Main Debate
- Who carries the burden of showing changed circumstances?
Main Points
- Necessity of fair process for cessation determinations
- Application of cessation clause is not automatic trigger for repatriation
UNHCR Documents
- UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on Exemption Procedures in respect of Cessation Declarations’, December 2011.
- UNHCR, ’Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate’, April 2013.
Cases
- Curtis Francis Doebbler v. Sudan, 235/00, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 11 May 2012 (unsuccessful case concerning alleged forced repatriation of 14,000 Ehtiopian refugees from Sudan on the basis of article 1(C)(5) of the 1951 Refugee Convention without previous consideration of individual circumstances and due process of law; also notes relationship between 1951 Convention, OAU Convention and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as relationship between non-refoulement and cessation)
- DRC v. Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria; ZN (Afghanistan) v. Entry Clearance Officer Kirachi [2008] EWCA Civ 1420, 18 December 2008 (Court of Appeal ruling that cessation must involve a formal process and that written notice must be given when competent authorities consider withdrawing refugee status).
- RD (Cessation – Burden of Proof – Procedure) Algeria [2007] IKAIT 00066, 26 June 2007 (determination by the UK tribunal that in appeal cases against the cessation of refugee status, the burden of proof rests on the respondent. This derives from the fundamental common law principle that a party that alleges must prove).
Readings
Core
- J. Fitzpatrick and R. Bonoan, ‘Cessation of Refugee Protection’, in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 514–517, 538–542.
Extended
- J. Hathaway, ‘The Right of States to Repatriate Former Refugees’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 20 (2005), pp. 175–216.