The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, stated that it is not possible to eliminate facts through legislation. He urged the UK Government to reconsider the bill in light of recent reports that have raised various concerns.

“Targeting a specific group or individuals in a particular situation and denying them equal protection under the law is highly alarming. This goes against the principles of fair and impartial justice, which should be accessible to everyone without any form of discrimination.”

The proposed Rwanda Safety (Asylum and Immigration) Act mandates that all individuals responsible for making decisions – whether government officials, immigration officers, or members of a court or tribunal reviewing asylum cases – must consider Rwanda to be a secure nation in terms of safeguarding refugees and asylum seekers from being returned to dangerous situations. This applies regardless of current or potential future evidence.

to

Bill limits the powers of the courts.

The proposed legislation would significantly limit the ability of the courts to review removal rulings.

He stated that resolving matters of conflicting information, particularly those with significant impacts on human rights, is the main function of the courts, and the UK courts have a reliable history of doing so diligently and comprehensively.

The decision on whether the actions taken by the Government after the Supreme Court’s ruling on risks in Rwanda are sufficient should be left to the courts.

According to Mr. Türk, the bill poses a problem as it significantly limits the scope of the Human Rights Act in the UK. This Act enforces the standards outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

He further stated that the bill makes the implementation of interim protective orders from the European Court of Human Rights discretionary for the UK, despite their international binding nature.

Not in accordance with international laws regarding refugees.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has restated the worries expressed by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) that the program does not align with international laws regarding refugees.

“The combined effects of this bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles,” said Mr. Türk. “Independent, effective judicial oversight is the bedrock of the rule of law. It must be respected and strengthened. Governments cannot revoke their international human rights and asylum-related obligations by legislation.”

The report from the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, released last week, addressed significant concerns about human rights and the rule of law in the proposed legislation, according to the UN’s top human rights official.

Mr. Türk emphasized the importance of the UK Government upholding their international legal obligations and maintaining a strong tradition of independent judicial review. He urged them to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance, stating that this is especially crucial in current times.

Does not meet the necessary criteria.

In April 2022, the UK announced a new partnership with the Government of Rwanda focused on migration and economic development. This partnership was later renamed the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership.

After the signing of the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty on December 5, 2023, the UK Government released the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on the following day.

In January, following an examination of both situations, the UN refugee agency concluded that they do not meet the necessary criteria for the lawful and suitable transfer of asylum seekers. Additionally, they determined that they are not in line with international refugee laws.

This information is from the United Nations’ official news website.