Human Rights: Oban - Case Study Example

Human Rights: Oban Case Affiliation Rights: Oban Case I. Introduction Human Rights are viewed as basic needs in a global perspective. Across the world, nations are inclined to develop human rights that protect people regardless of their citizenship affiliation to the host nation. For this reason, immigrants have been provided with rights that minimize their transfer to areas that they may be dangerous or risky to human life or existence. In the United Kingdom, the same can be viewed in numerous cases on the issue against occasions. However, the numerous changes on the global perspectives on human rights have introduced specification on the extent at which a person’s rights may be relevant to a case1. For instance, the case on terrorism has created a new dimension on how to view human rights provisions. Regardless of the changes, human rights still prevail as significant in democratic nations2. In the case of Oban, the main conflict is created from the assumption that he may be a terrorist. Oban is accused of being a Boko Haram militant who shifted in the United Kingdom. Boko Haram is terrorist group in Nigeria affiliated to gruesome attacks in the nation. Oban has admitted of being part of the group but not a proponent of the use of violence. In addition, he has admitted to be in communication with the organization while in the United Kingdom. After the expiry of his visa, Oban did not move back to Nigeria as he sort asylum. The efforts to deport him to Nigeria have been faulted on the assumption that he may be subjected to torture and other form of violence by the Nigerian government. This would be a major violation to his human rights. Considering this assumption and the fact that Oban has a child in the United Kingdom, deporting him would be a significant violation of human rights under the provision of the United Kingdom Laws. Consequently, he should not be deported. II. Potential Breaches if Deported Provisions of Article 3 The foundations of the clause are created on the provisions that there should be not inhumane activity, torture or degrading treatment. In an argument by Xenos this is an absolute right as human rights dedicate that under no circumstance can a person be tortured. The author further asserts that a person or a body should not be involved in aiding or abetting the exposure of a person to torture, degrading treatment or inhumane activity3. Under the article, torture is defined as any activity that amounts to the deliberate cause of suffering to another person4. This is regardless of the condition or the causing factors leading to the situation. Inhuman activity is defined to any activity that may inflict intense mental or physical pain on a person. The description covers the requirement of providing a person with humane environments even when facing criminal charges5. On the other hand, degrading activity is defined by the extent of the usual mode of punishment. The provision dictates the extent of punishment that can be inflicted by a person. For this reason, a person should only be exposed to usual forms of punishment. The article also provides on the issue of deportation to torture. The article completely prohibits the United Kingdom to deport a person to a location where there is clear and accurate knowledge that they may be subjected to inhuman activities or treatment6. The article also provides the requirement to disregard any form of evidence retrieved through torture even if torture is conducted by authorities outside the United Kingdom7. Case Study Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 From 1971 to 1975, the Republic of Northern Ireland practiced in the violent arrest, internment and detention of person suspected to be terrorists. The activities were viewed as extrajudicial. The activities included sleep and food deprivation, masking detainees’ heads and exposing them to noisy hissing voices. In the European Court of Human Rights, a decision that the activities used on the detainees caused intense mental and psychological harm to the people arrested8. The activities were also viewed as humiliating and degrading. For this reason, the United Kingdom was viewed to be in breach of article 3 for the provision of the authority to its forces to use the techniques. Othman v United Kingdom (2012) EHRR 1 In the case, Othman was an immigrant from Jordan. He was wanted in Jordan for terrorism accusations. Othman has applied to be allowed to remain permanently in the United Kingdom regardless of the fact that he is wanted in Jordan for terrorism related crimes. In the court proceedings, there was sufficient evidence that the deportation of Othman to Jordan may expose him to human rights violation risks based on the questioning and detention techniques applied by the Jordanian Authorities9. For this reason, the court cited the request by Othman admissible and deportation of the plaintiff to Jordan would be a breach of Article 3. Analytical Tips From the provisions highlighted it is evident that the deportation of Oban to Nigeria would an infringement of the rules provided under Article 3. Oban has cited fears that the Nigerian authorities would torture him if he is deported. The assumption can be proven considering the extent at which the nation may go to execute terrorists affiliated to Boko Haram. From the argument, the United Kingdom may not deport Oban under any circumstance since the provisions under Article 3 may hinder the approach. From the case studies presented, the application of Article 3 is provided. The case of Oban is similar to the case of Othman vs. United Kingdom. In similar circumstance, the court declines the request to deport Othman to Jordan. Oban is also faced by the same risks if he is presented to the Nigerian authorities. In addition, the decision to provide Oban with asylum in the United Kingdom should be allowed. This is based on that the decision to decline the asylum request may require Oban to return to Nigeria and his human rights may be significantly violated. From the provision of Article 3 and application of the law, it is evident that deporting Oban is not legal and not in line with human rights requirements. Provision of Article 8 Under Article 8, the main issues addressed are the rights to private life and family life. In relevance to the Oban case, the provision to family life is relevant. In the provision, any person living in the United Kingdom has the right to have a relationship with their family. The family relationship may not be interrupted. The prohibition to interruption also provides on the issue of deportation10. Specifically, a member of a family may not be deported since their right to family life may be infringed11. The family relationship under the act is defined as any stable relationship, marriage, relationships between children, parents and grandparents12. The provision on the respect for correspondence is also relevant in this case. A person is allowed to have uninterrupted communication with a person of their choice. In the case, of the family it is evident that a person is allowed to communication to any member of their family without interference13. Case Study Mitchell vs. the United Kingdom 1998 In this case, the plaintiff is Jamaican Immigrant who was deported based on that he had faced charges of drug dealing and sale while in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff has placed a request for asylum in the United Kingdom due to closer relation to a spouse. After the deportation, the spouse presented a petition for appeal challenging the decision to deport Mitchel under the provision of family life. The plaintiff claims that deportation of Mitchell violated her rights to private life14. However, the case was decided on the advantage of the United Kingdom citing the legality of the marriage. Analytical Tips Under the provisions of Article 8, a person in the United Kingdom regardless of the citizenship status in the United States has the right to family. In the case of Oban, he has a significant family relation with his son. However, his relationship to the mother of his child may viewed as less substantial are relevant to the case, the fact that he has a son in the country creates the need to stop any efforts to deport him. The contact between Oban and his son can be proven based on the weekly visits he makes to communicate with his son. In addition, Oban’s request to increase the number of visits he can make to his son should be increased. As provided by the article, Oban has the right to stay in the United Kingdom in order to increase his proximity to his son. The respect to correspondence should also be practiced in this case. The allegations that portray Oban as a terrorist may also increase the possibility of the need to provide surveillance on the communication between Oban and his son. However, under the law this decision is illegal and should not be allowed. From the provisions given, it is clear that Article 8 protects the rights of a person to have family life in the United Kingdom. For this reason, the decision to deport Oban should not be permitted due to the fact that his rights to family life may be infringed. Provision of Article 5 In this law, the provision of detention and deportation of foreigners affiliated to major crime are highlighted. In an argument by Alexander & Brenner the right to liberty extensively covers the rights of foreigner in the United Kingdom15. The authors further assert the article enables for the legal arrest, detention or deportation of a foreigner16. Prior to the creation of amendment of the article, it was provided that a foreigner affiliated to terrorisms may be detained if they could not be deported. However, amendments on the law created a mandatory trial before detention or deportation decision. This allowed for foreigner to be provided with an equal opportunity to prove their innocence before they could be subjected to punishment17. In the Oban case the right to liberty is relevant. The right to liberty in this case is influenced by the fact that the charges provided against Oban can only be provided by Nigeria. However, the risk of human rights violation under Article 3 restricts his deportation to face the charges. For this reason, Oban could not be detained in the United Kingdom without facing trial. However, if a court case is developed and significant proof is presented, Oban could be detained but not deported considering the human rights risks in Nigeria. Under Article 5, it is mandatory for Oban to be presented before a trial before detention or case for deportation. For this reason, Oban may not be deported since his rights to liberty may be infringed. Provisions under Article 6 The right to a fair hearing is highlighted in the article. The law creates the opportunity for an accused person to be provided with a court environment that provides a favourable environment to present their case or acquired a fair hearing18. Reid is of the assumption that Article 6 creates a way in which the legal considerations can be used to determine the absolute fair hearing provisions19. In regards to the accused, the provisions of right to fair hearing are considerate of the rights to a profession, property rights, and family right and control order. In the case of Oban, the provision of family rights is most relevant20. In addition, the provision of accurate evidence of Oban’s affiliation to terrorism should be presented during hearing. Oban should be granted a hearing before he could be either detained or deported. However, before the decision, Oban should be in a hearing that is considerate of his family rights and evidence to be provided by Nigeria. Nigeria holds evidence that links Oban to Boko Haram. However, the nation wants Oban deported before a hearing can be arranged. This is, however, illegal considering the human rights violation risks in Nigeria. In addition, the arrangement of a hearing outside the United Kingdom would infringe the right to family as provided in Article 5. Consequently, Oban should not be deported considering that he will not be provided with a fair hearing or the right to family life. III. Breaches Arsing under TPIM The TPIM provide condition under which a person may be placed under terrorism prevention, control measures. The provisions are21: An individual has been involved in a activity related to terrorism Part of a recent and relevant terrorism activity There is the need to protect the public from a potential terrorism threat that may emanate from a person There is possible reason to hinder a person’s involvement in terrorism. However, these provisions are in great consideration of provision under Article 6. In an argument by Sweet & Keller the TPIM provides a level ground in which a person’s rights can be compared to their influence on a terrorism threat22. The authors further assert that the TPIM is able to neutralize the rights to protection from legal punishment based on the significance of a terrorism threat23. Possible solutions by the TPIM include the decision to deport a person to face relevant and significant terrorism charges. However, laws the protect human rights in the United Kingdom are viewed with greater significance than the provision of the TPIM. For instance, a person affiliated to terrorism may be deported but if they are clear human rights violation risks, the decision may be reverted. Regardless of this provision, the level of threat posed by a person in regards to terrorism dictates the authority placed under the provisions of the TPIM24. In the Oban case, the TPIM plays a major role. The affiliation of Oban to Boko Haram places him under a significant terrorism threat. However, the threat posed by Boko Haram may not be relevant to the United Kingdom Public. In addition, Nigeria has not yet presented reliable evidence that may link Oban to violent activities of the militia group. To resolve the issue, a fair hearing is required before the TPIM can shape the outcome of Oban’s presence in the United Kingdom. With the Nigeria’s failure to provide an environment for a fair hearing, the authority of the TPIM may be limited to influence the decision to deport Oban. IV. Conclusion From the arguments presented, it is clear that Oban’s human rights are heavily provided for under the United Kingdom constitution. Oban’s rights under Article 3 prohibits his deportation to Nigeria due to the massive risks posed on is human rights. Under Article 8, the family affiliation to his son also prohibits the deportation of Oban. The decision to decline his deportation is also provided under the rights to liberty and rights to fair hearing. These provisions may be enough to support the opinion to retain Oban in United Kingdom. However, under the TPIM Oban may pose a security risk in U.K considering his affiliation to a terrorism group. For this reason, the law may dictate his deportation or detention. Regardless of the law on terrorism, the decision to deport Oban should not be realized considering the most important human rights and right to family life. References Alexander, Y. & Brenner, H. UKs Legal Responses to Terrorism. (Routledge 2013). Anthony, G. UK Public Law and European Law. (Hart Publishing 2002). Chahal v. United Kingdom, [1996] 23 EHRR 413. Greer, S. The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects. (Cambridge University Press 2006) Hoffman, D. & Rowe, J. Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998. (Pearson Education Limited 2013). Ireland vs. United Kingdom, [1979-80] 2 EHRR 25. Kavanagh, A. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. (Cambridge University Press 2009). Mitchell vs. the United Kingdom, [1998] EHRR 40447/98. Mowbray, A. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights. (Oxford University Press 2012). Othman vs. United Kingdom, [2012] EHRR 1. Ovey, C. & White, R. Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed Oxford University Press 2006). Pearse, J. Investigating Terrorism: Current Political, Legal and Psychological Issues. (John Wiley & Sons 2015). Rainey, B. Human Rights Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. (Oxford University Press 2013). Reid, K. A Practitioners Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. (Sweet & Maxwell 2011). Richard, S. Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights. (Oxford University Press 2014) Sweet, A. & Keller, H. A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. (Oxford University Press 2008). Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), [1950], Article 3. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), [1950], Article 5. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), [1950], Article 6. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), [1950], Article 8. The European Convention on Human Rights, [1950]. The Stationery Office. Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill: Session 2012-13, Report, Together with Formal Minutes. (The Stationery Office 2012) Xenos, D. The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights. (Routledge 2012). Read More