Immigration law / Immigration Detention

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 2020 | 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): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

9 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

April 2020 | Publisher: UN Network on Migration | Document type: Thematic Guidelines

87 The Minister did not seek to justify PDWL’s continuing detention on any basis other than that a decision had been made under subs 189(1) of the Migration Act. For the reasons just given, subs 189(1) of the Migration Act can provide no justification for the continuing detention of PDWL. It follows that he is currently being unlawfully detained. That state of affairs should be immediately remedied. The appropriate remedy is an order that he be immediately released. I do not consider that it is necessary or useful to express that order in terms of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, or an order in the nature of habeas corpus. As PDWL has been brought before the Court, it is unnecessary to direct that the Minister or any particular officer who is responsible for his detention release PDWL from detention. It is sufficient that I simply order his release forthwith.

17 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Habeas corpus - Immigration Detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

9 January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

14 November 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

October 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

October 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

5 August 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents