DETENTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
LW929
Wednesdays, 11am to 1pm
Module Director: Lorna McGregor Teaching Staff: Lorna McGregor and Nigel Rodley Time: Term I
Aims and Objectives
‘ It is estimated that many of the 9 million people who are currently imprisoned worldwide suffer from violations of their human rights. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”, but reality looks different in some parts of the world.’1
All legal systems and societies in the world permit the detention of persons suspected or convicted of a crime. International law, however, requires that the deprivation of liberty is both lawful and non-arbitrary. Unlawful and arbitrary deprivations of liberty may be more - but not exclusively - predisposed to the commission of additional human rights violations. The act of placing one person in the custody and under the control of another can result in grave threats to the human dignity of the detainee, such as torture, rape, death and enforced disappearance. In recognition of these problems, international law not only governs when and for how long a person can be lawfully detained but also provides for a range of prohibited treatment and guarantees designed to protect persons deprived of their liberty from abuse.
This module examines the international legal requirements for detention and international law’s response to common and recurring threats to the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. In doing so, students will learn how to analyse the legality of detention and the human dignity dimensions to a detention situation and identify and apply the applicable international law. The module will encourage students to critically assess gaps in the existing international law in this area. Students will also learn about international litigation and advocacy on detention under international law through the teachers’ own personal experiences working on these
1 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’ A/HRC/10/21 (16 February 2009) at para. 42.
1 issues and their current work with Penal Reform International on the proposed revision of certain aspects of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The module is structured as follows:
1) Introduction to the module and key IHRL principles 2) The Legality, Legitimacy and Treatment of Women in Detention 3) The Legality, Legitimacy and Treatment of Children in Detention 4) The Legality, Legitimacy and Treatment of Persons with Disabilities in Detention 5) States of Emergency and Administrative Internment 6) Detention in Conflict Settings 7) Detention of Migrants as a Form of Administrative Detention 8) + 9) Student Choice In the final two classes, students will have the opportunity to select the focus of the class from the following list (or independent suggestions). Not all topics need take the full two hours so it may be possible to select more than two topics. Please note that the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the prohibition of enforced disappearance are not covered as discrete topics in this module (although they are of course discussed) as there are classes dedicated to these topics on LW901. a) The right to health in detention; b) The right to vote; c) Prison violence and whether there is a right to safety; d) The right to work and forced labour; e) Right to a lawyer during and after trial and prison complaints systems; f) Life imprisonment; g) Detention by international actors; h) Secret detention and extraordinary rendition; i) Detention post 9/11; j) The review of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other topical soft law; k) Prevention and the role of monitoring of detention.
Teaching and Learning Methods
The approach to achieving these aims and objectives will be through nine two hour seminars. Each seminar will involve a short presentation by the teaching staff, identifying the relevant international law and drawing on contemporary debates and examples on the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. However, as the seminar is intended to be participatory, a large part of the class will be devoted to group
2 discussion and debate. In both the presentations and during discussion, students will be exposed to doctrinal analysis of the problems faced and relevant international law on the deprivation of liberty as well as discussions on key challenges and strategies employed by human rights lawyers in practice. In order to participate fully in the seminar, the essential reading (and if possible some or all of the recommended and further reading) as well as consideration of the topics for discussion should be prepared in advance of the class.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, students will have acquired a strong understanding of the international law governing detention, the persisting threats to the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty and the extent to which international law responds to these threats. Students will have a good appreciation of contemporary debates as well as the key treaties, custom, jurisprudence (particularly from the UN treaty bodies and regional courts and commissions on human rights), soft law and literature on this issue. Beyond an academic understanding of the relevant law, students will also be exposed to litigation and human rights advocacy strategies that can be applied in practice. Accordingly, students will have begun to learn how to identify human rights issues arising from a detention situation and how to approach the problems by applying international law and through litigation and human rights advocacy.
Assessment
The module will be assessed on the basis of a take-home exam, which will be distributed during the last week of term. Students will be required to answer two questions (one problem and one essay question). The maximum length for the answer to both questions will be 5000 words including footnotes and will be due on the first day of Term II.
Eligibility
All students taking the LLM in International Human Rights Law, LLM in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, MA in Theory and Practice of Human Rights, MSc in Human Rights and Cultural Diversity and MSc in Human Rights and Research Methods are eligible to take this module. However, the module is capped at 32 students and priority will be given to students studying for the LLM in International Human Rights Law and International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
Reading
3 Essential and further reading lists are provided for each class. The key text on these issues is Rodley with Pollard, Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (Third Edition, OUP, 2009).
Other relevant and useful texts include:
Brewer-Carias, Constitutional Protection of Human Rights in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Amparo Proceedings (CUP, 2009)
Burgers and Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988)
Clapham, Human Rights Obligations on Non-State Actors (OUP, 2006)
Clayton and Tomlinson, Fair Trial Rights (Second Edition, OUP, 2010)
Gallagher, The International Law of Human Trafficking (CUP, 2010)
Gross and Ni Aolain, Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice (CUP, 2006)
Hafetz, Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America’s New Global Detention System (New York University Press, 2011)
Murdoch, J., The Treatment of Prisoners - European Standards, Council of Europe Publishing, 2006.
Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (OUP, 2008)
Scarpa, Trafficking in Human Beings: Modern Slavery (OUP, 2008)
Scovazzi and Citroni, The Struggle against Enforced Disappearance and the 2007 United Nations Convention (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)
Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (OUP, 2006)
4 Weissbrodt, The Right to Fair Trial: Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, 2001)
Journals
There are many journals that publish articles on issues relevant to this module. The following are recommended for the frequency by which they publish articles on these issues:
American Journal of International Law Essex Human Rights Review (with a special issue on ‘Preventing Torture in the 21st Century’ in 2009 and 2010) European Human Rights Law Review (with a special issue on torture in 2006) European Journal of International Law Human Rights Law Review Human Rights Quarterly International and Comparative Law Quarterly International Journal of Human Rights International Journal of Transitional Justice International Review of the Red Cross (with a special issue on torture in 2007 and detention in 2005) Journal of Human Rights Practice Journal of International Criminal Justice (with a special issue on ‘Law as Cruelty: Torture as an International Crime’ in Volume 6, 2008)
Websites
The work of various Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council is relevant to the themes of this module (for example, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary detention; enforced or involuntary disappearance; independence of judges and lawyers; and trafficking in persons). Please see: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/themes.htm
For the work of NGOs, see: Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org The Association for the Prevention of Torture: www.apt.ch The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative: www.humanrightsinitiative.org The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute: www.ibanet.org The International Commission of Jurists: www.icj.org The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims: www.irct.org
5 OMCT: www.omct.org Penal Reform International: www.pri.org REDRESS: www.redress.org
6 CLASS 1
WEDNESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2012
INTRODUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AS THE DEFAULT ON DETENTION
This class will provide an introduction to the module before considering the purpose(s) of detention and the international human rights law framework governing its use. In particular, we will discuss the general rule of liberty and security of the person to which detention is an exception; the requirements of legality and non-arbitrariness in detention; the inherent dignity of all individuals including prisoners; the interconnection between the legality and non-arbitrary nature of detention and the risk of ill-treatment of prisoners; and the fundamental safeguards required to protect against this risk. These include the right to habeas corpus, the right to a lawyer and medical assistance, regular judicial review of detention, the right to contact family and the right to consular protection if a foreign national.
Reading
Helena Cook, ‘Preventive Detention: International Standards and the Protection of the Individual’ in D. Shelton and S. Frankowski, Preventive Detention: A Comparative and International Law Perspective, (London, Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), pp. 1 – 53.
Andrew Coyle, ‘Understanding Prisons: Key Issues in Policy and Practice’ (Open University Press, 2005) chapter 1
Moeckli, Daniel, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds.), International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, chapter 14.
Rodley and Pollard, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (Third Edition, OUP, 2009), General Introduction, pp 1 – 16 and chapter 11 (relevant for class 2 also).
Dirk van Zyl Smit and Sonja Snacken, Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 2
Instruments
For the majority, if not all, of the classes below, students should read the following instruments (additional instruments will be assigned where required):
7 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’), Articles 3 - 12
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘ACHPR’), Articles 3- 7
American Convention on Human Rights (‘ACHR’), Articles 3 – 10, 25 and 27
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘CAT’) and its Optional Protocol
European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), Articles 1 – 7 and 13
Human Rights Committee, General Comments 8 and 21, see also proposed new general comment on Article 9 at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/discussion2012.htm
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of their Liberty in the Americas: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices %20PDL.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), Articles 2, 4 - 17
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, ECOSOC Res 663C(XXIV) 1957
UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, GA Res 43/173 1988
UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the General Assembly in its Resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990
UN Reports
UN Human Rights Council Res 6/4 ‘Arbitrary Detention’ (28 September 2007) UN Doc A/HRC/Res/6/4 para 5(e).
UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’ A/HRC/13/30 (18 January 2010) paras. 54 - 86
8 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’ A/HRC/10/21 (16 February 2009) paras 42 - 70
Jurisprudence
European Court of Human Rights, Nowak v. Poland, 2007
European Court of Human Rights, Salduz v. Turkey, 2009
Human Rights Committee, A v. Australia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997)
Human Rights Committee, C v. Australia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (28 October 2002) (see in particular Professor Rodley’s dissenting opinion)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bayarri v. Argentina, 2008
Further Reading
De Zayas, ‘Human Rights and Indefinite Detention’ 87 International Review of the Red Cross (2005)
Marcoux, ‘Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention under International Law’ 5 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (1982), pp. 345-376.
University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute and Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Pretrial Detention and Torture: Why Pretrial Detainees Face the Greatest Risk’ (2011) http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/pretrial- detention-and-torture-20110624
9 CLASS 2
WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2012
THE LEGALITY, LEGITIMACY AND TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN DETENTION
The second class will be the first of three classes looking into the legality, legitimacy and treatment in detention of particularly vulnerable groups (although not all groups are covered for reasons of space). This class will first outline the issues and problems in practice that led to the assessment that rules dedicated to the treatment of women and alternatives to detention for women were required under international law. The class will then examine the rules in detail and discuss the prospects and challenges associated with their implementation. The class will then look at some particular issues on the detention of women, including giving birth and reproductive health through two case studies of the UK and the United States. Finally, the class will consider the detention of women outside of the state’s prison system, such as in the context of domestic violence, and the extent to which international law currently responds to these issues.
Reading
Julie Ashdowne and Mel James, ‘Women in Detention’ 92 International Review of the Red Cross 877 (2010)
Libby Clarke, ‘An Interview with Mads Andenas and Wilder Taylor [sic]’ 7 Equal Rights Review 157 (2011) available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2134767 (relevant for the next four classes)
Rhonda Copelon, ‘Recognizing the Egregious in the Everyday: Domestic Violence as Torture’ 25 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 291 (1993 – 1994)
Sara Hossain, ‘ ‘Wayward Girls’ and ‘Well-Wisher Parents’: Habeas Corpus, Women’s Rights to Personal Liberty, Consent to Marriage and the Bangladeshi Courts’ in Aisha Gill and Sundari Anitha Forced Marriage: Introducing a Social Justice and Human Rights Perspective 2011
Roxanne Nelson, ‘Labouring in Chains: Shackling Pregnant Inmates, Even During Childbirth, Still Happens’ 106 AJN 2006 available at:
10 http://www.nursingcenter.com/lnc/journalarticle?Article_ID=670545
Penal Reform International, Project on ‘Bangkok Guidance’ focused on monitoring the implementation of the Bangkok Rules, see http://www.penalreform.org/news/bangkok-rules- guidance-launched
UK Home Office, ‘Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System’ 2007 available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/corston-report-march-2007.pdf Follow up on implementation http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/userfiles/file/Corston+5%20Report.pdf
Instruments
UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, negotiated within the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 December 2010 (A/RES/65/229) (Bangkok Rules)
11 CLASS 3
24 OCTOBER 2012
THE LEGALITY, LEGITIMACY AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN DETENTION
According to Penal Reform International, ‘[t]oday, there are more than one million children in detention worldwide, most of whom have committed only minor offences’ (from website). In this class, we will consider the scope of the problem before addressing when international law permits the detention of children and the specific rules of international law governing their treatment, if detained. The class will also consider the extent to which international law and practice focuses on detention of children as a measure of last resort and whether detention is considered to be punitive or rehabilitative. Finally, the class will look at the rights of children detained with a parent.
Reading
Connie de la Vega and Michelle Leighton, ‘Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice’, 42 University of San Francisco Law Review 983 (2008) http://www.auca.kg/uploads/M%20Leighton,%20De%20La%20Vega%20Law%20Review %20article%20JLWOP%202008.pdf
Melissa Jamison, ‘Detention of Juvenile Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo Bay: The Special Concerns of the Children’ 9 UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 127 (2005)
Lorna McGregor, 'Are Declaratory Orders Appropriate for Continuing Human Rights Violations? The Case of Khadr v. Canada' 10(3) Human Rights Law Review 487 - 503 (2010)
QUNO resources on the children of detained parents, available at: http://www.quno.org/humanrights/women-in-prison/womenPrisonLinks.htm
University of Essex Children’s Legal Centre and UNICEF, Administrative Detention of Children: A Global Report 2011 available at: http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Administrative_detention_discussion_paper_Ap ril2011.pdf
12 Instruments
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Articles 17 and 30. See also http://www.acerwc.org/
Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No. 10: Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice’ (2007), paras. 24 – 89.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Discussion Day on the Rights of Children of Incarcerated Parents, 2011
Convention on the Rights of the Child, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/beijingrules.htm
UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/res45_113.htm
UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/juvenile.htm
UN Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/system.htm
Jurisprudence
European Court of Human Rights, Muskhadzhiyeva & Ors v Belgium, 2010
European Court of Human Rights, Rahimi v. Greece 2011
13 CLASS 4
31 OCTOBER 2012
THE LEGALITY, LEGITIMACY AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN DETENTION
This class explores the international human rights law framework on the rights of persons with disabilities in detention. The class looks at both the detention of persons with disabilities in the state prison system as well as in institutional care.
Reading
Kathryn deMarco, ‘Disabled by Solitude: The Convention of the Persons with Disabilities and Its Impact on the Use of Supermax Solitary Confinement’ 66 University of Miami Law Review 523 (2011)
Anna Lawson, ‘Disability Equality, Reasonable Accommodation and the Avoidance of Ill-Treatment in Places of Detention: the Role of Supranational Monitoring and Inspection Bodies, 16 International Journal of Human Rights 845 (2012)
Instruments
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 14
Reports of Intergovernmental Bodies
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Disability Action Plan to Promote the Rights and Participation of People with Disabilities in Society for 2006–2015, Recommendation (2006) 5
UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Europe Regional Office, Forgotten Europeans, Forgotten Rights: The Human Rights of Persons Placed in Institutions available at: http://www.europe.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Forgotten_Europeans.pdf
Jurisprudence
European Court of Human Rights, Jasinskis v. Latvia, 2010
European Court of Human Rights, M.S. v. United Kingdom 2012
14 European Court of Human Rights, Stanev v. Bulgaria 2012
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Victor Rosario Congo v. Ecuador Case 11.427, Report No. 63/99, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 475 (1998)
15 CLASS 5
7 NOVEMBER 2012
STATES OF EMERGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNMENT
This class will look at if and when states can derogate from the general international human rights law requirements on the legality and legitimacy of detention during states of emergency. It will also look at preventive detention, administrative internment and control orders as purported alternatives to detention.
Reading
Please revisit the reading from the first class in addition to:
Nigel Rodley, ‘Detention as a Response to Terrorism’ in AM Salinas de Frias, KLH Samuel and ND White, Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford OUP 2011)
Mia Swart and James Fowkes, ‘The Regulation of Detention in the ‘Age of Terror’: Lessons from the Apartheid Experience’ 126 South African Law Journal 780 (2009)
Instruments
Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment No. 29: States of Emergency (Article 4)’ (31 August 2001) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11
Jurisprudence
European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey, 1996
European Court of Human Rights, A and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2009
European Court of Human Rights, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258-B, pp. 49-50, para. 43
European Court of Human Rights, Brogan and others v. United Kingdom, 1988
European Court of Human Rights, Lawless v Ireland, 1979-1980
16 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ‘Advisory Opinion on Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations’, (1987)
English High Court of Justice, SSHD v Rideh [2007] EWHC 804 Admin [control orders No Art 3 violation but Art 5 violation] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/804.html
United States Supreme Court, Hamdi v Rumsfeld 542 US 507 (2004).
United States Supreme Court, Hamdan v Rumsfeld 548 US 557 (2006)
United States, Supreme Court, Boumediene v Bush 553 US 723 (2008).
17 CLASS 6
14 NOVEMBER 2012
DETENTION IN CONFLICT SETTINGS
This class will look at the legality and legitimacy of detention in international and internal armed conflicts and the extent to which the rules differ or depart from the general international human rights law framework. It will also look at the practice and relevant international law governing detention by armed groups in conflict settings.
Reading
Bellinger, John and Vijay Padmanabhan, ‘Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges to the Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law’ 105 American Journal of International Law 201 (2011)
Deborah Casalin, ‘Taking Prisoners: Reviewing the International Humanitarian Law Grounds for Deprivation of Liberty by Armed Opposition Groups’, 93 International Review of the Red Cross, 743 (2011)
Jelena Pejic, ‘Conflict Classification and the Law Applicable to Detention and the Use of Force’ in Wilmshurst (ed) International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford University Press, 2012) pp.80 – 101.
ICRC, ‘Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflict’ 31IC/11/5.1.1 (2011)
Nigel Rodley, ‘Can Armed Opposition Groups Violate Human Rights?’, in Mahoney, K., and Mahoney, P. (eds.), Human Rights in the twenty-first Century: A Global Challenge (Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1993) 297-318
Sandesh Sivakumaran, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (OUP, 2012) chapter 8, section 3.6
David Tuck, ‘Detention by Armed Groups: Overcoming Challenges to Humanitarian Action, 93 International Review of the Red Cross 759 (2011)
18 CLASS 7
21 NOVEMBER 2012
DETENTION OF MIGRANTS AS A FORM OF ADMINSTRATIVE DETENTION
Following on from the consideration of administrative internment in Class 5, this class will consider other forms of administrative detention, in particular the detention of migrants, persons suspected to be victims of trafficking and the detention of drug users as a form of ‘rehabilitation’.
Reading
Anne Gallagher and Elaine Pearson, ‘The High Cost of Freedom: A Legal and Policy Analysis of Shelter Detention for Victims of Trafficking’ 32 Human Rights Quarterly (2010)
Goodwin-Gill, ‘International Law and the Detention of Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ 20 International Migration Review 193 (1986)
Open Society Foundations, International Harm Reduction Development Program, Treatment or Torture? Applying International Human Rights Instruments to Drug Detention Centers (June 2011) http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/treatment- or-torture-20110624/treatment-or-torture-20110624.pdf
UN and Governmental Reports
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Treatment of Asylum Seekers (2006 – 2007), chapter 6, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81i.pdf
UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants’, A/HRC/20/23 (2 April 2012)
Instruments
UNHCR, ‘Detention Guidelines: Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention’ 2012, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html
19 Equal Rights Trust, ‘Guidelines to Protect Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention’ 2012, http://www.equalrightstrust.org/view-subdocument/index.htm?id=886
Jurisprudence
European Court of Human Rights, Kuric & Ors v. Slovenia 2012
European Court of Human Rights, Popov v. France 2012
European Court of Human Rights, Saadi v. United Kingdom, 2006
CLASS 8 (28 NOVEMBER) AND CLASS 9 (5 DECEMBER): TOPICS TO BE DECIDED IN THIRD CLASS
20