Context:

• Recently, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UK) has ruled out the government policy of creating a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers not considered by the U.K. to Rwanda as unlawful.

What is the UK-Rwanda deal?

• The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) was announced in April 2022 for the transfer of asylum seekers not recognised by the UK into Rwanda.
• Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): According to the MoU between the two nations, the U.K. will screen asylum seeker applications and arrange for safe transport to Rwanda. 
• Obligation of Rwanda: It is obliged to provide accommodation for every individual and protect them from ill-treatment and refoulement. 
• Obligation of UK:  It will bear the accommodation and transit costs. The U.K. has, in the past, moved refugees to colonised countries under the guise of development and economic growth.
• Discretion of Rwanda: Rwanda will be the sole authority to recognise or not recognise the refugee status of an individual. If an individual is not recognised, they will be moved to their country of origin.

Solutions offered by  Rwanda:

• Rwanda offers three solutions for those sent out by the U.K.
  • It facilitates returning them to their country of origin; 
  • Helps in moving them to a third country; 
  • Helps them settle in Rwanda with decent housing, access to universal health insurance and the right to work. 

Why was it ruled unlawful?

The ruling was based on two major issues.

• The Supreme Court of U. K  found the High Court decision to be “erred” due to its failure to consider the evidence of the risk of refoulement. Under the European Court, it is the U.K.s responsibility as to protect the refugees from refoulement and ensure asylum. 
• The Supreme Court found evidence that asylum seekers face a real risk of ill-treatment from refoulement. 
• • Rwanda’s track record on human rights and its non-compliance with international human rights laws have been criticized by human rights organizations and the United Nations (The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda). 

Domestic responses:

• The reason behind different perceptions is the uncertainty over the legality of the arrangement and treatment of the refugees in Rwanda.
• Views of Civil Society: They feel that double voluntarism from the U.K. and Rwanda to create a safe transit or guaranteeing rights is impossible.
• The UNHCR clearly states that once a refugee enters a territory via land or sea it becomes the responsibility of the respective country to ensure the safety of the refugee. 
  • In this case, the U.K. cannot be relieved from this duty even after the transfer of the refugee to Rwanda. 
• Implications to other EU countries: The doubts over refoulement do not seem to end. This might trigger other EU nations to consider such deportation schemes leading to a decline in humanitarian standards and creating risks for refugees in third-party countries.

Source: The Hindu