EC/SCP/16
paço /
19. In support of the notion of temporary refuge, one expert mentioned that the 1951 Convention already made a distinction between those rights to be accorded to persons whose presence was "lawful" (Article 32) and those who had
illegally entered a country of asylum (Article 31). Persons in the former category were entitled to a more comprehensive range of rights involving the exercise of a State's sovereignty than those whose presence in a country of asylum was deemed to be illegal. Another expert believed that this
distinction was not relevant in the present connection since a refugee whether
legally or illegally in the territory was protected against refoulement. He also pointed out that in any event most refugees entered a territory "illegally" in the sense that they were admitted without proper papers until their situation had been regularized through a series of procedures. This
view was supported by another expert who noted that in the context of a
large-scale influx, it was virtually impossible for a refugee to enter a
territory otherwise than by irregular means.
20. Most speakers agreed that whilst the 1951 Convention made a distinction
between the standard of treatment to be accorded to refugees who were lawfully
in a territory and those who had entered illegally, this did not of itself
constitute an implicit recognition of a specific category of temporary refuge. One expert commented that, moreover, the rights enumerated in the
Convention represented a minimum standard and were also complementary to a number of other rights set out in other international instruments which were
applicable to all persons, irrespective of whether or not they were in the
territory legally or illegally.
21. A number of experts never the less expressed the view that the standard of treatment which should be accorded a person in the intermediate stage between admission and the finding of a durable solution merited further clarification. The basic minimum standards identified in the working paper were, in the view of several experts, an excellent starting point: In this context, it was generally recognized that the country of asylum should be obliged to regularize the situation of an asylum-seeker if, after a certain period, a durable solution was not forthcoming. In this connection, one expert mentioned the practice of his country whereby, in the absence of a