Transfer Of Detainees Research Articles

Detainee Operations in Ukraine

Abstract Detention operations have been a salient feature of the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Often referred to as exchanges or swaps of detainees, the operations leading to the simultaneous release and transfer of detainees (srtd) offer fertile terrain for inquiring about the applicability of international humanitarian law (ihl) and international human rights law (ihrl). This article attempts to fill a gap in the literature on detention operations outside the war on terror framework. It offers a chronological review of the detention operations that have taken place in Ukraine since the beginning of the military conflict. This paper then follows a classical two-step analysis first of ihl, ihrl and domestic law provisions applicable to srtds and, second, of the impact of these provisions on the human rights protection of the persons involved. The preliminary conclusions of this analysis indicate that, despite the praise of the international community for the srtds in Ukraine, human rights violations have resulted from srtds. More specifically, the legal framework under which srtds take place appears to be a ‘cocktail’ of ihl and ihrl provisions. Certainly, srtds have attracted international media coverage and support for Ukraine. At the same time, however, the ‘hidden cost’ of these operations begins to be understood as well because the legal status of many participants in the srtds appears to worsen, access to justice appears to be hampered and the independence of justice appears to be threatened as a result of these operations.

Police and health operational staff perspectives on managing detainees held under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act: A qualitative study in London

Detention under section 136(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the police to detain a person from a public place and “remove [them] to a place of safety” if it is “in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons in immediate need of care or control.” This study examines the interface between police and health professionals covering the conveyance and transfer of detainees to a place of safety and on completion of the assessment prior to inpatient admission. One hundred ninety-six professionals were interviewed across police (n=38), London Ambulance Service (n=2), Mental Health or Emergency Department staff (n=63), and Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs)/Section 12 doctors (n=93). The data was analyzed thematically using a Framework analysis. The conveyance and transfer of detainees was framed by various elements of detainee risk. Healthcare professionals cited clinical risk, risk associated with substance misuse, professional safety, culture of risk aversion, staffing issues, and fear of certain detainee groups as the main issues. For police, risk was discussed within the context of institutional or professional fear of negligence due to an adverse incident. It is argued that the negative framing of risk at this point of the detention process by all professionals creates a negative therapeutic environment for detainees. Whilst safety is an essential part of the detention process, these distinctions problematize the process for a detainee. The article argues for a more balanced framing of risk to establish a more therapeutic interaction between detainees and police and healthcare providers.

Presos políticos y presos Conintes: las investigaciones en la Cámara de Diputados de la Nación durante el frondicismo (1958-1962)

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar el rol que ocuparon las instituciones y lugares de encierro en la persecución y detención de la disidencia política durante el frondicismo. Partimos de la premisa de que las cárceles constituyeron un factor central del engranaje por medio del cual el gobierno lidiaba con la oposición e intentaba controlarla. En la utilización diferencial de distintas unidades carcelarias según el tipo de detenido político, en las formas de detención y los circuitos de traslado constantes de muchos presos, en la aplicación de torturas, se puede advertir el rol central que ocuparon las instituciones de encierro.

Transferring detainees and identifying foreign criminal sentences in Afghan law

To get familiar with the procedures and procedures for enforcing foreign criminal laws and regulations that are exceptionally based on the principle of non-recognition And the validity of foreign criminal sentences in the territory of the country, the researcher, despite the ambiguity of the process of transferring prisoners to Afghan law, established. The Government of Afghanistan has signed agreements on the transfer of detainees to the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Tajikistan. In this way, the exchange of convicts is imprisoned Countries are subject to conditions (physical and physical). So far, 284 Afghan citizens from Tajikistan and 19 Afghan citizens from Iran have been brought in by the same procedure. On the other hand, 3 people are citizens Tajikistan and 28 Iranian nationals have been transferred to their country for the purpose of implementing and enforcing absenteeism sentences by Afghan courts. Afghan government in transferring convicts to Imprisonment with the countries that have concluded the agreement on the implementation of the extramarital sentences of the foreign country against the Afghan prisoner who transferred the proceedings and transferred to the country's prisons is such that the sentence Extramaritalization in prisons will be imposed on directly displaced prisoners and will not interfere substantially with this criminal judgment, unless this is contrary to the principles and norms of the Afghan legislature, in This will eliminate the vacuum created by the Supreme Court by appealing to the emancipation.

Extradition as One of the Forms of Transfer of Detainees and Convicts. Albanian Experience

International mobility and migration have been increased due to the world globalization. This situation has affected international judicial cooperation, which has become of a special importance in managing issues linked to the pursuit and conviction of foreign citizens, as well as their extradition before or after a criminal sentence. Transfer of non-nationals convicted of a crime and sentenced to their home country, has become common practice. The transfer contributes to the rehabilitation of the sentenced person. The aim of this paper is to address the legal aspects of how it applies to the Albanian criminal legislation detainee and transfer of inmates, given that the Albanian society, a society in transition, has evolved and changed with quick steps while individual deprived of liberty does not concur with a fundamentally changed reality. Herein lays the purpose of the transfer as an opportunity for more steps towards re-integration of his resocialization.

Detention in International Military Operations: Problems and Process

On 20 October 2012 the Danish Government published a document entitled the “Copenhagen Process: Principles and Guidelines”. The document was the outcome of the “Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations”, a five-year multi-stakeholder effort to develop principles and good practices on detention in international military operations. The document addresses uncertainties surrounding the basis for the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees during international military operations. This article outlines the legal problems concerning detention and transfer of detainees in international military operations, considers the process that led to the adoption of the principles and guidelines contained in this non-legally binding document and analyses that document.

Some controversies of detention in multinational operations and the contributions of the Copenhagen Principles

AbstractThis paper discusses three main areas of controversy relating to detention in the context of multinational operations: the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law; the principle of legality in the context of relying on United Nations Security Council resolutions as a justification for taking detainees; and the transfer of detainees where there is, for example, a substantial risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The paper then considers how the Copenhagen Principles address these issues.

Unpunished War Criminals, The Shameful Legacy of Canada’s Military Involvement in Afghanistan

This Article will suggest that Canadian officials, both military and civilian, are exposed to criminal prosecution secondary to the transfer of detainees captured by members of the Canadian Forces (CF) during military operations in Afghanistan, To be very clear at the outset, this Article will not suggest that any member of the CF during military operations in Afghanistan engaged in torture or any form of mistreatment of any detainee captured. Rather, this Article will propose that as a result of operations in which individuals were captured by members of the CF and subsequently transferred to the custody of Afghan authorities and in particular the National Directorate of Security that by so doing members of the CF are exposed to prosecution as a result of these transferred individuals being subjected to torture or forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment by Afghan authorities.

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees: Implications for the Procedural Regulation of Internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

International Law Issues Raised by the Transfer of Detainees by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan

The transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities by Canadian forces raised concerns in public opinion, in Parliament, and was the object of court proceedings and other enquiries in Canada. This article aims to explore the rules of international law applicable to such transfers. The most relevant rule of international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to prisoners of war in international armed conflicts. However, the conflict in Afghanistan, it is argued, is not of an international character. The relevant provision could nevertheless apply based upon agreements between Canada and Afghanistan and upon unilateral declarations by Canada. In addition, international human rights law (IHRL) and the very extensive jurisprudence of its mechanisms of implementation on the obligations of a state transferring a person to the custody of another state where that person is likely to be tortured or treated inhumanely will be discussed, including the standard of care to be applied when there is an alleged risk of torture. While IHL contains the rules specifically designed for armed conflicts, IHRL may in this respect also clarify as lex specialis the interpretation of concepts of IHL. Finally, the conduct of Canadian leaders and members of the Canadian forces is governed by international criminal law (ICL). This article thus demonstrates how IHL, IHRL, and ICL are intimately interrelated in contemporary armed conflicts and how the jurisprudence of human rights bodies and of international criminal tribunals informs the understanding of IHL rules.

Putting Guantanamo in the Rear-View Mirror: Conflicting Values and Crossed Signals in Detention Policy

National security policy often emerges in the signals presidents send. The Bush administration’s establishment of a detention camp at Guantanamo signaled a unilateralist bent and an impatience with the processes undergirding American law. President Obama’s announcement that he would close Guantanamo within a year underlined a contrast with the predilections of his predecessor. However, the new administration was not prepared for the resulting backlash in Congress. Ironically, the Bush administration’s travails and the Obama administration’s early stumble had something in common: in each case, officials failed to signal that they understood the interaction of three factors: efficiency, equity, and accuracy. Efficiency and accuracy present the most telling trade-off. Bush officials valued Guantanamo as a convenient site where they could detain and interrogate suspected terrorists with minimal interference. However, they unduly discounted the risk of false positives - detainees who actually posed no danger. Obama reframed efficiency to encompass the global good will that Bush had disdained. However, despite Obama’s fine intentions, many in Congress read his one-year deadline as a signal that he had not reckoned with the risk of false negatives - released detainees who posed a real danger to the United States. President Obama has since adjusted his course, outlining a three-pronged strategy for promoting accuracy including federal criminal trials, military commissions, and detention under the laws of war. Congress has signaled greater inclination to work with the President. However, congressional restrictions on the transfer of detainees to the United States reflect lingering anxiety. This Article discusses the virtues of the President’s approach, while arguing that aspects of the approach such as allowance of hearsay evidence echo the Bush administration’s neglect of false positives. In addition, the Article analyzes solutions for the equity issues raised by detainee stateside transfers, including creating a bipartisan Commission that could recommend dispersion rules limiting any one state’s share of detainees. It concludes that courts should uphold much of the President’s program, while limiting hearsay evidence and charges before military commissions. Courts should also broaden access to habeas corpus to include detainees at other sites such as Bagram air base. Moreover, a congressionally established Commission implementing dispersion rules could address equity issues while defusing political influences such as the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome.

Longing for Stillness: The Forced Movement of Asylum Seekers

Longing for Stillness: The Forced Movement of Asylum Seekers

The Mukhabarat State: A Palestinian Woman's Testimony

America's recent veto of the Lebanese government's complaint to the Security Council regarding Israel's oppressive practices against civilians in occupied South Lebanon points once again to the hypocrisy of President Reagan's crusade for human rights in Poland, Afghanistan, and selected Latin-American states, while upholding Israel's conversion of South Lebanon into a liberated zone for the mukhabarat.1 With access to this zone ever more strictly controlled by the occupying power, the daily acts of intimidation and reprisal carried out there are shielded from legal reaction (whether Lebanese, international or-most importantly-Israeli) as well as from media reporting. The Sohmor massacre of September 20, 19842 is only the most blatant so far in a chain of assassinations, arrests, and the transfer of detainees to interrogation centers in Israel. Although the evidence presented here by one detainee is now slightly outdated, it holds a particular value because of its detail and penetration, as well because of the slightness of information on conditions in South Lebanon outside the Arabic press.