1F Refugee Convention: what constitutes a “crime against humanity” and “serious non-political crime”

The signatories of the Refugee Convention thought that some people didn’t deserve protection on account of having committed particularly heinous crimes. They therefore introduced “exclusion clauses”, found at Article 1F of the Convention.

(...)

If you are looking for a detailed review of exclusion clauses 1F(a) and 1F(b), look no further than the case of KM (exclusion, Article 1F(a), Article 1F(b))[2022] UKUT 125, The Upper Tribunal does an impressively deep dive into what constitutes a “crime against humanity” and “serious non-political crime”, and the tests used to assess when someone will fall under those exclusion clauses.

https://freemovement.org.uk/upper-tribunal-dives-into-the-refugee-convention-exclusion-clauses/?mc_cid=a62c8caed2&mc_eid=b72b4a153a

THE RULING OF THE COURT

Nuetral Citation: [2022] UKUT 00125 (IAC)

KM (exclusion; Article 1F(a); Article 1F(b)) Democratic Republic of Congo

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Heard at Field House

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

On 20 and 21 July 2021
Promulgated on 9 March 2022

 

 https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2022-ukut-00125

 

 

 

Exclusion under Article 1F(a)

(i) Decision-makers considering protection claims are not required to conduct an assessment akin to a criminal trial, but given the grave nature of an allegation that a person has committed an international crime, and the potentially serious consequences of exclusion, a decision to exclude a person from the protection of the Refugee Convention should be sufficiently particularised to show why there are serious reasons for considering that the main elements of crime are engaged.

(ii) Whether there are serious reasons for considering that a person has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity for the purpose of exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention should be interpreted with reference to the autonomous meaning of those terms in international law.

(iii) In relation to acts committed before 01 July 2002 (the date when the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court came into force) the autonomous meaning of war crimes or crimes against humanity may need to be drawn from earlier sources of customary international law. Those sources might include the Geneva Conventions, the London Charter, the Tokyo Charter, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), and any relevant case law arising from those courts and tribunals.

(iv) In relation to acts committed on or after 01 July 2002, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be the starting point when considering whether a person is excluded with reference to Article 1F(a): see JS (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 15; [2011] AC 184.

(v) The chapeau of Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute sets out the contextual elements of crimes against humanity and should be read with Article 7(2)(a) and the Elements of Crime. It is an essential part of the definition. The crimes listed in Article 7(1)(a)-(k), although serious, do not constitute crimes against humanity if they are not ‘committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack’. An ‘attack’ meaning ‘a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts… pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy.’

(vi) At [32] of this decision the Upper Tribunal summarises the main principles drawn from the terms of the Rome Statute, the Elements of Crime, and relevant International Criminal Court case law when assessing whether there are serious reasons for considering that the contextual elements of the chapeau of Article 7 of the Rome Statute are engaged.

(vii) Domestic decisions that have considered the issue of individual criminal responsibility under customary international law should now be read in the context of the developing case law of the International Criminal Court.

Exclusion under Article 1F(b)

(viii) Nothing in the wording of the Refugee Convention excludes the possibility of a former state agent arguing that a serious crime comes within the political exception. However, the majority view in T v Immigration Officer [1996] UKHL 9; [1996] AC 742, that the political exception is likely to apply to offences committed with the ’object of overthrowing or subverting or changing the government of a state or inducing it to change its policy’, sits more comfortably with the intended purpose of the Convention. The Convention was not intended to protect those who had committed serious crimes on behalf of an oppressive state, even if committed with a stated political purpose.

 

 

Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. «Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by following us. Click here

Kijk ook eens op dit reisblog: https://www.europevisitandvisa.com/

Kijk ook eens op dit boekenblog bijvoorbeeld voor: The Plague, jousting, remedies against seasickness - when a historian sister joins her brother the novellist and produce an interesting story - The Lawless Land by Boyd Morrison; Beth Morrison
http://www.dutchysbookreviewsandfreebooks.com/2022/03/the-plague-jousting-remedies-against.html