驱逐有酷刑“真正风险”的恐怖分子嫌疑人:上议院在阿布卡塔达的决定

M. Garrod
{"title":"驱逐有酷刑“真正风险”的恐怖分子嫌疑人:上议院在阿布卡塔达的决定","authors":"M. Garrod","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"642 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deportation of Suspected Terrorists with ‘Real Risk’ of Torture: The House of Lords Decision in Abu Qatada\",\"authors\":\"M. Garrod\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"642 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文讨论上议院在RB(阿尔及利亚)(FC)案和另一诉内政部国务大臣案中的决定;OO(约旦)诉内政部国务大臣认为第三方外国酷刑证据的实际风险不符合《欧洲人权公约》第6条规定的防止恐怖分子嫌疑人被驱逐出境的不公平标准。它考虑了本案提出的三个关键问题:议会故意限制了新加坡国际仲裁中心就事实问题向上诉法院提出上诉的权利;法律明确允许SIAC在评估返回安全时使用封闭材料;以及SIAC的结论,即《谅解备忘录》所载的外交保证不会引起法律问题,因此上诉法院无法审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deportation of Suspected Terrorists with ‘Real Risk’ of Torture: The House of Lords Decision in Abu Qatada
This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信