The General Council of Abogaca requires the Government “legal guarantees” in the management of borders
Varapalo de la Abogaca espaola to the European judgment that guarantees the returnshot. “The ruling violates the rights of the Refugee Convention and allows the summary expulsion of immigrants as a result of their own conduct. The right to request international protection is lost. It shakes the foundations of the principle of non-refoulement.” And message to the Spanish Government: “That the management of borders be carried out with legal guarantees”.
The quotes are from the General Council of Abogaca, the body that renews and represents all professional associations in Spain. Those responsible for the council have had 24 hours to study the 122 pages of the judgment of theEuropean Court of Human Rights(ECHR) which, on Thursday, gave legal coverage to expulsion exprs at the border.
The Council of Abogaca maintains that the sentence “enters into collision” with the Geneva Convention for Refugees of 1951. And points out that the ruling of the 13 magistrates ofStrasbourgbrand “a new legal concept of returnshotthat clashes with International Human Rights Law and the procedural guarantees that are owed to any person. “
The Council states that allowing the “summary expulsion” of immigrants due to their own behavior by not using official entry procedures, as the sentence says, “means that people who access a country through places not authorized to cross the border go to lose the right to request international protection. “
And that right can only be exercised in a position enabled for it, “an idea that shakes the foundations of the principle of non-refoulement, cornerstone of the Geneva Convention.”
Without “possibility of accessing another procedure”
The Spanish Abogaca text ensures that by accepting thereturn exprs, migrants “lose the possibility of accessing any other procedure before the authorities that have exclusive control over them.” Specifically, and for example, individually assess their situation, such as the fact that it would be a minor.
“The ECHR seems not to have asked the Spanish Consulate inSwimmer, which is cited in the sentence for being a possible official position to apply for asylum and that is only 13.5 km. of the post ofBeni Enzar‘, yes, indeed, it is possible that migrants camped in themount gurugwho think they are in a situation of asking for asylum can do so at their offices. “
It is a new model of understanding returnshot. But it is a concept that “clashes with International Human Rights Law and the procedural guarantees that are owed to anyone regardless of their immigration status or the way they enter the territory.”
The General Council of the Advocate: “It enters into collision with the recent decision of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in a case similar to that ofN.D.YN.T. [los jvenes sobre los que el TEDH ha sentenciado], but in which the one who was subject to a summary expulsion was a minor, since the obligations of protection and procedures apply even with respect to the minors who are subject to the jurisdiction of the State when trying to penetrate the national territory. “
Do not forget the superior organ of the Abogaca to send a message to the Executive of Pedro Snchez. “The General Council of Abogaca does not doubt that the Spanish Government will make every effort at its disposal so that the management of the borders is carried out from the recognition of the legal guarantees that correspond to these people, often in a situation of great vulnerability “.
And he interprets that the ECHR ruling confirms “a trend in Europe on the approach of migratory movements that is increasingly drawn by the disproportion between the legal mechanisms of emigration to their States and the really existing volume of migration.”
“This disproportion feeds the irregular flows against which this ruling seeks to shield European borders, creating a perverse paradox.”
According to the criteria of