Asylum Protection - Ameers Situation - Essay Example

? Asylum Protection Question 4 The asylum is the protection accorded to an individual who leaves the native country intoa different nation as a political refugee. The asylum is a vital activity that demonstrates the extent of responsibility of one country to a citizen of a different nation1. This implies that the person in need of the protection has to meet a definite criterion. Political refugees have to be treated with distinct caution2. Therefore, the individual is still referred to as the asylum seeker and has not attained the refugee title. In Ameer’s case, an understanding must prevail between him considered as a party and the United Kingdom that is also considered as a different party. In order to coin a rational judgment, all the relevant provisions of the law have to be obeyed and it is through a critical understanding that an effective decision can be reached. Here, an effectual decision is the decision reached that fulfils all the demands of the law and manifests concern to the respect of human rights. The United Kingdom has to ascertain that the asylum seeker actually fears the persecution3. Under ordinary situations, individuals in fear of persecution must have to originate from a particular social group that is likely to be persecuted. In cases of countries such as Afghanistan, the sources of persecution might incorporate race, religion, political affiliation or nationality. Hence, the united kingdom have to ascertain the probability of the asylum seeker’s origin and the probability of originating from the above stipulated groups and the impending reasons being influential to the actions considered adverse to their lives4. Ameer fears for his life and that of his family and that is perceived as the primary cause of his escape to the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, his case is quite complicated afterwards since he develops a kidney condition that is of a potential harm equally. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that besides him faced by external or the national problems, he is faced by personal and health problems. However, the law provides for both conditions and it is upon the law enforcement teams to follow the law provisions to their maximum to achieve a credible solution to the situation5. Concerning the human rights, Ameer’s life has to be respected in his capacity as a human being that is entitled to safety and healthy welfare. The law has to regard the health condition of the asylum seeker and pursue all the activities within its docket to provide its best to aid in the situation. The United Kingdom has to establish that Ameer is unwilling or incapable of subjecting himself to the protection provided by his country, Afghanistan. The United Kingdom has also to determine in case the refugee is not associated with any nationality or is not willing to go back to his country of habitat and from which the refugee originated6. Ameer’s situation is relevant in two provisions of vast law contexts that is, Article 3 and article 8. Article 8 demands consideration of Ameer’s personality and the components surrounding him. This provision regards the applicant’s private life, family life home as well as that of correspondence.6 Basic interpretations of article 8 provide that concerning private life, the bodily integrity has to be upheld. The applicant should be granted all the medical opportunities he deserves; again the treatments should never be restricted. The applicant is entitled to personal autonomy and is liable to make all his decisions without any external influence unless requested. The applicant has the right to hold information and can also demand information held by an institution concerning his affairs and personality. Again the aspect of home has to be accorded the due respect to mean that Ameer’s current dwelling has to be recognized as his home and there is no essence in searching for him home even if it does not exist. The article 8 is relevant in this case since Ameer has developed a fatal health condition. Therefore he has to be treated by the respondent state and failing to do this would compromise the status of his life7. Before any evaluations, Ameer is an asylum seeker according to Article 1 of the Geneva Convention amended by Protocol 19678. According to the definitions of a refugee stipulated in the in the convention, Ameer has to attain all the requirements to be regarded as a credible refugee. At this point Ameer has been denied the protection by the United Kingdom and the remaining fact is that he has to understand the reason for the refusal fully. Probably the exclusion of Ameer’s situation from the refugee considerations might have attributed to the refusal. And this solely depends on the perception of the United Kingdom concerning Ameers escape from his native land. Ameer should understand precisely that he might have acted divergently to the intentions and guidelines to the United Nations that is Article 1F6. There is also a possibility that Ameer has perpetrated a war crime or might have executed a non political offence before escaping to the United Kingdom. All these actions deny him the credibility as an asylum seeker and cannot be protected9. According to the provisions of Article 3, Ameer should not be humiliated in any degree. The applicant is a human being and should not be exposed to violations of human rights expressing torture, suffering or an act attributing to devaluation of human dignity. In the first instance, his return to the native country would mean disregard to his wishes. Ameer’s condition is prompting concern and projection is not certain. The permission of contracting states to exorcise aliens is nevertheless dependant on the need to respect the complete form of the proscription entailed in Article 3. It is a responsibility of the respondent Country, which in this scenario is United Kingdom to protect to the applicant the assurances stipulated in Article 3 regardless of the magnitude of the offence executed. The reason that has prompted Ameer’s coming to the United Kingdom is bound within the Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 1952 amended by the protocol of 1967. This defines Ameer as a refugee that is entitled for an asylum because he fears persecution associated with religious affiliations10. The applicant has been within the authority of the United Kingdom even if the applicant never attained entry in the complex manner. It is factual that the submission of this principle is not restricted to the circumstances where the personage to be deputed is exposed to a genuine danger of being expressed to varieties of treatment forbidden by Article 3 that are deliberately imposed by public establishment in receipt of State or through non-State organizations after the public systems in that country are incapable of affording him apposite safety11. The Court has to be capable of incorporating Article 3 provisions in other perspectives in an attempt to avoid disheartenment the complete disposition of the article's defense The situations that lie ahead of the applicant in Afghanistan do not in nature violate the demands of Article 3. The respondent country has presumed its liability for caring for the applicant from the time he arrived in the country since he is in the chronic stages of a lethal and untreatable disease. The applicant is currently dependent on medical and analgesic care offered to him. The applicant’s removal at this phase would accelerate his demise and render him to a real danger of succumbing to most stressful situations and hence to heartless treatment10. There is no adept medical care, no accommodation, no family sustenance in the receiving state, Afghanistan. The reference to the case of N v United Kingdom would be relevant in this case for the assistance in the eventual judgment. This does not also mean that the cases are fully identical but they have points of convergence that if considered can lead to an inclusive judgment. In this case, the applicant is overwhelmed by her condition on arrival to the United Kingdom and is admitted in the hospital in the respondent state. The applicant is denied stay in the respondent state but claims that the country from which she came has no effective health care facilities to counter her HIV condition12. In scrutiny of the incredibly outstanding occasions of the situation and the undeniable humanitarian contemplations in jeopardy, exclusion of the applicant would defy Article 3. Hence, there would result a breach if the claimant were to be deported. It would be critical to consider the provisions of the case of D v the United Kingdom where deportation was considered a violation of Article 3 that protects human dignity and aversion of inhumanity and degradation of human in diverse perspectives13. Recommendation I recommend the minority decision depicted at the last part of the case N v United Kingdom since it is the verdict that posed its rationale in superseding the compulsions of the period14. In this analysis, Strasbourg appears to have based its discoveries on the principle that the essential treatment is extensively obtainable in Uganda. This is completely not the situation in most states. Court declines to scrutinize the case basing on Article 8. The conditions in which this is executed would no reservation be understood by the Home Office as well as many persons in the Asylum and Immigration panel since is no different Article 8 concern in any matters concerning health care15. Conversely, it is probable to claim that the rejection is dependent on the situations of the case, and that this will maintain as a main bone of contention. Again the refusal is inconsistent definitely with previous cases especially D v United Kingdom16. Conclusion My eventual thought for Ameer and his entire legal team is that it is never easy to win such medico legal cases since doctors are more proficient in this field. I think it demands more degree of competence and practice because it is ever worst when a case is lost especially by a profession Bibliography ECH, Cases and materials on the European Convention on human rights. (Rout ledge 1997). Frenwick, H & Davis, H, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (First published in 1926 Pearson 2004). Clayton, G, Immigration and Asylum Law 2011, (5th edtn OUP chapt4 2011). Haye, E, War Crimes in International Armed conflicts. (Prentice Hall 2008). Jenkins. D, The European legal Tradition against Torture and Implantation of Article 3 of the ECHR Public Law (ECHR 2007). Hoofman, D and Rowe, J, Human Rights in the Uk; An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998 (3rd edtn Pearson Longman 2010). Mowbray, A, Cases and materials on the European Convention on human rights. (Oxford University Press 2012). Rome, 4 November 1950, United Nations, Treaty Series, (vol. 213 1950) 221. Ryssdal, R, and Russo, C, (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (first published in 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999) 171. Teichmann, I, Immigration & Asylum. (Cengage 2003). Read More