CONFIDENTIAL
2
although VBP were warned that if they were not classified
as refugees they would be detained for repatriation, this
could not amount to informed consent on the part of the VBP
to stay in closed camps for an indefinite period. In these
circumstances a court could rule that continued detention
was unlawful and order the release of VBP. This is highly
unlikely though so long as attempts continue to be made to
solve the problem (this includes the continued
implementation of an effective voluntary repatriation
programme) and humane conditions are maintained in the
camps.
1.
Although the detention policy may be safe from
challenge for the time being, the BOR may give rise to more
challenges to the adequacy of screening procedures. If it
can be shown that these procedures do not provide adequate
safeguards against the possibility of repatriating VBP who
will face serious persecution then repatriation of some individuals could give rise to allegations of 'inhuman
treatment' under the ICCPR.
5.
As for VBP who have been screened 'in', they are
not thought likely to present a problem under the BOR or
as long as they have reasonable prospects of resettlernt.
OTHER POSSIBLE AREAS FOR CHALLENGE
6.
VBP will be entitled to enjoy all of the rights
and freedoms in the BOR that are not limited to citizens.
In the context of prolonged detention in camps one might
see challenges in respect of the following rights [for ease
of reference rights and freedoms will be referred to under
ICCPR article numbers]:-
(i) Article 10: The Right of persons deprived of
liberty to be treated with humanity and respect
The regimes of the camps must be humane. The
CONFIDENTIAL