Asylum Case.pptx
Transcript of Asylum Case.pptx
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
1/16
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
2/16
FACTS
On October 3, 1948, a military rebellion broke out
in Peru.
The political party, American Peoples
Revolutionary Alliance was charged with having
organized and directed the rebellion.
The leader of American Peoples Revolutionary
Alliance, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre and othermembers of the party were charged as
responsible for the rebellion.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
3/16
On January 3, 1949, Haya de la Torre sought
asylum in the Colombian Embassy in Lima.
The Colombian Ambassador confirmed that Haya
de la Torre was granted asylum in accordance
with what is provided in Article 2, paragraph 2, of
the Havana Convention on Asylum signed in the
year 1928. He is now requesting that de la Torre
be able to leave Peru safely.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
4/16
Havana Convention on
AsylumArticle 2, paragraph 2 states that:
Immediately upon granting asylum, the
diplomatic agent, commander of a warship, or
military camp or aircraft, shall report the fact tothe Minister of Foreign Relations of the State of
the person who has secured asylum, or to the
local administrative authority, if the act occurred
outside the capital.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
5/16
The Colombian Ambassador sent another note to
the Peruvian Minister stating that they have
qualified de la Torre as a political refugee based
on Article 2 of the Convention on Political Asylumsigned by both countries in the city of
Montevideo in 1933.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
6/16
ISSUE
As a state granting asylum, is Colombia
competent to qualify the nature of the offence by
a unilateral and definitive decision binding on
Peru?
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
7/16
The Colombian Government further relies on the
Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928. This
convention lays down certain rules relating to
diplomatic asylum, but does not contain anycompetence to qualify the offence with definitive
and binding force for the territorial State. Also,
they contend that such competence is implied in
that Convention and is inherent in the institution
of asylum.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
8/16
In invoking the Montevideo Convention of 1933,
it is also not applicable because Peru has not
ratified such.
The limited number of States which have ratifiedthis convention reveals the weakness of this
argument.
The Colombian Government also invokes theapplication of the American International Law.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
9/16
The court has arrived at the conclusion that
Colombia, as the State granting asylum, is not
competent to qualify the offence by a unilateral
and definitive decision, binding on Peru.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
10/16
ISSUE
Is Peru bound to give the guarantees necessary
for the departure of Haya de la Torre from the
country, with due regard to the inviolability of his
person?
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
11/16
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
12/16
The territorial State is only bound to grant safe-conductonly if it has exercised his option to require the
departure of the refugee.
The Peruvian Government has not requested that Haya
de la Torre should leave Peru.
The court held that the Colombian Government is not
entitled to claim that the Peruvian Government should
give the guarantees necessary for the departure of de la
Torre from the country, with due regard to the
inviolability of his person.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
13/16
Issue
Whether or not the Colombian Government has
violated Article 1, paragraph 1 and Article 2,
paragraph 2 of the Convention on Asylum when
in granted asylum to de la Torre?
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
14/16
Havana Convention
Article 1, paragraph 1 states that:
Itis not permissible for States to grant asylum
to persons condemned for common crimes
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
15/16
Article 2, paragraph 2 states that:
Asylum may not be granted except in urgent
cases and for the period of time strictly
indispensable for the person who has soughtasylum to ensure in some other way his safety.
-
8/10/2019 Asylum Case.pptx
16/16
Summary
The Court finds that:
Colombia has not established its competence as
a country granting asylum, to qualify the nature of
the offence by a unilateral and definitive decision,
binding on Peru.
Colombia has not also established the need for
the request of safe-conduct with regard to the
departure of the refugee.
Colombia has violated Article 1, paragraph 1 andArticle 2, paragraph 2 of the Havana Convention.