Eastern border|In the preliminary inspection, the Chancellor of Justice requires changes to five sections of the draft law.
Attorney general Tuomas Pöysti finds the government’s conversion law draft before it to be problematic, is clear from the preliminary inspection memo he wrote on Monday.
“Problematic and, to say the least, tense points are the proposal’s relation to the non-return and questions related to legal protection. However, an examination of the presentation’s alternatives reveals that the basic solutions of the presentation cannot necessarily be changed without the effect of the presentation on its purpose being substantially weakened.”
According to the Chancellor of Justice, it is crucial for the legal acceptability of the proposal that the actual possibility of applying for asylum is possible at borders other than the eastern border.
In the preliminary inspection the chancellor of justice requires changes to five sections of the draft law before it can be presented as a government proposal to parliament. In addition, he presents seven different additions to the justifications for the law’s enactment order.
The most important change demanded by the Chancellor of Justice is that the draft would consider the possibility of a separately regulated complaint procedure or rectification claim, for example, outside the borders of Finland. Alternatively, the board should at least justify why it has not been included in the board’s proposal.
On the basis of the draft law prepared in the Ministry of the Interior, the Government could prevent people from applying for international protection at the national border of Finland and in its immediate vicinity. According to the draft law, people who have crossed the border could be removed from Finnish soil without an administrative decision, which could be appealed to a Finnish court.
Second the key requirement is related to when the border guard should transfer the person who is trying to land to a suitable place in order to find out whether, in order to protect his rights, it is still necessary to accept an application for international protection.
“In terms of compliance with the non-refoulement ban, it would be better if the criterion were broader, i.e. the procedure would be possible when it is necessary in terms of securing the rights of the aspirant or effective protection of border security and national security,” the memo states.
The ban on return is based on international human rights treaties and EU law. According to it, no one may be returned to an area where he is threatened with the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhumane or degrading treatment.
According to the Chancellor of Justice, the relationship between the Conversion Act and the Schengen border regulations also needs to be clarified. In addition to that, the draft law should specify what kind of entries and entries are made in the Border Guard’s information system about the activities of the authorities.
Attorney general supervises the legality of the decisions made in the general session of the Government and in the presentation of the President of the Republic. The government’s proposal to combat instrumentalized immigration was submitted to him for preliminary inspection last Friday.
During the preparation phase, i.e. during the preliminary inspection, the Chancellor of Justice provides information and statements on legal issues to the President of the Republic, the Government Council and the ministries upon request. In carrying out his duties, the Chancellor of Justice supervises the realization of fundamental rights and human rights.
In the opinion of several legal scholars and authorities, the draft law is blatantly against the international human rights obligations legally binding on Finland.
The beginning originally with the intention that the government’s proposal would have been completed at the end of April. Due to considerable legal problems, the preparation has been delayed.
In the draft law announced in mid-March, it was directly stated that it contradicts Finland’s binding international human rights obligations.
of the Border Guard a statement prepared by three jurists according to which the law would violate the fundamentals of Finland’s state order, the constitution and the rule of law.
The United Nations (UN) refugee agency UNHCR emphasized in his statement sent to the Ministry of the Interior especially the Convention on the Status of Refugees.
Based on it, the contracting state may not, in one way or another, deport or return a refugee to the borders of areas where his life or freedom are threatened because of race, religion, citizenship, belonging to a certain social group or political opinion.
#Eastern #border #Chancellor #Justice #demands #government #amend #proposal #Conversion #Act
