The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Appeal in London have dealt a blow to the British government's controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, but although the courts have temporarily prevented migrants from being sent to the African country, the legal battle is not yet over, reports Radio Free Europe (RSE ) writing of world media.
The British government's plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda on the evening of June 14 was stopped at the last minute by a series of interventions by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Appeal in London, according to the Financial Times.
As a plane at the Wilshire military base prepared to fly seven asylum seekers to the Rwandan capital Kigali, the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which hears violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, ruled on behalf of one of the seven migrants who were to to be deported.
A European court ruling that an Iraqi migrant should not be sent to Rwanda until the British government's policy is subject to a judicial review in the coming weeks has led to a series of other last-minute rulings, including two additional bans from the European Court of Human Rights, three successful appeals to the British Court of Appeal and another ruling, whereby none of the migrants could be legally deported.
The European Court of Human Rights is not an institution of the European Union (EU), but of the 46-member Council of Europe. That court interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, which was drawn up by the Council of Europe after the Second World War, and which, among others, was proposed by the British leader Winston Churchill, while it was mainly drawn up by British lawyers.
Before the court's decision, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson hinted at the possibility of Great Britain leaving the convention, which was criticized by, among others, the human rights organization Liberty, which said it would be "the biggest attack on human rights in this country in a generation." .
The Court of Appeal initially refused to grant an emergency injunction to block flights carrying migrants, but a judge hearing the appeals reversed the decision at the last minute following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
The plan to send migrants to Rwanda, according to the Financial Times, is popular among the right wing of Johnson's Conservative Party as a means of establishing control over Britain's maritime borders. In the next three weeks, Britain's Supreme Court is due to consider the risks facing migrants who would be sent to Rwanda, a country criticized for human rights abuses.
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights was criticized by representatives of the British government, the Times points out, with the assessment that Great Britain's withdrawal from the convention would raise questions about the country's commitment to human rights.
Home Secretary Priti Patel criticized the verdict, saying it was "very surprising" and contradicted rulings by British courts over the past few days.
Regarding the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, a British government source said that domestic courts had repeatedly stated that the plan with Rwanda could be implemented "but some foreign court decided 'no, you can't'".
The European Court of Human Rights' intervention came despite the Supreme Court previously rejecting a third attempt by activists to ban flights to Rwanda pending a judicial review. The president of the court said that guarantees in the agreement signed with Rwanda ensure that, if the policy is later found to be illegal, there are mechanisms in place to return migrants who have been transferred to Rwanda.
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has dealt a significant blow to the new migration plan of Prime Minister Johnson, whose government has been in trouble due to the arrival of asylum seekers in small boats to the British coast from France, the New York Times assesses.
In 2016, Johnson campaigned for Britain to leave the EU, arguing that it would allow the country to "take back control" of its borders.
However, according to the newspaper, London's relations with the French government have been strained since Brexit and due to limited cooperation with French authorities, Johnson's government has sought other ways to reduce the number of migrants who have become an embarrassing symbol of the UK's failure to control its borders after Brexit.
Critics accuse Johnson, who narrowly survived a no-confidence vote last Sunday, of deliberately pressing the issue for political gain. They argue that the policy of sending migrants to Rwanda, even if a small number are deported, is intended to send a signal to voters that the UK is tough on those who want to enter the country across the Channel.
The Boeing 767, which was leased by the British government at an estimated cost of 500 pounds (580 euros), was scheduled to take off at 22.30:XNUMX p.m. British time.
A plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has collapsed like a house of cards thanks to a series of related decisions triggered by a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, the BBC reports, but the plan is not dead, as it is not known how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule when next month will examine the entire policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The battle between the ministers, the lawyers they consider enemies in the government, and the European Court is just beginning, the BBC points out.
Although the plan to send migrants has support in Johnson's Conservative Party, it is very controversial in Great Britain, writes the Washington Post, indicating that the plan has been criticized, among others, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and allegedly Prince Charles.
The British are divided over the plan. A Jugov poll published this Sunday showed that 44 percent support the policy, while 40 percent oppose it. The survey also revealed a striking difference in relation to political affiliation - the plan is supported by 74 per cent of Conservative voters and only 19 per cent of Labour.
Bonus video:
