folder VI.2.4.4 Minimum Standards for Specific Procedures

Categories

folder VI.2.4.4.1 Accelerated and Manifestly Unfounded Procedures

Main Debate

Efficient v. fair procedures

 

Main Points

Contrast between UNHCR and EU definition of ‘manifestly unfounded’ claims

Abridged safeguards

Shifts in the standard and burden of proof

Procedural and formal grounds (as opposed to grounds related to the merits) for channelling claims into accelerated procedures

Editor’s Note

 

A discussion of accelerated and manifestly unfounded procedures should also consider their relationship to the notions of safe third country and safe country of origin. A consideration of procedural safeguards should consider issues such as, inter alia, legal representation, oral hearings, and appeals, with and without, suspensive effect.

folder VI.2.4.4.2 Safe Country of Origin

Main Debate

Does the safe country of origin notion undermine the right to have a claim assessed individually?

 

Main Points

Safe country of origin notion:

As a bar to access to procedures

As a rebuttable presumption of unfoundedness of claim

‘White lists’ of safe countries of origin

Need for individual assessment of claims

Criteria for designating countries as ‘safe’

UNHCR Document

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section V.2.4.3.

folder VI.2.4.4.3 Safe Third Country

Main Debates

Deflection and deterrence policies v. protection obligations

What minimum safeguards should there be for the implementation of safe third country returns?

Are European safe third country practices shifting the responsibility for refugees to transit states?

 

Main Points

Contrasts between UNHCR and EU criteria for determining safe third countries

Safe third country lists

European safe third country notion

Chain deportations

 

Editor’s Note

See Section V.2.5.2 regarding Readmission agreements.