– This judgment marks something completely new. It is a kind of first marker that the national state is in no way without obligations towards its own country’s citizens who are detained in Syria, says lawyer Nils Christian Nordhus to news. Lawyer Nils Christian Nordhus is the defender of a woman who was brought from Syria to Norway. Photo: Mohammed Alayoubi / news – This means that the states do not have the right to immediately reject return requests from detained women in northern Syria, Nordhus continues. The lawyer is the defender of the so-called IS woman, who was brought from Syria to Norway in 2020 after a fierce debate. The case ended with the FRP leaving the government. When the woman was in Syria, then Frp leader Siv Jensen addressed her directly and said: “I don’t think we should lift a single finger to get you back”. On Wednesday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sentenced France after the country had refused to take back two IS women. Siv Jensen gave a speech in 2019 in which she addressed the woman convicted of terrorism in Syria directly. Photo: Terje Pedersen / Terje Pedersen A majority in the so-called Grand Chamber has established in a comprehensive judgment of almost 70 pages that the French state has violated the human rights of women and children. France was judged to have violated the following article in the European Convention on Human Rights: “No one shall be deprived of the right of access to the territory of the State of which he is a citizen”. The judgment states that France must quickly reassess the case of two IS women who are detained in the Al Hol camp in Syria. The court believes that France’s rejection of the applications was not sufficiently safeguarded against arbitrariness. – This means that the process has not been proper and sufficient, comments Nordhus. This means that France was judged because there was no decision that could be challenged in court, not because the country has refused to take them back. No obligation to repatriate all The two women traveled to Syria in 2014 and 2015 with their husbands. There they joined the terrorist group The Islamic State (IS). According to the AFP news agency, one of the women is the widow of one of the terrorists who stormed the Bataclan concert venue in Paris. 90 people were killed in the attack, for which IS claimed responsibility. When the terrorist caliphate of IS fell in 2019, several thousand women and children were placed in the Al Hol detention camp, including the French women. The women’s parents asked France to take them back, which the country refused. The judgment vindicates the French authorities in that the country does not have a general obligation to repatriate all its citizens, but that special circumstances can make a state have such obligations. In the summary of the judgment it is stated that states can be given a positive obligation to bring home their nationals if the nationals are “de facto” in exile. The judges write that this must only apply in exceptional cases, for example in situations where the life and health of a child is at stake. A majority believes that this is the case in this particular case, and points out, among other things, that: the women in the camp are far from being in a legal vacuum, in that they are only protected by the minimum provisions found in humanitarian law, the conditions in the camps are so bad that they violate international humanitarian law no international court has been established and there is no prospect of a local court being able to bring them to justice the local self-governing authorities have asked states to repatriate the women the court believes the decision not to pick up the women and children was arbitrary , since the French authorities had not made an individual assessment of the humanitarian situation for the women and children. France had also not considered what was in the best interests of the children. The professor believes the judgment is important. The Court therefore states that France must ensure that the women’s applications are processed properly, and that they must have the opportunity to appeal. – The national government must carry out a reassuring process and establish a system for checking any rejections of applications for help to return, says Nordhus. Professor Terje Einarsen at the University of Bergen tells the website Rett24 that the judgment is not entirely easy to understand in a purely legal sense. Professor Terje Einarsen. – The Grand Chamber judgment is nevertheless important, in that it establishes that there can be positive obligations to act for the member states outside their own territory, also where a state does not have control over a territory or a person, the professor tells Rett24. International law expert Mads Harlem works at Save the Children. He believes the verdict has significance for the Norwegian children who are still detained in Syria. – There is a significant responsibility on the home state to make a thorough assessment. You can’t just say that they themselves have to get to the borders of their home state or a consulate, says Harlem to news. Frp: – The statement stands up extremely well No less than seven European countries have sent a so-called legal intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in support of France. Norway was among the countries that argued that France had no legal responsibility as Syria is outside French jurisdiction. news has contacted the Government Attorney, who refers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Lawyer Nils Christian Nordhus believes the verdict shows that several European countries have had the wrong attitude to the controversial question of the future of IS women. – The verdict is completely incompatible with a type of attitude that has been expressed by government officials that they will not lift a finger for detained women in northern Syria. The statement is rather glaring in light of the very thorough and detailed process assessments that the ECtHR bases on that the state is obliged to undertake when detained women and their children ask for help from the national state, says Nordhus. Frps Per-Willy Amundsen is chairman of the justice committee in the Storting. He believes that Siv Jensen’s statement stands up extremely well. FRP politician Per-Willy Amundsen. Photo: Vidar Ruud / Vidar Ruud – It is the nation-state’s own business to look after its own security and borders. Lawyers at the ECtHR must not overrule Norwegian interests, says Amundsen to news. He marvels at the criticism from the lawyer. – The FRP’s policy is that we have never had or will have sympathy for people who have voluntarily joined terrible terrorist organisations. That’s how it has been and that’s how it will be. We stand by Siv Jensen’s statement, concludes the Storting politician.
ttn-69
– Can’t immediately reject a wish to return – news Norway – Overview of news from various parts of the country
