Asylum law: London: Rwanda law incompatible with human rights

The British draft asylum pact with Rwanda is incompatible with human rights, according to a parliamentary committee. This emerges from a report by the joint House of Commons and House of Lords Human Rights Committee. A spokesman for the British Home Office, however, defended the proposed law, as the PA news agency reported.

The conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wants to use the so-called Asylum and Immigration Bill to save its asylum pact with Rwanda, which was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court. Detailed discussions on the bill, which was approved by the lower house with a government majority, should begin on Monday in the upper house.

In order to deter migrants, London wants to send irregular arrivals to the East African country in the future without examining their asylum applications and regardless of their origin. They should apply for protection there – there are no plans to return to Great Britain. However, the British Supreme Court had raised concerns about the Rwandan asylum process and declared the plan unlawful in mid-November.

Rwanda as a safe third country?

The bill aims to declare Rwanda a safe third country and thus put a stop to lawsuits in British courts about the general human rights situation in the country. But this approach is “fundamentally inconsistent” with Britain’s human rights obligations and risks damaging the country’s international reputation as a protector of human rights, the committee warned.

Specifically, the parliamentarians complained that the draft law was incompatible with the right to an effective complaint under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In addition, the proposed law invites breaking international law by giving ministers the freedom to disregard interim measures ordered by the European Court of Human Rights.