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

146 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6Furthermore, the expulsion must be ordered for one of the aims listedin the human rights treaty and must be necessary and proportionate tothat aim. Under the ICCPR, ECHR and ACHR, legitimate aims are limitedto the interests of public safety, the protection of public order, healthor morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 476No human rights treaty allows for a restriction on the right to freedomof religion or belief or of manifesting one’s religion or belief on groundsof national security. 477In a limited but significant line of case-law, the European Court of HumanRights and the African Commission have also held that when someoneis prevented from entering a country or expelled merely on grounds ofpast expressed opinions, and as a result is impaired in imparting informationand ideas within that country, this may violate his or her rightto freedom of expression. 478 In one case, the African Commission foundan expulsion based on grounds of opinion to be a “flagrant violation”of the freedom of expression. 479 The same principles that apply to theright to freedom of religion and belief also apply in this situation, exceptthat the right to freedom of expression can be restricted on grounds ofnational security and public order.3. Expulsion and the “effectiveness” of the right to aremedyWidely recognised under general principles of law and by major humanrights treaties, where an individual’s rights have allegedly been violated,he or she has the right to an effective remedy at the national level. 480The remedy’s purpose is to “enforce the substance of the [human rightstreaty] rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to476 Article 9.2 ECHR; Article 18.3 ICCPR; Article 12.3 ACHR; Article 8 ACHPR allows for restrictionson the basis of law and order; Article 30.2 ArCHR.477 Nolan and K. v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 472, para. 73.478 Cox v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 2933/03, Judgment of 20 May 2010; Women onWaves and Others v. Portugal, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 46; and, Piermont v. France, ECtHR,Applications No. 15773/89 and 15774/89, Judgment of 27 April 1995; Good v. Republic ofBotswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, p. 66, paras. 196–200.479 Good v. Republic of Botswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 470, p. 66, paras. 196–200.480 Article 8 UDHR, Article 2.3 ICCPR, Article 8.2 CPED, Article 83 ICRMW, Article 13 ECHR,Article 25 ACHR, Article 25 Protocol to the ACHPR on the Rights of Women in Africa, Article23 ArCHR. See further, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy andReparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights,Resolution E/CN.4/RES/2005/35 of 19 April 2005 and by the General Assembly ResolutionA/RES/60/147 of 16 December 2005 by consensus. A thorough analysis of the right to aremedy is to be found in International Commission of Jurists, The Right to a Remedy and toReparation for Gross Human Rights Violations—A Practitioners’ Guide, Geneva, December2006 (ICJ Practitioners’ Guide No. 2).