THE cancellation of the first flight under the Government’s controversial Rwanda policy after last-minute intervention has focused attention on the European Court of Human Rights.
Here, we look at key questions surrounding the Strasbourg court and how it relates to the UK and this case.
What is the European Court of Human Rights?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is an international court set up in 1959 to rule on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Its judgments are binding on the 46 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the Convention.
It is not a European Union institution and Brexit has not affected the UK’s relationship with the Strasbourg court or the European Convention on Human Rights.
While there is a common misconception the European Convention on Human Rights and its institutions were imposed upon the UK, the reality is the UK was one of the architects of the human rights agenda in the wake of the Second World War.
What did the court decide?
In a last-ditch intervention, an interim measure was granted by the ECHR in the case of an Iraqi asylum seeker, referred to as KN, who was due to be on the first flight to Rwanda on Tuesday night.
Having exhausted High Court and Supreme Court routes to prevent being put on the flight, KN’s lawyers went to the ECHR, which issued an interim measure saying he should not be sent to Rwanda until a full decision on the legality of the Government’s policy has been reached in the domestic courts.
What happens next in the courts?
A full High Court review of the policy, which will see some asylum seekers sent on a one-way trip to Rwanda, is expected in July.
In its ruling, the ECHR acknowledged concerns about access to “fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status” in Rwanda, the fact that the African nation is not part of the European human rights framework and the absence of “any legally enforceable mechanism” to return KN to the UK if there is a successful legal challenge to the policy.
The court ruled that KN should not be removed until three weeks after the delivery of the “final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings” – something which could put the Government’s Rwanda policy on ice for months.
What will happen in Westminster?
Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel had been braced for legal challenges, with the Prime Minister in particular hitting out at “lefty human rights lawyers”.
The Government has already committed to a shake-up of human rights laws but the intervention of the European court will fuel demands for the UK to leave the convention entirely.
The Prime Minister did not rule out such a drastic measure when questioned about it on Tuesday, ahead of the Strasbourg court’s injunction.
When asked if it was an option, he said “it may very well” be necessary to change laws.
Ministers have subsequently downplayed this idea, but many Tory MPs are reportedly furious at the ECHR’s intervention.
Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would be a significant step which could have major knock-on effects on other international agreements.
The convention also underpins human rights guarantees in devolved legislation in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Remaining signed up to the convention also helps ensure judicial and legal co-operation with the EU under the terms of the Brexit deal.
