Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 148
148
Not Addressed
We note the Minister’s comments that these powers are intended to be used in cases...
Recommendation
We note the Minister’s comments that these powers are intended to be used in cases involving, amongst other things, serious international crimes. Where there is sufficient evidence that persons have been involved in serious international crimes such as genocide, such persons must be investigated and prosecuted. We reiterate the previous recommendation of this Committee in its report on Accountability for Daesh Crimes, that the International Criminal Court Act 2001 should be amended to provide for universal jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.193 We note and welcome that this recommendation was echoed by the International Development Committee in its recent report on the UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law, which also called for legislative amendments to provide for universal jurisdiction.194
Government Response Summary
The government's response focused on its existing policies for deporting or managing foreign nationals who pose a threat or do not qualify for protection, through measures like electronic monitoring and curfews. It did not address the committee's recommendation to amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 for universal jurisdiction over serious international crimes.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
The Home Office will always seek to deport or remove those foreign nationals who pose a threat to the UK or whose behaviour is such that they do not qualify for international protection. Where the UK’s obligations under the ECHR prevent that, consideration will be made on whether to impose these conditions. The intention would remain to remove the person from the UK as soon as possible given the threat they have been assessed to pose to the UK. These measures are considered necessary to safely manage some individuals in the community in between reviews determining whether they can be removed or not. The European Court of Human Rights has said that member states have an undeniable right to control a migrant’s residence in their country.2 The Government recognises that these conditions may be seen as invasive, which is somewhat inherent in the nature of their purpose: to control and mitigate risks posed by an individual, including in relation to their location and activities. The conditions are to be used only in the circumstances described above; namely, where the individual is liable to removal from the UK, but where that is not possible (at the time), possibly due to a real risk of removal infringing their rights under the ECHR. Decisions to impose these conditions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and subject to a proportionality analysis to ensure any measures imposed are compatible with a migrant’s rights under the ECHR. In the first instance, electronic monitoring would be considered as a means to mitigating the threat posed by the individual. Curfews, inclusion zones and exclusion zones will only be imposed in cases where electronic monitoring is not sufficient to mitigate the threat posed by the person. Where a person considers that the imposition of such conditions on them is disproportionate, they are permitted to make those representations to the Home Office and, thereafter, judicial review provides appropriate scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s use of these powers.