BUFFU! Human traffic - why Eritrea’s abuses were ignored Matthew Vella According to international law, Malta should have confirmed the safety of Eritrea before repatriating 220 Eritreans back to an unsure fate in a war-torn country where human rights abuses were still rampant. But why were warnings by Amnesty International, the Eritrean Liberation Front and other human rights organisations ignored by both the UNHCR and the Maltese government? The Maltese government was obliged by international law to determine whether Eritrea could be considered a safe country for the repatriation of 220 Eritrean migrants back in September 2002, when the deportation met international protest from NGOs and organisations amidst warnings that Eritrea’s human rights picture was a desolate one. Forewarned months beforehand on the grim fate awaiting the deportees, both Eritrea’s main opposition party, the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) and UK-based Eritreans for Human and Democratic Rights (EDHR), petitioned the UN’s High Commission for Refugees as well as the highest Maltese authorities, including the President, the Prime Minister and other Ministers, to stop the deportation. Although 170 of the refugees did not apply for refugee status, Malta was bound by the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, to “determine whether there are such grounds… of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights,” in Eritrea, before deportation. According to the Convention, which Malta ratified in 1990, “no state party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” maltatoday.mt/2004/05/30/t7.html
Posted on: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:43:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015