DOCSLIB.ORG

Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons HANDBOOK ON PROTECTION OF STATELESS PERSONS UNDER THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS GENEVA, 2014 HANDBOOK ON PROTECTION OF STATELESS PERSONS UNDER THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS GENEVA, 2014 © 2014 UNHCR. All rights reserved for all countries. Contents FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 A. BACKGROUND TO THE 1954 CONVENTION ...................................................... 3 B. UNHCR AND STATELESSNESS ........................................................................... 4 C. THE SCOPE OF THE HANDBOOK ....................................................................... 4 D. STATELESSNESS AND DE FACTO STATELESSNESS ............................................................................... 5 E. DETERMINING WHO IS STATELESS .................................................................... 6 F. STATELESSNESS STATUS .................................................................................... 7 PART ONE: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING STATELESSNESS ................. 9 A. THE DEFINITION ................................................................................................... 9 B. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 10 C. INTERPRETION OF TERMS ............................................................................... 11 (1) “by any State” ............................................................................................... 11 (a) Which States need to be examined? ..................................................... 11 (b) What is a “State”? ................................................................................. 11 (2) “not considered as a national … under the operation of its law” ................. 12 (a) Meaning of “law” .................................................................................... 12 (b) When is a person “not considered as a national” under a State’s law and practice?......................................................................... 12 (i) Automatic and non-automatic modes of acquisition or withdrawal of nationality ....................................................................... 13 (ii) Identifying competent authorities ..................................................... 13 (iii) Evaluating evidence of competent authorities in non-automatic modes of nationality acquisition and withdrawal .................................. 14 (iv) Evaluating evidence of competent authorities in automatic modes of citizenship acquisition or loss of nationality ......................... 15 (v) Considerations where State practice contravenes automatic modes of acquisition of nationality ....................................................... 16 (vi) Assessing nationality in the absence of evidence of the position of competent authorities ................................................... 16 (vii) Role of consular authorities ............................................................ 17 (viii) Enquiries with competent authorities ............................................. 17 (ix) Inconsistent treatment by competent authorities ............................ 18 (x) Nationality acquired in error or bad faith .......................................... 18 (xi) Impact of appeal/review proceedings ............................................. 19 (xii) Temporal issues .............................................................................. 20 (xiii) Voluntary renunciation of nationality .............................................. 21 (xiv) Concept of nationality .................................................................... 21 PART TWO: PROCEDURES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF STATELESSNESS ....................................................... 25 A. GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 25 (1) Overview ....................................................................................................... 25 (2) Determination of statelessness and the right to a nationality ....................... 25 B. ESTABLISHING DETERMINATION PROCEDURES ........................................... 27 (1) Design and location of determination procedures........................................ 27 (2) Access to procedures ................................................................................... 28 (3) Procedural guarantees.................................................................................. 28 C. COORDINATING REFUGEE STATUS AND STATELESSNESS DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 31 D. ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE ............................................................................ 32 (1) Types of evidence ......................................................................................... 32 (2) Issues of proof .............................................................................................. 34 (3) Burden of proof ............................................................................................. 34 (4) Standard of proof .......................................................................................... 34 (5) Weighing the evidence .................................................................................. 35 (6) Passports ...................................................................................................... 36 (7) Enquiries with and responses from foreign authorities................................. 36 (8) Interviews ...................................................................................................... 37 (9) Credibility issues ........................................................................................... 37 E. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................................. 39 (1) Group determination ..................................................................................... 39 (2) Detention ...................................................................................................... 40 (3) Role of UNHCR ............................................................................................. 42 (4) Exploring solutions abroad ........................................................................... 42 (5) Additional procedural and evidentiary safeguards for specific groups ........ 42 F. STATELESSNESS DETERMINATION WHERE THE 1954 CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY ...................................................... 44 PART THREE: STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................. 45 A. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS ............. 45 (1) Parallels between the status of refugees and stateless persons ................. 45 (2) Overview of the standard of treatment required by the 1954 Convention ... 46 (a) Rights on a gradual, conditional scale ................................................... 47 (3) International human rights law...................................................................... 50 B. INDIVIDUALS IN A MIGRATORY CONTEXT ....................................................... 52 (1) Individuals awaiting determination of statelessness .................................... 52 (2) Individuals determined to be stateless – right of residence ......................... 52 (3) Where protection is available in another State ............................................. 54 (a) Where statelessness results from loss/deprivation or good-faith voluntary renunciation of nationality ......................................... 55 (b) Where statelessness results from voluntary renunciation of nationality as a matter of convenience or choice ....................................... 56 (c) Consideration of local ties ..................................................................... 57 C. INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR “OWN COUNTRY” ....................................................... 57 D. STATUS FOR STATELESS PERSONS NOT COVERED BY THE 1954 CONVENTION ............................................................ 58 ANNEX I - 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS ................................................................ 61 ANNEX II - 1961 CONVENTION ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS ...... 77 ANNEX III - LIST OF STATES PARTIES TO THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS AND THE 1961 CONVENTION ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS ................. 85 ANNEX IV - EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS ............... 88 ANNEX V - EXCERPTS FROM UNHCR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 90 INDEX ..................................................................................................................... 94 FOREWORD In the last decade there has been a renewed impetus on the part of the international community, supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to address the plight of stateless persons. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear, everyone has a right to a nationality. Without nationality, individuals face an existence characterised by insecurity and marginalisation. Stateless people are amongst the most
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Palestinian Refugees and the Right of Return: an International Law Analysis Gail J
    BADIL - Information & Discussion Brief Issue No. 8, January 2001 Palestinian Refugees and the Right of Return: An International Law Analysis Gail J. Boling BADIL-Briefs aim to support the Palestinian-Arab and international debate about strategies for promotion of Palestinian refugees' right of return, restitution, and compensation in the framework of a just and durable solution of the Palestinian/Arab - Israeli conflict. Background Brief No. 8 is the first of three Briefs (covering the right of return, restitution, and compensation), that examine the basis in international law for a framework for durable solutions for Palestinian refugees. This Brief examines the individual right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 as set forth in UN General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948 as grounded in international law. It is important to note that the individual right of return is completely separate from any collective right of return. However, individual and collective rights are not mutually exclusive under international law but rather supplementary and complementary; the exercise of one right can never cancel out the exercise of another and should never be viewed as doing so. In this Brief, the author argues that the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties had already achieved customary status (binding international law) by 1948. UN Resolution 194, therefore, simply reaffirms international legal principles that were already binding and which required states to allow refugees to return to their places of origin, and prohibited mass expulsion of persons - particularly on discriminatory grounds. UN Resolution 194's consistency with international law and practice over the past five decades further strengthens its value as a normative framework for a durable solution for Palestinian refugees today.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees and Social Integration in Europe
    1 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Division for Social Policy and Development United Nations Expert Group Meeting New York 15 – 16 May 2018 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe Mihaela Robila, Ph.D., CFLE Professor Human Development and Family Studies Queens College, City University of New York 2 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe 1. Introduction Refugees’ social integration in the host society is high on the international agenda. Refugees’ social integration is also in line with the Sustainable Development Goal 16 which is “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all level”, particularly target 16.10 which focuses on “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements” (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16 ). The goal of this paper is to examine refugees’ social integration in Europe, with a focus on their psychosocial and family functioning, and modalities to support it. Refugees’ integration is a complex and multidimensional construct, referring to integration into the economic, educational, health, and social contexts. There were 22.5 million refugees worldwide in 2017, over half of them under 18 years of age (UNCHR, 2018). More than half of refugees are from three countries: Syria (5.5. million), Afganistan (2.5 million) and South Sudan (1.4 million), and the major host countries for refugees are: Turkey (2.9 mil), Pakistan (1.4 mil), Lebanon (1 mil), Iran (979,400 people) (UNCHR, 2018). The 1951 Geneva Convention defined as refugee someone who has a “fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration
    The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration and Refugee Rights: A Canadian Policy Challenge Zainab Abu Alrob (PhD Candidate, Policy Studies, Ryerson University) & John Shields (Professor, Ryerson University) March 2020 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS CBSA: Canada Border Services Agency IHAP: Interim Housing Assistance Program IRB: Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada) IRCC: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada IRPA: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) LAO: Legal Aid Ontario PRAIDA: Programme Régional D'accueil et D'intégration des Demandeurs A'asile RCMP: Royal Canadian Mounted Police RPD: Refugee Protection Division (Canada) STCA: Safe Third Country Agreement (Canada-U.S.) 2 Executive Summary This paper examines current policy developments surrounding the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). In 2017, large surges in irregular arrivals crossed Canadian border at points where the Agreement does not apply. This spurred political debates around a so-called “loophole” and the charge that asylum seekers were taking advantage of unauthorized crossings. Efforts to re-claim migration control have triggered more restrictive asylum policies and a colder climate towards refugees in Canada. Amendments to modernize STCA, budget cuts to the services available to refugees as well as a heavy investment into a more “effective” border strategy were presented by the Canadian government as viable solutions to mitigating the implications caused by the large volume of asylum claims and perceived threats to the resilience of the Canadian immigration system. Currently, there is an ongoing legal challenge against the legality of the Safe Third Country Agreement at the Federal Court of Canada. An exploration of the historical policy challenges to the Canada-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals a Judicial Analysis
    European Asylum Support Office An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals A Judicial Analysis Produced by the International Association of Refugee Law Judges European Chapter under contract to EASO August 2016 SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION EASO Professional Development Series for Members of Courts and Tribunals European Asylum Support Office An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals A Judicial Analysis Produced by the International Association of Refugee Law Judges European Chapter under contract to EASO August 2016 SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00800 numbers or these calls may be billed. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). ISBN 978-92-9243-863-0 doi:10.2847/695557 © European Asylum Support Office 2016 Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM FOR COURTS AND TRIBUNALS — 3 European Asylum Support Office The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need.
    [Show full text]
  • English Version
    COUNTRY REPORT 2020/04 REPORT ON MARCH 2020 CITIZENSHIP LAW: GUATEMALA AUTHORED BY JUAN CARLOS SARAZUA © Juan Carlos Sarazua, 2020 This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the authors. If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the year and the publisher. Requests should be addressed to [email protected]. Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and not those of the European University Institute. Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies in collaboration with Edinburgh University Law School Report on Citizenship Law: Guatemala RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/4 March 2020 Translation of Informe sobre la ciudadanía: Guatemala RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2016/02 (Trans. Lucrecia Rubio Grundell) Juan Carlos Sarazua, 2020 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/ cadmus.eui.eu Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, created in 1992 and currently directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, European societies and Europe’s place in 21st century global politics. The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe’s neighbourhood and the wider world.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Report: France
    Country Report: France 2020 Update 2020 Update Acknowledgements & Methodology The 2020 update of this report was written by Laurent Delbos and Claire Tripier at Forum réfugiés – Cosi and edited by ECRE. Forum réfugiés-Cosi wishes to thank all those individuals and organisations who shared their expertise to contribute or check the information gathered during the research. Particular thanks are owed to many Forum réfugiés-Cosi colleagues who have shared their practical experience on the right of asylum in France – which have been key to feed concrete reality-checks and observations into this report; to the two lawyers who have taken the time to share their views on the French system; to the staff of France terre d’asile, the Anafé and the UNHCR Paris office for their expert and constructive feedback provided for the initial report and finally to ECRE for its support throughout the drafting process. Forum réfugiés- Cosi would also like to thank the European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for co-financing its awareness-raising missions which allowed us to provide additional time to research and draft this report. The findings presented in this report stem from background desk research, interviews with field practitioners and lawyers, as well as feedback from French NGOs and the Paris-based UNHCR office and finally statistics shared by the French authorities. Caveat: In France, asylum policies – including reception procedures – are largely under prefectural execution. This review of practice is mostly based on observations in the departments of Ile de France, Rhône, Puy-de-Dôme, Haute- Garonne and Alpes-Maritimes. However, the conclusions presented in this report on the concrete implementation of asylum policies have been cross-checked and triangulated with observations of these practices in other regions and are supported by findings presented in other reports – be they official or drafted by civil society organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Right to a Nationality
    OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE Children’s right to a nationality Statelessness affects more than 12 million people around the world, among whom the most vulnerable are children. The Open Society Justice Initiative estimates that as many as 5 million may be minors. The consequences of lack of nationality are numerous and severe. Many stateless children grow up in extreme poverty and are denied basic rights and services such as access to education and health care. Stateless children‟s lack of identity documentation limits their freedom of movement. They are subject to arbitrary deportations and prolonged detentions, are vulnerable to social exclusion, trafficking and exploitation—including child labor. Despite its importance, children‟s right to a nationality rarely gets the urgent attention it needs. Children’s right to nationality The right to a nationality is protected under At the very least, the right to acquire a nationality under international law. The Universal Declaration of Human the CRC should be understood to mean that children Rights provides a general right to nationality under have a right to nationality in their country of birth if article 15. The international human rights treaties— they do not acquire another nationality from birth—in including the Convention on the Rights of the Child other words, if they would otherwise be stateless. In (CRC) and the International Covenant on Civil and fact, this particular principle is recognized in regional Political Rights (ICCPR)—as well as the Convention on systems as well as in the Convention on the Reduction the Reduction of Statelessness, provide particular norms of Statelessness.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Helpful Definitions
    Some Helpful Definitions Refugee: A refugee is a person who has been forced to flee their home country due to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group (e.g., members of the LGBTQ community). The persecution a refugee experiences may include harassment, threats, abduction or torture. A refugee is often afforded some sort of legal protection, either by their host country’s government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or both. In the United States, refugees are hand- selected by the U.S. government and are screened in advance. They are subject to background checks and security screenings by multiple U.S. agencies. Only after everything is approved are they brought to the U.S. to reside permanently.1 Asylum seeker: An asylum seeker is a person who has fled persecution in their home country and is seeking safe haven in a different country, but has not yet received any legal recognition or status.2 In several countries, including the U.S., asylum seekers are sometimes detained while waiting for their case to be heard. Internally displaced person: An internally displaced person, or IDP, is a person who fled their home but has not crossed an international border to find sanctuary. Even if they fled for reasons similar to those driving refugees (armed conflict, generalized violence, human rights violations), IDPs legally remain under the protection of their own government – even though that government might be the cause of their flight.3 Migrant: A migrant is a person who chooses to move from their home for any variety of reasons, but not necessarily because of a direct threat of persecution or death.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Dublin Regulation and the Migrant
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 19 Issue 2 2020 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS Kimara Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Kimara Davis, THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS, 19 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 259 (), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol19/iss2/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS INTRODUCTION In 2015, over one million migrants1 arrived in the European Union (“EU”).2 Many of the migrants were fleeing war and persecution in Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and other countries in Africa and the Middle East.3 The majority of the migrants sought asylum in the EU, a haven where they believed they could find work and opportunities for a better life.4 The EU, however, was financially and administratively unprepared for the unprecedented influx of migrants because it was recovering from a financial crisis.5 The EU’s migration policy, embodied in its “Dublin Regulation III” (the “Dublin Regulation”), requires that migrants register and apply for asylum in the EU member state they enter first.6 7 Consequently, EU member states (“Member States”) closest in proximity 1 The term migrant refers to a person who moves from one place to another and includes both people who are seeking asylum and refugee status and people who are seeking new economic opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Decision #1361
    Interim Decision #1361 MATTER OF SANOECEZ-MONREAL In EXCLUSION Proceedings A-12698450 Decided by Board Mareh.8,1964 A dual national of the United States and Mexico at birth who in 1918 purchased a house in Mexico in an area in which only Mexican citizens could own prop- erty did not thereby voluntarily seek or claim Mexican nationality in the absence of a showing he represented himself to be a Mexican or knew that ownership must be based upon his being a Mexican citizen. (Cf. Matter of. 17--, 7 L & N.Dec.218.) EXCLUDABLE : Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (20)]—Imnti- grant without 'visa. The special inquiry officer has certified this case in which he has ordered the applicant excluded on the ground stated above. The ap- plicant's admission will be ordered. The applicant is a 49-year-old married male who has lived in the United States since February 20, 1961 when he entered as a United States citizen. On October 22, 1962 he attempted to return to the United States as a United States citizen after a short visit to Mexico; he was excluded on the ground that he had lost United States citizen- ship in 1955 and therefore needed a visa entitling him to enter as an alien immigrant. He was paroled into the United States pending final adjudication of his case. The issue is whether the applicant's purchase of a home in Mexico in 1948 resulted in the loss of United States citizenship under section 350 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia
    NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 5 Article 6 Number 2 Volume 5, Numbers 2 & 3, 1984 1984 The aN tionality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia Tung-Pi Chen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ journal_of_international_and_comparative_law Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chen, Tung-Pi (1984) "The aN tionality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia," NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_international_and_comparative_law/vol5/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. THE NATIONALITY LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE OVERSEAS CHINESE IN HONG KONG, MACAO AND SOUTHEAST ASIA TUNG-PI CHEN* INTRODUCTION After thirty years of existence, the Government of the People's Re- public of China (PRC) enacted the long-awaited Nationality Law in 1980.1 Based on the PRC Government's enduring principle of racial and sexual equality, the new law is designed to reduce dual nationality and statelessness by combining the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli to determine nationality at birth. The need for a Chinese national- ity law had long been recognized, but it was not until the adoption of the "open door" policy in 1978 after the downfall of the "Gang of Four," as well as the institution of codification efforts, that the urgency of the task was recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Ngo Forum for Human Rights
    NORWEGIAN NGO FORUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SUBMISSION REGARDING THE 7TH PERIODIC REPORT OF NORWAY TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Norwegian NGO-Forum for Human Rights On behalf of – Amnesty International Norway – Jussbuss: student run free legal aid clinic based in Oslo, Norway – Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) – The Norwegian Humanist Association – The Norwegian Helsinki Committee The present report reflects the main concerns and priorities of the above listed organizations, which are members of the Norwegian NGO-Forum for Human Rights. The report has been prepared as an input to the UN Human Rights Committee, which in March 2018, is considering the Norwegian state report during its 7th reporting cycle. The organizations have drafted different parts of the report and may not have policies in sections which deal with issues that are beyond their mandates. The same goes for organizations that have endorsed the document. The report has been endorsed by the following additional members of the NGO-Forum: – JURK: Legal aid for women – Norwegian Burma Committee – Save the Children Norway – The Norwegian Centre against Racism – The Norwegian Support Committee for Western Sahara – United Nations Association of Norway The themes of the report have been chosen to address some of the issues, raised in the Human Rights Committee List of Issues Prior to the Submission of the Seventh Periodic Report of Norway. There are references by way of numbers to the list of issues in each section title. This report does not intend to be a comprehensive statement of problems in Norway under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    [Show full text]