Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 161
sion before a national judicial authority, 550 and the right to be provided
with the reasons for deportation. 551
The African Commission has held that, when the government expels a
citizen or a non-national on grounds of national security, it must bring
evidence against the person before the courts. The Commission stressed
that the right to be informed of the reasons for expulsion is an inherent
part of the right to a fair trial and may not be abrogated in times of
emergency. It found that failure to provide reasons for expulsion violates
the right to fair trial (Article 7), to an independent judiciary (Article 26)
and of the right to access to information (Article 9) of the African Charter.
The Commission warned that an expulsion without providing reasons for
expulsion would constitute a “mockery of justice and the rule of law”. 552
The African Commission has established that expelling an individual
without providing for the opportunity to plead before the competent
national courts also constitutes a violation of Article 12.4 of the African
Charter, stating that “[a] non-national legally admitted in a territory of
a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by
virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.” 553
Both the Inter-American and the African Commission have established
that a lack or denial of access to a judicial remedy, a failure to implement
judicial decisions against expulsion, or a lack of due process
guarantees violate not only the right to a fair trial, but also the right to
expulsion proceedings in accordance with the law (Articles 22 ACHR and
12.4 ACHPR), 554 the right to an independent judiciary in the African system
(Article 26 ACHRP), 555 and, in the case of the Inter-American system,
the right to an effective judicial remedy (Article 25 ACHR). 556 They
550 OMCT and Others v. Rwanda, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 65, pp. 49, 52; Amnesty International
v. Zambia, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 469, p. 76, paras. 46 and 61; IHRDA v. Angola,
ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, para. 59; RADDH v. Zambia, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 536,
para. 29; UIADH and Others v. Angola, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 43, paras. 19–20.
551 Amnesty International v. Zambia, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 469, para. 41; Good v. Republic
of Botswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, paras. 194–195.
552 Good v. Republic of Botswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, paras. 193, 194 and 177.
553 Article 12.4 ACHPR. See, UIADH and Others v. Angola, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 43, paras. 14
and 20; IHRDA v. Angola, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, paras. 63–65; ZLHR and Others
v. Zimbabwe, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, para. 114; Good v. Republic of Botswana,
ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, para. 205.
554 IHRDA v. Angola, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, paras. 63–65; ZLHR and Others v. Zimbabwe,
ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, para. 114. For the Inter-American system, Habal and
son v. Argentina, IACHR, op. cit., fn. 536, para. 58; IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human
Rights, op. cit., fn. 536, para. 402.
555 ZLHR and Others v. Zimbabwe, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, paras. 118–120; Good v. Republic
of Botswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, paras. 179–180.
556 IACHR, “Situations of Haitians in the Dominican Republic”, in Annual Report 1991, OAS
Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.81,
Doc. 6 rev. 1, Chapter V,
14 February 1992
(IACHR, Situations of
Haitians), Chapter V; Habal and son v. Argentina, IACHR, op. cit., fn. 536, para. 53.