of non-refoulement within the context of human rights treaties that are contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
This research aims to analyze this principle as evaluated within certain articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first section of this paper will present the principle of non-refoulement in international law, particularly within the framework of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The study will then discuss the relationship between the principle and human rights law.
The second section of this paper looks at the extraterritorial application of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. The protection stipulated by the application of non-refoulement principle is not restricted by high contracting party territory and is accepted as falling under the jurisdiction of a State in circumstances where a person can be said to be under the authority and control of that State within the scope of the ECHR. Therefore, a person can be considered to be within a State’s jurisdiction based on the circumstances, after which the state is bound to comply with this protective duty. In this context, where the threat of ill-treatment stems from is unimportant, whether the person is within the territory of that State, in their country of origin, or in a third State. Moreover, the application of the principle within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights does not require a person to have refugee status. The principle is applied to deportation, extradition, expulsion, and refoulement cases regardless of whether the person has refugee status or not.
The third section this paper will analyze the case law under the European Convention on Human Rights within the scope of how the principle is applied. The European Court of Human Rights accepts that refoulement would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention if substantial grounds exists for accepting that the applicant risks a violation of their rights under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 should they be returned to the other state. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights envisages applying non refoulement to such situations, notwithstanding acts that have taken place outside a country’s territory, acts committed by or under the responsibility of another state, or conduct that has yet to occur. When applying the principle, however, the European Court of Human Rights make a distinction with regard to the relevance of the rights protected by Articles 2 and 3 and other rights laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court has determined a higher threshold of a flagrant breach for Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (protection of family and private life), and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
