The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention
limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the
present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the
circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case.
The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage
a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the
States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular
representations.
Question about granting second asylum to a Chinese national of Tibetan ethnicity born in India. Second asylum, within the meaning of Art. 50 LAsi, does not presuppose recognition as a refugee in a first state of asylum that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Immigration Directive 21 of 2015 — validity of directive — imposes blanket ban on asylum seekers applying for visas under Immigration Act 13 of 2002 — inconsistent with Immigration Act — invalid