Post-deportation risks and human rights: a case of state obligations under international human rights instruments

Abstract

The phenomenon of refugees seeking safety and freedom can be traced far back to the ancient times when Israelites fled Egypt to Canaan during the Old Testament era. During this modern era, we continue to witness an influx in the number of refugees every year driven by factors like political conflict in countries like Sudan, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia among other countries. Additionally, the quest for asylum and refugee also arises as a result of persecution based on religion, race, tribe, and nationality. The 1951 refugee convention introduces one crucial principle in its legal framework which is the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits states from deporting refugees and asylum seekers to countries where they could face harm. Despite the existence of such a protective legal framework in the various human rights instruments, countries have failed to respect their duty to refugees and asylum seekers. This violation continues to expose the vulnerable group of refugees and asylum seekers to harm and risks suffered upon return to their respective countries of origin. This study examines the existing legal framework governing the state’s obligation to protect refugees and asylum seekers and ascertains whether the state has indeed complied with it or not. It then goes ahead to give various justifications as to why states have failed to comply with their international obligation to protect this category of individuals. Finally, the study explores a few recommendations that could be applied to minimize deportations to the countries of origin. These include the resettlement of deported asylum seekers to a third country, implementation of sanctions on countries that violate their state obligation to protect asylum seekers, and carrying out awareness drives to enable governments and other stakeholder understand their roles and obligations under the principle of non-refoulment.