166 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6Box 13. Repetitive expulsions may breach prohibitionof inhuman and degrading treatmentThe European Commission of Human Rights held in the caseA.H. v. the Netherlands that “the repeated expulsion of anindividual, whose identity was impossible to establish, to acountry where his admission is not guaranteed, may raise anissue under Article 3 of the Convention [. . .]. Such an issuemay arise, a fortiori, if an alien is over a long period of timedeported repeatedly from one country to another without anycountry taking measures to regularise his situation”. 581 Article3 ECHR enshrines the prohibition of torture and inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment. The African Commissionon Human and Peoples’ Rights also held in the case John K.Modise v. Botswana that repetitive deportations and constantthreats of deportations amounted to a violation of the right tofreedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment underArticle 5 ACHPR. 582III. Procedural guarantees in expulsions and theright to a remedyAs widely recognised by major human rights treaties, where there is anarguable case that an individual’s rights have been violated, he or shehas the right to an effective remedy at the national level. 583 The rightto a remedy means that, where there is an arguable complaint that asubstantive human right will be violated by an expulsion (see, Chapter2) additional procedural guarantees necessary to ensure an effectiveremedy against the violation or potential violation will apply and willrequire a stricter than usual scrutiny of the process of the expulsion. 584The right to an effective remedy will apply even if it is later determinedthat no violation of the substantive human right occurred. The objectiveof a remedy is to “enforce the substance of the [international humanrights treaty] rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happento be secured in the domestic legal order”. 585581 Harabi v. the Netherlands, ECommHR, Application No. 10798/84, Admissibility Decision,5 March 1986, para. 1.582 Modise v. Botswana, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 469, para. 91.583 Article 8 UDHR; Article 2.3 ICCPR; Article 8.2 CPED; Article 13 ECHR; Article 25 ACHR;Article 25 Protocol to the ACHPR on the Rights of Women in Africa.584 Ahani v. Canada, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 503, paras. 10.6–10.8.585 Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 481, para. 132. See also, Omkarananada and theDivine Light Zentrum v. Switzerland, ECommHR, op. cit., fn. 474, para. 9.
MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 1671. An effective remedyWhere an individual is threatened with expulsion that gives rise to anarguable case of violation of human rights, there is a right to a remedythat is effective, impartial and independent and be capable to review andoverturn the decision to expel. 586 The UN Basic Principles and Guidelineson the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violationsof international human rights law and serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law (the Principles) affirm that States have an obligationto provide available, adequate, effective, prompt and appropriateremedies to victims of violations of international human rights law andinternational humanitarian law, including reparation. 587 The Principles,which were approved by all members of the UN General Assembly, recallthat this obligation arises from the general obligation to respect,ensure respect for and implement international human rights law andinternational humanitarian law, enshrined in treaty law and customaryinternational law. 588 An effective remedy should be provided by a judicialbody, but, if it is not, it must fulfil the requirements set out above,of effectiveness—i.e. the power to bring about cessation of the violationand appropriate reparation, including, where relevant, to overturn theexpulsion order—of impartiality and independence. 589 The remedy mustbe prompt and effective in practice as well as in law, and must not beunjustifiably hindered by the acts of State authorities. 590 In cases ofnon-refoulement to face a risk of torture or ill-treatment, the absolutenature of the rights engaged further strengthens the right to an effectiveremedy 591 and means that the decision to expel must be subject toclose and rigorous scrutiny. 592586 Alzery v. Sweden, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 364, para. 11.8. In the same case, the Committee didnot find a violation of Article 13 ICCPR, therefore demonstrating the more extended guaranteesprovided to by the principle of non-refoulement. See also, Zhakhongir Maksudov andOthers v. Kyrgyzstan, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 324, para. 12.7; Agiza v. Sweden, CAT, op. cit.,fn. 332, para. 13.7; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 434,para. 460; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 324, para. 293; C.G. and Othersv. Bulgaria, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 510, para. 56 (Right to a remedy where right to respectfor family life under Article 8 ECHR was in issue); Čonka v. Belgium, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 570,paras. 77–85 (right to a remedy in case of alleged collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol4 ECHR). For the Inter-American system, inter alia, Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, IACtHR,Series C No. 149, Judgment of 4 July 2006, para. 175. A thorough analysis of the right to aremedy is to be found in, ICJ, Practitioners’ Guide No. 2, op. cit., fn. 480.587 Articles 2 and 3 of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation.588 Article 1 of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation.589 See, ICJ, Practitioners’ Guide No.2, op. cit., fn. 480, pp. 49–54.590 Muminov v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 343, para. 100; Isakov v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit.,fn. 324, para. 136; Yuldashev v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 324, paras. 110–111; Garayevv. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 484, paras. 82 and 84.591 Agiza v. Sweden, CAT, op. cit., fn. 332, para. 13.8.592 Jabari v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 116, para. 39.