|Refugees And Human Rights
“Human rights violations are a major factor in causing the flight of refugees as well as an obstacle to their safety and voluntary return home. Safeguarding human rights in countries of origin is therefore critical both for the prevention and for the solution of refugee problems. Respect for human rights is also essential for the protection of refugees in countries of asylum”.1
-United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
As many as 50 million refugees have been resettled or repatriated since the end of World War II, but nearly an equal number of uprooted people are struggling hard to regain their basic human rights. Currently, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is assisting more than 22 million people worldwide.2 Mass human rights abuses, civil wars, internal strife, communal violence, forced relocation and natural disasters lead to the creation of refugees. While national governments are responsible for the protection of the basic human rights of their nationals, “refugees” find themselves without the protection of a national state. There is thus greater need for according international protection and assistance to these persons than in the case of people living in their home states.
Refugees by definition are victims of human rights violations. According to Article 1(a) (2) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Refugee Convention) the term ‘refugee’ shall apply to “any persons who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. Although ‘persecution’ is not defined in the Refugee Convention, Professor James Hathaway defined it in terms of ‘the sustained or systematic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection’. ‘A well founded fear of persecution’, according to him, exists when one reasonably anticipates that the failure to leave the country may result in a form of serious harm which the government can not or will not prevent.3 Persecution encompasses harassment from state actors as well as non-state actors.
The Annexe to the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1950,4 extends the competence of the High Commissioner for the protection of refugees defined in Article 6(a) (1) in terms similar to Article 1(a) (2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969,5 extended the definition in the 1951 Refugee Convention to include in the term ‘refugee’ also every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality. The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees of November, 1984 laid down that the definition of refugee could not only incorporate the elements contained in 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol (or the 1969 OAU Convention and General Assembly resolutions), but also cover persons who have fled their country because their lives, their safety or their liberty were threatened by a massive violation of human rights.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that it is the risk of human rights violations in their home country which compels the refugees to cross international borders and seek protection abroad. Consequently, safeguarding human rights in countries of origin is of critical importance not only to the prevention of refugee problems but also for their solutions. “If conditions have fundamentally changed in the country of origin promoting and monitoring the safety of their voluntary return allows refugees to re-establish themselves in their own community and to enjoy their basic human rights”.6 Respect for human rights is also essential for the protection of refugees in countries where they are integrated locally or re-settled.
Although in the past human rights issues were virtually not allowed to enter the global discourse on refugees under the erroneous assumption that the refugee problem, as a humanitarian problem is quite distinct from a human rights problem, the current trend is towards integration of the human rights law and humanitarian law with refugee law. The growing realisation that given the number, size and complexity of the problem of refugees the limited approach to the problem which was devised in the context of the post-second world war refugees and which placed greater reliance on safety and welfare, rather than solutions to the problem and virtually relieved the refugee-producing countries from their responsibilities towards their nationals living in asylum countries. Today, the discourse has turned the attention of the UNHCR and other U.N. bodies to the intrinsic merits and strengths of the human rights approach to the problem. It is now increasingly recognised that such an approach is not only useful in reinforcing and supplementing the existing refugee law and securing the compliance with its provisions through quasi-judicial human rights implementing bodies,7 but can also make it more humane and effective. Since today’s refugee problem is global in nature and concerns not only individuals in their relations with states but also states in their relations with one another, we need a law which is not only a law relating to the legal status and protection of refugees but also encompasses the refugee problem as a whole, a law which is solution oriented and imposes collectivised responsibility on all states. It is believed that a human rights perspective of the refugee problem will be helpful in restructuring the present mechanisms of refugee law on these lines. In addition to this, human rights oriented approach may be helpful in providing the necessary legal basis for the protection of refugees in states which have not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and or the 1967 Protocol.
Thus viewing the refugee problem in the context of human rights has assumed unprecedented importance today. Against this background, the present article considers some of the basic human rights of refugees and their implications in the area of refugee protection. It also surveys the human rights of refugees in India and gives a brief account of the impact which human rights principles have made on the current programs and policies of UNHCR and the increasing involvement of human rights bodies in matters relating to refugees.
II. BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS OF REFUGEES
I. Right to Protection Against Refoulement
When a person is compelled to flee his country of origin or nationality his immediate concern is protection against refoulement. Such protection is necessary and at times, the only means of preventing further human rights violations. As his forcible return to a country where he or she has reason to fear persecution may endanger his life, security and integrity, the international community has recognised the principle of non-refoulement,8 which prohibits both rejection of a refugee at the frontier and expulsion after entry. This rule derives its existence and validity from the twin concepts of ‘international community’ and ‘common humanity’ and must be seen as an integral part of that foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world which is human rights.
Legal basis for protection against forced return of refugees to countries where they apprehend danger to their lives, safety, security and dignity can also be found in the law relating to the prohibition of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment.9 Thus Article 7 of the ICCPR which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment casts a duty on state parties not to expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return ‘to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement’.10 Forcible return of an individual to a country where he or she runs the risk of violation of the right to life is prohibited by international human rights law.11 Indeed, as the European Court of Human Rights has held, the decision of a state to extradite, expel or deport a person “may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (European Convention of Human Rights), and hence engage the responsibility of that state under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country”.12 This observation is also valid for forcible return of refugees to territories where there is a real risk of their being subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or to killing. The act of handing an individual over to his torturers, murderers or executioners constitutes a violation of the obligation to protect individuals against torture and unlawful deprivation of life. In this regard it is the liability of the state which handed over persons to the actual perpetrators of torture or prescribed ill treatment, and not of the receiving state.13
Thus the principle of non-refoulement is well entrenched in conventional and customary international law. Despite this, of late governments everywhere are adopting unilateral restrictive practices to prevent the entry of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons into their territories.14 Refugees are interdicted on the High Seas. 15 Penalties have been imposed against airlines or shipping companies carrying suspected passengers. New concepts such as ‘temporary protection’ and the ‘safe third country rule’ which allow officials to eject people on flight who have already transited another state have been introduced. Hundreds of thousands of refugees seeking shelter in the refugee camps have been demarcated in airports where physical presence does not amount to legal presence and from where summary and arbitrary removal is permissible. Besides, safety zones have been created inside countries as in Northern Iraq and former Yugoslavia to stop asylum seekers moving out and seeking refuge. Asylum seekers have been held in offshore camps which have been effectively declared rights free zones.16 Not content with these measures Europe and North America have codified the so called ‘country of first arrival’ principle which purports to ‘assign’ refugees to be the responsibility of a single asylum state, without regard for the quality of protection offered there. The ‘safe third country’ concept (which purports to deny asylum seekers access to a comprehensive asylum determination procedure because they could have sought protection in countries they passed through to reach their ultimate) has come into force in Europe and the United States.17 The Dublin and Schengen Conventions which lay down new criteria for determining claims of asylum seekers have also complicated the problem. Ironically, these unethical and illegal practices are being resorted to by those countries which were instrumental in the initial drafting and adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention and have the economic ability and indeed, the duty to give them both asylum and protection. As refugee protection is an important dimension of human rights protection, unilateral restrictive practices adopted by both the developed and developing countries are inconsistent with their obligations under international refugee law and humanitarian law and constitute a serious violation of human rights.
(II) Right to Seek Asylum
Once a person fleeing persecution enters a state other than that of his origin or nationality, what he needs most is asylum. “Asylum is the protection which a State grants on its territory or in some other place under the control of certain of its organs, to a person who comes to seek it”.18 Asylum is necessary not only for safeguarding his right to life, security and integrity but also for preventing other human rights violations. Thus the grant of asylum in the case of refugees who constitute a unique category of human rights victims is an important aspect of human rights protection and hence should be considered in the light of the U.N. Charter as a general principle of international law and an elementary consideration of humanity. No wonder then, not only the right of a person to leave the other or his country is recognized in several human rights instruments but even his right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution has been proclaimed as a human right.19 And, if a state grants asylum to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it can not be regarded as an unfriendly act by any other state (including the state of origin or nationality of asylum seekers).
Under traditional law, asylum is the right of the state, not of the individual who can only seek it and if granted enjoy it. Unfortunately, all attempts to provide that every one has the right of asylum from persecution have been frustrated by states. As refugees need at least temporary refuge pending durable solutions either in the form of resettlement in a third state or repatriation to refugee’s own country, a denial of asylum in the case of genuine refugees is nothing but a denial of the existence of any international community as well as a denial of the existence of a common humanity. It is also repugnant to the principle of common concern for the basic welfare of each human being which forms the basis of the current refugee regime and furthermore runs counter to the oft-repeated assertion at the global level that the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community and accordingly humanitarian intervention in certain circumstances is permissible and justified. Denial of asylum to genuine refugees is also against UNHCR policies. In this context, it may be noted that the underlying principle for the UNHCR is that “In cases of large-scale influx, persons seeking asylum should always receive at least temporary refuge”. 20 Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for industrialised countries to make refugee assistance available to developing countries. “The industrialised countries must also share the burden of accepting those ... who seek asylum outside their regions. 21 In 1986 the UNHCR had taken the position that “Refugees and asylum seekers who are the concern of ...office should not be the victims of measures taken by Governments against illegal immigration or threats to their national security, however justifiable these may be in themselves”. 22
Ironically, it is the so-called champions of human rights and humanitarian intervention which in the name of security of the state are putting all kinds of barriers to prevent the entry of the hapless victims of human rights abuses into their territories and thereby exposing them to further human rights violations. The deflection of responsibility by the North towards refugees, exacerbating the economic burdens of the South, which today hosts 90 percent of the total refugee problem has also compelled many Southern States to emulate Northern non-entree practices.
(III) Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination
A refugee is entitled to be treated with humanity by the state of asylum. The obligations of the State of refuge on this count are derived from the rules and principles, which enjoin respect and protection of fundamental human rights, general international law and elementary considerations of humanity and are founded on the international community’s interest in and concern for refugees. Refugees under the Refugee Convention are entitled to relatively higher standards of treatment23 than those belonging to B status category or mandate refugees. Since as a general rule, the rights and freedoms recognised by international human rights law apply to everyone, including refugees, the latter are also entitled to respect for, and protection of their basic human rights like nationals of the state of refuge. Of crucial importance to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of refugees is the rule of non-discrimination laid down in several global and regional human rights instruments,24 because being foreigners in the asylum country they are most vulnerable to discrimination. It must be recognised that refugees often lack proper identification and official documents and as such might encounter problems with the authorities. Their presence in a foreign country might be resented or they might be received with suspicion because of their religion or ethnicity. They might also counter difficulties due to absence of sufficient provisions in the national laws of the country of asylum for refugees or because of uncertainty about the extension of the benefits of the laws to refugees.25
However, even though refugees are foreigners in the asylum country, by virtue of Article 2 of ICCPR they enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms as nationals. The right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and non-discrimination which form a cornerstone of international human rights law appear to ban discrimination against refugees based on their status as such. In addition, such provisions would prohibit discriminatory conduct based on grounds commonly related to situations of refugees, such as race, religion, national or social origin, and lack of property.26 In addition, all guarantees providing protection against specific categories of discrimination such as race and gender specific discrimination are also applicable to refugees27 .
(IV) Right to Life and Personal Security
Refugees as a group are the most endangered people in the world. Most of their basic human rights are threatened during flight and upon their relocation in camps in the sanctuary state and finally during their return to their countries of origin or nationality. In the initial and most desperate phase they often lose all their belongings, their basic security, family and often their own lives. For majority of refugees, life in exile is as bad or worse than the conditions in their own country which compelled them to flee. Gil Loescher describes vividly the plight of refugees in the sanctuary states in these words:28
“Many are confined to camps or ramshackle settlements close to the borders of their home countries where, deprived of opportunities to work or farm their own land, they depend on international charity for survival. Refugees are often separated from members of their families, exposed to the danger of armed attack, subjected to many forms of exploitation and degradation, and haunted by the constant fear of expulsion and the forced return to their countries of origin. Vast numbers of children have spent all their lives in refugee camps. The longer they live there, the less chance they have of ever experiencing some semblance of a normal life”.
Refugees frequently are at risk of various acts of violence which may include killings, torture, rape, genocide, extra-judicial executions, forcible disappearances etc. They are also vulnerable to direct and indiscriminate attacks during hostilities, acts of terrorism, and the use of dangerous weapons and land mines.
Many states in the South make it impossible for refugees to remain there by cutting food rations, by imprisoning them behind barbed wires, and otherwise making their lives impossible. And, when refugees return their home they are often not able, as in Bosnia, to reclaim their old homes or political rights.
Women have always been vulnerable and easy victims in the so-called refugee cycle, but over the years violence against them have been manifested in the ugliest forms creating a blot on the human conscience29. In the context of his encounter in Tanzania, what a Burundi refugee said is an eye opener for all of us :
“They took the children and my wife away into a neighbouring house. So I remained with my eldest daughter whom they began to undress before my very eyes. They raped her for over an hour and when they had finished, they forced me to mount my child who lay there like a corpse”30 .
In view of the foregoing the provisions of human rights law guaranteeing the right to life31 and protection against genocide,32 which is a grave form of violation of the right to life, are of direct relevance and far-reaching importance to refugees. It is true that most of the human rights treaties do allow for certain forms of taking of life (e.g. in the form of the death penalty or in defence of unlawful violence), but arbitrary deprivation of the right to life is prohibited in all circumstances. In protecting against ‘arbitrary deprivation of life’, State Parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces.33 In the context of loss of life from war and other acts of violence it has been stated that “States have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life”.34 Since the right to life is a non-derogable universal right, refugees are protected from arbitrary deprivation of life. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, (1993) recognised the linkage between massive violations of human rights especially in the form of genocide, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and systematic rape of women in war situations and mass exodus of refugees and displaced persons and reiterated the call that “perpetrators of such crimes be punished”.35 The Declaration also reaffirmed that “it is the duty of all states, under any circumstances, to make investigations whenever there is reason to believe that enforced disappearances has taken place on territory under their jurisdiction and, if allegations are confirmed, to prosecute its perpetrators”.
The human rights regime guaranteeing freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment36 is of paramount importance to refugees, particularly women and girls who may be compelled to suffer violence or ill treatment during flight and upon their relocation in camps. Refugees like other persons are entitled to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person,37 when they are held in prisons, hospitals, detention camps or correctional institutions or elsewhere. It is the duty of the State “to afford every one protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity or in a private capacity”.38 Therefore, refugees might be entitled to request positive measures by authorities against unlawful acts by non-state actors.
With regard to rape, sexual attack and general physical attacks, states have been urged under several human rights instruments to adopt measures directed towards the elimination of violence against vulnerable women, a category that encompasses refugee women. It has been recognized both at the global and the regional levels that violence against women prevents and nullifies the exercise of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The failure to protect them from the above kinds of violence not only impairs or nullifies the enjoyment of the right to liberty, security and integrity of persons39 but in some instances the right to life also. Therefore, human rights norms addressing the problem of violence against women might prove to be of great assistance to refugee women who at times are coerced into providing sexual acts in return for essential food, shelter, security, documentation or other forms of assistance. It should be recognised that as a result of such acts many victims not only suffer physical and psychological trauma but also run the risk of being inflicted with sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
Amongst the many dangers which refugee may face in the asylum/refuge country are hostage taking, forcible recruitment,40 and abdication into slavery like practices41 . Provisions of human rights law proscribing these acts will provide safeguards to all persons, including refugees. Besides, it can be argued that refugees can not be deprived of their liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.42 They might also be entitled to claim legal safeguards listed in Article 9(2) of the ICCPR and also to challenge their detention. Since holding refugees in closed camps will also constitute ‘detention’ under Article 9 (1) of the ICCPR, states should refrain from such practice.43 In no case is arbitrary detention allowed. But when their detention is in the interest of their security or is dictated by public necessities, doing so will be permissible.44