BY
In the aftermath of the latest terrorist outrage
in Paris, the French politicians decided that the removal of citizenship for
those involved in and convicted of terrorist offences should be a legal option.
The UK too has raised this issue several times
in the House of Commons historically.
Some time ago in Ukraine, a petition to deprive
citizenship for terrorism gathered the necessary 25,000 (and more) signatures
to warrant consideration by the President.
(Yes 25,000 signatures within a country of 45
million is a low bar on a national scale, however it is also quite a high bar
if the issue is peculiarly local and sees no remedy from the local and/or
regional government.)
For the French such a measure would require
amendments to their constitution. A quick glance at the Constitution of
Ukraine would suggest the same requirement to make amendments. Less of a
problem for the UK that has no written constitution to amend.
Wisely, the French sent their proposed
constitutional amendments to the Venice Commission for their considered and
official “opinion”. That official “opinion” has now been published.
Within that “Opinion” particular emphasis is
placed upon any such removal/revoking/stripping of citizenship being subject to
both due process and proportionality – quite rightly.
“In the opinion of the Commission, the
introduction of a citizenship revocation scheme and the rights attached
thereto, common to all the French, origin or naturalized mononational or bi- or
multinational n ‘ is not in itself contrary to international standards. It
nevertheless recommends clarifying in the Constitution that the forfeiture is
an “additional punishment”, applying therefore a criminal judge individualized
and proportionate manner, after a fair trial.”
This naturally has ramifications for any Ukrainian
decision to deprive/revoke/remove citizenship for terrorism too – particularly
when considering it is an “Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO)” that legally
defines the war in the occupied Donbas.
Reading between the lines, President Poroshenko
clearly has no desire to provide for such a legal option and therefore the
presidential response to the Ukrainian petition was to encourage the government
to study international experience upon such issues. Such advice
however, may be little more than kicking the can down the road if traction is
found among 300 or more MPs – for Ukraine is a parliamentary/presidential
democracy and not the other way around (despite appearances).
Just how far the presidential boot has kicked
the citizenship removing/revoking terrorist can down the road may very well
depend upon the speed of actions and their outcomes within the French
parliament following this Venice Commission “Opinion”.
It is an issue to keep an eye on from a
Ukrainian perspective – as well as from the perspective of international law,
regional treaties, and human rights instruments.
No comments:
Post a Comment