Bangladesh
UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
- Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)
- Amnesty International - Bangladesh
- Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
- Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS)
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Bangladesh
- Human Rights Watch (HRW) - Bangladesh
- Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) - Bangladesh
- Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) - Bangladesh
- International Committee of the Red Cross - The ICRC in Bangladesh
- International Crisis Group (ICG) - Bangladesh
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) - Bangladesh
- Laws of Bangladesh
- National Web Portal of Bangladesh
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - Bangladesh
- ReliefWeb - Bangladesh
- UNHCR - Bangladesh
- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - Bangladesh
- United States Department of State - Bangladesh
- World Food Programme (WFP) - Bangladesh
- World Health Organization (WHO) - Bangladesh
|
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)
The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary. 21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye |
|
REEM YOUSEF SAEED KREISHAN et al, Appellants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
19 August 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Family reunification - Refoulement - Safe third country | Countries: Bangladesh - Canada - Colombia - Jordan - Syrian Arab Republic - United States of America |
|
Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
8 January 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
|
Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary
This case was referred to the Grand Chamber, see UNHCR's submission of 8 January 2018 and the final decision of 21 November 2019, including the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bianku, joined by Judge Vučinić. 14 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Refoulement - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country | Countries: Bangladesh - Hungary |
