Court Watch
fold increase in complaints between the periods of 2003-2006 and 2007-2010.
While the scathing HRW report provides signifi- cant direction for the Prosecutor, even HRW spe- cialists view the Sandoval effort in The Hague as an uphill climb. Most challenging for the Prosecu- tor, at least initially, will be the task of defining the abuses in Mexico within the text of the Rome Statute. Particularly at issue is whether the crimes alleged actually fall under any of the definitions outlined within the Rome Statute. Genocide may be excluded, as the vast majority of the Mexican deaths are at the hands of other Mexicans; war crimes will be just as difficult to ascertain given that the conflict is, for the most part, internal; and aggression would be ruled out absent a Mexican attack on a neighboring sovereign.
14
Crimes against humanity, then, remain the most plausible category in which to place the allega- tions, but these acts of murder, torture, enforced disappearance, and deprivation of liberty, must be shown to be systematic and widespread. Charges are highly unlikely to be lodged by the ICC Pros- ecutor, but the mere pursuit of an investigation by international authorities places significant pres- sure on the Mexican administration and Mexican courts to begin the difficult task of rooting out abuses by state personnel, as well as by the drug lords also named in the complaint.
* Submitted by Aaron Lukken
Recent ECJ Ruling Impacts European Union Asylum Procedures
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided last December in the joined cases of C-411/10 N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (N.S.) and C-493/10 M.E. and Others v. Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (M.E. and Others) that current European Union asylum procedures need to further respect fundamental human rights.
These cases arose when Afghan, Iranian, and Al- gerian nationals entered the European Union (EU) through Greece but did not apply for asylum until arriving in the United Kingdom or Ireland.
The Dublin II Regulation which was enacted in 2003 requires that the country processing the asylum application ensure that it is the original country of entry for the asylum-seeker. The Dublin II Regulation is meant to prevent “asylum shop- ping,” individuals traveling to the country where they are more likely to acquire refugee status. Un- der this regulation, the country that the asylum- seeker first entered has the initial burden of pro- cessing the asylum application and accepting him or her as a refugee. A member state can deport an individual back to his or her original country of entry for processing, and that state must accept them. It is the initial country that must determine if the individual qualifies for asylum. If the deter- mination is to not grant asylum then that country will deport the individual who was denied asylum back to their country of origin and the individual is then barred from applying for asylum again in the European Union. The African Union has a similar rule in that applying for refugee status in one Af- rican country prevents you from applying for refu- gee status in another country.
Ireland and the United Kingdom asked that the ECJ address the issue of whether countries should determine if a member state will adequately pro- cess asylum applications before deporting them to their original country of entry. In N.S. and M.E. and Others, five different individuals in Ireland and N.S. in the United Kingdom resisted being returned to Greece, their first country of entry to the European Union. In N.S., an Afghan national was arrested in Greece and detained for four days for not having a visa, but he did not declare asy- lum. When he tried to leave Greece pursuant to the government’s order, he was arrested by police and deported to Turkey, and held in a detention center for two months before escaping and then traveling to England to declare asylum. In M.E.
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 4 » May 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96