Transfer to third countries asylum seekers is permitted under international law

Proposed transfer of Alfurnan migrants to Saydee is legal

After the inspection of both Blocks of the Woeroma Centre, that revealed that the walls contained asbestos[11], Rutasian government decide to transfer Alfurnan migrants from the Block A to the Republic of Saydee, and negotiated an agreement.

As asylum seekers, Alfurnan migrants can be lawfully transferred to the third country. It is the humanitarian obligation of all coastal States to allow vessels in distress to seek haven in their waters and to grant asylum, or at least temporary refuge, to persons on board wishing to seek asylum[12]. But, as it was stressed in number of documents of international organisations[13], in case when the State can not grant permanent asylum to such category of migrants, this State can give temporal refugee to such people. In present case, Rutasia can no longer accommodate the housing request of the Nullatree Cove villagers, because of absence of appropriate facilities for housing. Temporal relocation migrants from Block A to the vaccant barracks at a Rutasia military base[14] can not be recognized as suitable place for placing of asylum seekers, because it’s create additional risk for the life of migrants and it’s contravene to the state interests.

Proposed transfer should be considered as an act of international solidarity, burden-sharing and duties of the States: “A mass influx may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries; a satisfactory solution of a problem, international in scope and nature, cannot be achieved without international co-operation. States shall, within the framework of international solidarity and burden-sharing, take all necessary measures to assist, at their request, States which have admitted asylum seekers in large-scale influx situations”[15]. Moreover, transfer of asylum seekers to the third countries (as part of burned-sharing process) does not prohibit under international law (except situations when such people transferred to the countries where there is a real risk for being prosecuted for discriminatory reasons): a) there are no international norms that deal specifically with migrants displaced by environmental or climatic factors either internally within a country or internationally[16]; b) The High Commissioner notes that arrangements to transfer asylum-seekers to another country are a ‘significant exception’ to normal practice and should only be pursued as part of a burden-sharing arrangement to more fairly distribute responsibilities, and involve countries[17]; c) the crucial state obligation is non-refoulement, not admission or a grant of residence[18]; d) where a State finds difficulty in granting or continuing to grant asylum, States individually or jointly or through the United Nations shall consider, in a spirit of international solidarity, appropriate measures to lighten the burden on that State[19].

Thus, Rutasia has the right to transfer migrants who were helding in the Woeroma Centre. In additional, proposed transfer must be recognized as necessary, because conditions in Block A is not fulfilling the requirements of safe place, and as it is stated in UNHCR Executive Committee conclusions № 22: “the location of asylum seekers should be determined by their safety and well-being as well as by the security needs of the receiving State”[20]. So, placing of asylum seekers from Block A on the territory of Rutasia is impossible, because in the exicting centres of Rutasian Immigration Department exist dangerous conditions of living, and placing this persons at the military base contradict to the security interests of Rutasia. In addition, the reception of foreigners is a matter of discretion, and every State is by reason of its territorial supremacy competent to exlude foreigners from the whole or any part of its territory[21].

Alleged violations of human rights on the territory of Saydee, and unsuitable conditions for living in proposed premises[22] can not be the obstacles for proposed transfer. The obligation of States not to expel, return or refoule refugees (in our case – asylum seekes) to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened is a cardinal protection principle enshrined in the Convention, to which no reservations are permitted[23]. Proving the illegal character of trasfer, World Immigration Watch issued a report, where the Republic of Saydee was called: “a nation with an objectionable human rights record”, and Rutasia was accused of “to outsource its international humanitarian obligations”[24]. However, in their decisions European Court of Human Rights and Human Rights Committee stressed that threat to the life has to be real and the fear of prosecution – reasonable[25]. In present case there is no evidence of any actual intention of the Republic of Saydee to prosecute, or to violate the rights of the Alfurnan migrants. The fact, that Saydee has not ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degragind Treatment or Punishment, does not mean that an essentially similar obligation is not already inherent in the general terms of art. 7 of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights[26].

Also, transfer of Alfurnan migrants to Saydee is not an attempt to avoid international obligation of Rutasia, because according to the provisions of agreement between Rutasia and Saydee: “all costs associated with the transfer, detention, health, and welfare of the transferees would be met by Rutasia”[27]. The Govermnet of Saydee issued a statement that did not deny the charges of delegation of 1 November 2012[28] and promissed that fresh funds will be invest to rectify the situation. Rutasia guarantees (giving money for this special purpose) that Alfurnan migrants from Block A of the Woeroma Centre will be treating in accordance with requirements of international law.