Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law
Meltem İneli CiğerThe term ‘alternatives to detention’ refers to the range of measures that fall short of full deprivation of liberty or administrative detention. The Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No 7196) was amended on 6 December 2019. With this amendment, alternatives to immigration detention were introduced to the Turkish asylum laws. Introduction of these alternatives constitutes an important development especially considering its implications for the right to liberty and security of migrants in Turkey. Despite this importance, there are very few academic sources written in Turkish on this matter. The aim of this article is to contribute to the existing literature by examining alternatives to immigration detention in international law and comparative law. In doing so, the first part of the article will examine the international law framework and identify elements of alternatives to immigration detention that are in line with fundamental rights through an analysis of the relevant literature and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Whereas, the second part of the article will analyse how the alternatives to immigration detention are regulated and implemented in the United Kingdom, Canada and Austria. In light of this analysis, the conclusion will make a number of recommendations on the regulation and implementation of the alternatives to immigration detention in Turkey.
Uluslararası Hukuk ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta İdari Gözetime Alternatif Tedbirler
Meltem İneli Ciğerİdari gözetime alternatif tedbirleri, idari gözetime göre yabancıların temel hak ve özgürlüklerini daha az kısıtlayan tedbirler ve yükümlülükler olarak tanımlamak mümkündür. 6458 Sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nda 6 Aralık 2019 tarihinde yapılan değişiklik ile mevzuatımıza idari gözetime alternatif tedbirler getirilmiştir. İdari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin kanunumuzda düzenlenmesi ülkemizdeki göçmenlerin özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı bakımından oldukça önemli bir gelişme teşkil etse de Türk hukuk doktrininde bu konuda yapılan çalışmaların sayısı oldukça sınırlıdır. Makalenin amacı uluslararası hukuk ve karşılaştırmalı hukukta idari gözetime alternatif tedbirleri incelemek suretiyle doktrine katkıda bulunmaktır. Makalenin ilk kısmında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi de dahil olmak üzere ilgili uluslararası hukuk belgeleri ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararları incelenmek suretiyle idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlere ilişkin uluslararası hukuk çerçevesi ve insan hakları temelli idari gözetim alternatiflerinin unsurları ortaya konulacaktır. Makalenin ikinci kısmında ise idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin Birleşik Krallık, Kanada ve Avusturya hukukunda ne şekilde düzenlendiği ve uygulamada hangi hususlara dikkat edildiği incelenecektir. Bu incelemeler ışığında makalenin sonuç kısmında ise ülkemizde idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin düzenlenmesi ve uygulanması ile ilgili bazı tespit ve önerilere yer verilecektir.
The right to liberty and security is secured under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 5 of the ECHR provides “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: …. (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” One of the exceptions, contained in sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5(1), permits states to control the liberty of aliens in an immigration context; nevertheless, the ECHR requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found in a number of cases, especially those concerning vulnerable individuals, that the Contracting Parties have violated the European Convention on Human Rights by arbitarily detaining persons in cases where less coercive measures could have been used. Established case law of the Court suggests that immigration detention should be a measure of last resort especially in the case of vulnerable individuals and immigration detention should follow after an actual verification that no other measure involving a lesser restriction of their freedom could be put in place. These measures involving a lesser restriction of migrants’ freedom and security include alternatives to immigration detention. According to the International Detention Coalition (IDC), alternatives to immigration detention can be defined as “Any law, policy or practice by which persons are not detained for reasons relating to their migration status.” (IDC 2015) Alternatives to immigration detention may include the following measures: obligation to surrender passports or travel documents, residence restrictions, release on bail and provision of sureties by third parties, regular reporting to the authorities, placement in open facilities with caseworker support, electronic monitoring. (FRA 2015)
On 6 December 2019, the Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No 7196) was amended with the adoption of Law no 7196. With the amendment of article 57 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection and the newly added article 57/A, alternatives to immigration detention were introduced to the Turkish laws. Introduction of the alternatives to immigration detention constitutes an important development especially considering its possible effect on the right to liberty and security of asylum seekers and migrants in Turkey, especially those detained in Removal Centres. Turkey, at the time of writing, has 28 Removal Centres that have the capacity to hold 20,000 persons in total. Despite this important point there are very few academic sources written in Turkish on alternatives to immigration detention. The article examines how international law and the United Kingdom, Canadian and Austrian laws confront alternatives to immigration detention. By examining alternatives to immigration detention in international law and comparative law, the article aims to fill the gap in Turkish legal literature concerning alternatives to immigration detention.
The article consists of two main parts. The first part of the article will examine the international law framework concerning alternatives to immigration detention and identify elements of a policy on alternatives to immigration detention that is in line with the fundamental human rights through an analysis of international instruments and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Whereas, the second part will analyse how the alternatives to immigration detention are regulated and implemented in the United Kingdom, Canada and Austria. In light of this analysis, the conclusion will offer a number of recommendations on the regulation and implementation of the alternatives to immigration detention in Turkey.