Resource

This year marks 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 25 years since the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into force. It should be a cause for celebration, and a time for the UK to recommit to the legal framework that, for generations, has protected people’s dignity and safety, limited the misuse of power, and shaped a fairer society. Yet, despite the government’s manifesto pledge to “uphold human rights and international law,” its recent proposals include the dilution of the protections offered by both Article 3 (protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (the right to private and family life) of the ECHR, on the basis that those protections are being used to ‘frustrate’ immigration and deportation decisions.

Article 3 provides an absolute prohibition on torture, and on inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including acts such as severe abuse, cruel detention conditions, or deliberate neglect that causes intense suffering. It protects every person from serious physical or mental harm inflicted by the state or tolerated by it. Because the right is absolute, it cannot be limited and the state has both a negative duty not to subject people to such treatment and a positive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it when authorities know, or should know, that someone is at real risk.

Article 3 is one of the most fundamental protections in both UK and international law. It applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times  - with no exceptions. The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment is universally recognised in international law, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the UN Convention Against Torture. It is recognised as a customary norm of international law, meaning it is binding on all states.

Yet torture remains a reality in many parts of the world and every day we see the terrible impact it has on the survivors we support. The UK has a responsibility to show leadership by defending, not undermining, Article 3. Any attempt to narrow or reinterpret this protection risks watering down the prohibition of torture, with a potentially dangerous global domino effect.

Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, as well as a person’s physical and moral integrity. Protections for family unity are critically important for refugees and other survivors we support. However, Article 8 is a qualified right. This means that decision-makers and courts can already balance the individual’s private and family life against wider public interests, such as public safety and immigration control. Over time, governments have passed laws that specify how much weight these public interests should carry. For survivors, the qualified protection Article 8 gives to their right to be with their families is critical.

Chipping away at Article 3 and Article 8 would do nothing to solve challenges such as asylum backlogs or Channel crossings. Instead it would erode the absolute ban on torture, jeopardise the UK’s reputation as a place of safety for survivors fleeing extreme cruelty and conflict, and weaken its ability to show global leadership  in the fight against torture. It would further undermine the government’s stated commitment to family unity. Rather than eroding the vital human rights protections and leaving those most vulnerable to state power at greater risk, the government should address the real issues - such as capacity in the courts and the inefficiencies within the asylum system – and publicly reaffirm the UK’s commitment to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.

This Human Rights Day, we’re part of a group of over 180 organisations across the UK are standing together to call out recent rhetoric from government and demand better from the Prime Minister. We want leadership that strengthens rights, not weakens them - read the joint letter here.