The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has voiced grave concerns regarding the pervasive practice of violent ‘pushbacks’ by European border authorities. In a recent intervention at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Michael O’Flaherty highlighted what he termed a “human rights exceptionalism” evident in border security protocols. This relates to two pivotal cases involving irregular migrants at the EU-Belarus border, under scrutiny for aggressive interception methods employed by Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia.
These member states face accusations of forcibly returning irregular migrants seeking refuge, a practice termed ‘pushbacks.’ Allegations have arisen that such actions not only contravene human rights but also involve systemic violence. In response, the governments have denied the maltreatment claims, asserting that emergency powers invoked in light of increased crossings justify their actions amidst rising tensions with Belarus.
The surge of migrants is believed to be exacerbated by Belarusian authorities, who purportedly coerce or facilitate these crossings to undermine the EU’s border integrity. O’Flaherty reminded the court of the existing rulings that categorically prohibit pushbacks, asserting that these practices violate the fundamental principle of refoulement—returning individuals to territories where they face danger.
Emphasising the inviolable nature of this prohibition, O’Flaherty stated, “This refoulement prohibition is non-derogable and the Court has clarified that it cannot be subject to limitation, either in relation to the challenges faced by states to manage migration or for national security reasons.”
Addressing the arguments put forth by member states regarding the unique circumstances created by Belarus’ actions, the commissioner expressed understanding but staunchly refuted their legitimacy in justifying human rights violations. He remarked, “I fully recognize the challenges in addressing irregular arrivals at borders as well as the security concerns… Yet, I do not see how they can provide a legitimate justification for the violation of rights.”
Member states claim that under existing rulings, summary expulsions are permissible if they redirect migrants to official border crossing points. However, O’Flaherty contested this reasoning, highlighting the perilous conditions at the border and the violent actions of Belarusian border guards. He affirmed that EU authorities have the capability to process incoming groups rather than resorting to pushbacks.
As the legal proceedings unfold, their ramifications could reshape EU border management strategies profoundly. Previous rulings by the ECHR have established that forcibly returning individuals across borders where they might encounter peril is unacceptable, setting a crucial precedent for the ongoing evaluation of border practices.
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, addressed the European Court over the unlawful practice of ‘pushbacks’ directed at irregular migrants at the EU-Belarus border. He emphasised the absolute prohibition against refoulement, criticising member states for their violent expulsion methods. The implications of this case could redefine EU migration policies and border management practices.
In summary, the intervention by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights underscores the serious concerns surrounding the practice of ‘pushbacks’ at the EU’s borders with Belarus. The commissioner articulated the unequivocal prohibition against refoulement and rejected member states’ justifications for expelling migrants under current emergency conditions. This ongoing case has the potential to significantly influence future policies concerning EU border control and the treatment of vulnerable migrants.
Original Source: www.forbes.com
