Prieglobstis ir terorizmas: pabėgėlių teisių apsaugos problemos kovojant su terorizmu.
It is not infrequent that the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is criticized as being outdated and failing to respond to contemporary challenges of the world. To rebut such an understanding, the author therefore presents the analysis of certain Convention provisions, which provide an adequate response to some of these concerns. In this connection, the applicability to terrorist activities of refugee status exclusion clauses contained in the Article 1(F) of the Convention, as well as provisions on exceptions to protection against refoulement and expulsion, contained in the Articles 32 and 33(2) of the Convention are analyzed. Though terrorism as such is not mentioned in the Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention, depending on the circumstances may be considered falling under any of the categories of crimes listed in this article. The analysis in the article deals with the question, a matter of discussion for academicians and practitioners for already some time: can terrorists avoid the application of the Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention by claiming political motives of their criminal acts? Little doubt remains today that terrorist activities fall under the category of serious non-political crimes. To illustrate, the practice of rejecting political motives in certain jurisdictions is presented in the article. The practice of terrorism has been explicitly recognized as being contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. However, there is still no widely accepted state practice whereby the Article 1(F) of the Convention would be applicable to ordinary individuals, not holding significant positions. The author concludes that the 1951 Convention provides sufficient guarantees to ensure that persons suspected or having committed terrorist acts are either screened out during the refugee status determination procedure or do not enjoy the protection against expulsion, if their criminal acts come to light or are being committed following the recognition as refugee. Nevertheless, it should be born in mind that any restrictions applied on the basis of the Convention, which is primarily a human rights and not criminal law instrument, should be applied narrowly, only as a last resort and be compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Besides the analysis of refugee protection documents, application of other human rights instruments to persons who have committed or are suspected in having committed terrorist activities is touched upon in the article. The author contends that even though the Articles 32(1) and 33(2) of the 1951 Convention allow for expulsion of those who have committed terrorist acts, the prohibition of expulsion to the country where there is a risk of torture for such individual is absolute. This has been extensively confirmed in the jurisprudence of the European Human Rights Court.
- Straipsniai / Articles