Every complaint is decided by the Ministry of the Interior, and the final decision is communicated to the alien. If the foreigner does not leave the country and applies to the administrative court, the Ministry of the Interior must be informed of this.
RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
He requested the court to annul the Ministry's decision not to release his client and to order a stay of the execution of this decision pending the case.
More recently, some have risked traveling to Northern Iraq or Turkey to exit the ARC and seek asylum elsewhere. Most of these refugees traveled to Northern Iraq, while some tried to enter Turkey on a transit pass issued by Iraqi authorities with the help of the US military.
Press release issued by the UNHCR on 25 April 2008
UNHCR does not support the issuance of these documents and is concerned that refugees leaving the ARC on the basis of incorrect information that they will be accommodated in northern Iraq by UNHCR or that they can obtain a visa to enter Turkey. More than 35 ex-PMOI refugees have been detained in Turkey after leaving the ARC and entering Turkey illegally. Some former refugees are reportedly missing and UNHCR fears they have been deported to their countries of origin.
UNHCR is concerned that such an agreement could be used to return former ARC refugees stranded in detention in Turkey or on its borders...'.
Country of Origin Information Report on Iran of the United Kingdom Border Agency
UNHCR is seeking clarification from the government of Turkey about the circumstances surrounding the forced deportation of the refugees and the tragic loss of human life.” The Victims of Violence International Division reported that many members of the Mujaheddin Khalq had returned to Iran without experiencing criminal problems. The IOM in Tehran confirmed that members of the Mujaheddin Khalq had returned to Iran, mainly from Iraq.
The government offered amnesty to ordinary members of the Iranian terrorist organization MEK who lived outside the country.
Press releases issued by Amnesty International
The USSD report for 2007 states that: 'There have been reports that the government kept several people in prison for years accused of sympathizing with outlaw groups, such as the terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).
Recent developments regarding PMOI members in Iraq
Later, during the year, the ICRC assisted in the voluntary repatriation of at least 12 MEK affiliates in Iraq under the protective control of the MNF-I.'. calls on the Iraqi Prime Minister to ensure that the Iraqi authorities do not take any action that would violate the human rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf and to clarify the Iraqi Government's intentions towards them; calls on the Iraqi authorities to protect the lives and physical and moral integrity of the residents of Camp Ashraf and to treat them in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular by refraining from forced displacement, deportation, expulsion or repatriation in violation of the principle of non-refoulement; Respecting the individual wishes of everyone living in Camp Ashraf regarding their future, he believes that those living in Camp Ashraf and other Iranian nationals currently residing in Iraq who have left Iran for political reasons could be at risk serious human rights violations if they were to be involuntarily returned to Iran, and insists that no person should be returned, either directly or through a third country, to a situation where they would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights abuses;
Meanwhile, on January 26, 2009, the Council of the European Union decided to exclude the PMOI from the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Justice of December 4, 2008 in case T-284/08.
Report of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Foreigners staying in Turkey without the necessary documents to allow them to stay legally in the country can be, and in large numbers are, arrested by the police or gendarmerie. After a short period in police custody, they are taken to a so-called "guest house" for foreigners run by the Ministry of the Interior, where - despite the welcoming name of these institutions - they are generally locked up awaiting deportation. As this is not a measure adopted within the criminal justice process, justices of the peace have no jurisdiction to rule on challenges to such measures.
Another aggravating aspect is that, according to information provided by the police, not only foreigners who are actually the subject of an expulsion order are assigned to guest houses (i.e. deprived of their freedom), but also many who - after the opinion of the police - are likely to have an unfavorable outcome in eviction proceedings initiated against them.
THE LAW
THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND ADMISSIBILITY
Neither this law nor any other provides detailed information about the prerequisites for, the conditions for, or the maximum duration of assignment to a place of residence for aliens awaiting deportation. Objections to the deportation order may also have an impact on the question of deprivation of liberty, but they simply do not constitute the custodial remedy required under Article 9(1). 4, of the ICCPR. It is important to emphasize that this has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings that can be initiated against a foreigner for illegal entry into Turkey.
Such proceedings are not regularly continued and, in the event of a conviction, result in a fine, not imprisonment.
The alleged lack of victim status
The Court notes at the outset that the Government was expressly requested by the Court to provide information on the legal basis for the applicants' deportation to Iraq on 17 June 2008 and the alleged attempted deportation on 28 June 2008 to Iran. They were also asked to send a copy of the deportation orders as well as documents proving that the orders had been served on the applicants. In light of the above, the Court finds that the absence of deportation orders cannot lead to a conclusion that the applicants did not risk and still do not risk being deported to Iraq or Iran by the Turkish authorities.
The Court therefore concludes that the applicants have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and it rejects the Government's objection.
The alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies
The applicants submitted that they had been deported to Iraq and that the authorities had attempted to deport them to Iran without giving them any deportation order. Furthermore, the government claimed that the applicants had entered Turkey illegally and had been deported back to Iraq prior to their arrest by security forces. Thus, the Court finds that the applicants were deported by the national authorities on at least one occasion, to Iraq on 17 June 2008, without a deportation order or without surrendering to the applicants.
The Court therefore concludes that the applicants have the status of victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and rejects the government's objection. 2002-I).
Compliance with other admissibility criteria
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Similarly, in the case of N.A. 90, July 17, 2008), the Court further ruled that judicial review, when available and where the filing of a petition for judicial review will operate as a bar to removal, should be considered an effective remedy which in principle applicants they will be required to exhaust before filing an application with the Court or indeed seek interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to delay removal. The Court notes that a request to the administrative courts, made pursuant to Article 125 of the Constitution, seeking the annulment of the deportation order does not have an automatic suspensive effect. Therefore, even assuming that the applicants would be served with deportation orders and have the opportunity to contest them before the administrative courts, they would not be required to apply to the administrative courts to exhaust domestic remedies under within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The parties' submissions
While in Iran, he was arrested 20 to 30 times for breaking various dress and social/moral codes. They noted that TIPF had been closed in April 2008 by United States forces and that, therefore, they would not be able to return to where they came from. They also noted that control of the Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members lived, had been transferred to the Iraqi government in December 2008, and that some human rights organizations had expressed concern for the safety of camp residents in the absence of multinational . the forces.
The applicants noted in this connection that there had been cases where the Turkish authorities had carried out deportations illegally, including the deportation of the applicants on 17 June 2008, when they had been forced to cross the border into the Diyana region of Iraq.
The third party's submissions
Regarding Iraq, UNHCR noted that the country was not a party to either the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. UNHCR stated that former PMOI refugees face additional security risks in Iraq in addition to being affected by general insecurities in the country. Former members of the PMOI have been implicated as being associated with the former regime of Saddam Hussein, which has protected them in the past.
Their stay in northern Iraq was tolerated by the authorities on the assumption that the UNHCR would relocate them to another country.
The Court's assessment
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 93. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that
- ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 118. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the
Iran by the Iraqi authorities, the Court considers that there are substantial reasons to believe that the applicants risk a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention if they return to Iraq. Consequently, the Court concludes that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to leave for Iran or Iraq. The applicants further claimed that they were denied judicial review of the decision to evict them as they were not served with eviction orders.
However, the applicants were neither informed of the decision to expel them nor of the reasons for the planned expulsion. They finally maintained in accordance with the Convention's Article 5, paragraph 4, that they were unable to challenge the legality of their detention. The claimants argued that they did not have an effective remedy as referred to in Article 5(1). 4, for a quick investigation of the legality of their detention.
The Court's assessment
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 143. Article 41 of the Convention provides
The Court therefore notes that the applicants have been detained by the police since 23 June 2008. Furthermore, access by the UNHCR to the applicants is subject to the authorization of the Ministry of the Interior. The Court must therefore assess whether the applicants were informed of this detention from that date in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Court has already found that the applicants were not informed of the reasons for their detention from 23 June 2008 onwards and that they were denied access to legal assistance during their detention at Hasköy police headquarters (see paragraph 114 above ).
Pecuniary Damage
If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or its Protocols, and if the domestic law of the High Contracting Party concerned permits only partial compensation, the Court shall, if necessary, award compensation the right of the injured. party."
Non-pecuniary Damage
Costs and expenses
Default interest
