LONDON (Reuters) – The president of Europe’s human rights court said on Thursday there was a legal obligation on states to comply with its injunctions in response to Britain’s threat to ignore such orders over its plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
In order to enact this plan, a bill is going through the British parliament which the government admits might not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and would give ministers the power to decide whether to comply with injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights.
“There is a clear legal obligation under the convention for states to comply with Rule 39 measures,” Siofra O’Leary, the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), told reporters.
Last June, the ECtHR issued an injunction – known as interim measures under Rule 39 – to prevent the first deportations of asylum seekers to the east African nation.
In November, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the policy was unlawful because of failings in the Rwandan system meant it would breach a number of international laws and conventions.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak remains determined to put the policy into operation amid pressure from right-wing lawmakers in his Conservative Party and voter concern about thousands of asylum seekers arriving without permission across the Channel in small boats.
Last week, lawmakers in the British parliament’s lower House of Commons backed Sunak’s ‘Safety of Rwanda Bill’ which would allow the Britain to ignore any ECtHR orders, a power the prime minister has said he was prepared to use.
“I’ve been crystal clear, repeatedly, that I won’t let a foreign court stop us from getting flights off, and getting this deterrent up and running,” he said.
(Reporting by Michael Holden. Editing by Andrew MacAskill)
Comments