Abstract:
У статті висвітлено аспекти кваліфікації злочину депортації у вимірі глобальних,
універсальних стандартів міжнародного кримінального права, міжнародного гуманітарного права
та міжнародного права прав людини. На прикладі відповідних угод, що об’єднують цивілізовані
країни світу, доведене глобальне визнання протиправності депортації та розуміння її кваліфікації
як злочинного акту. Доведене, що заборона колективної депортації прямо випливає з вимог
Конвенції про запобігання злочинові геноциду і покарання за нього, Загальної декларації прав
людини та Міжнародного пакту про громадянські і політичні права. Відповідні приписи
універсальних міжнародних договорів мають значення у вимірі права на свободу пересування та
межі правомірних обмежень такого права; роз’яснення цих вимог міжнародного права відбулося у
документах Комітету ООН з прав людини. The abstracts cover the issue of legal practice of deportation proceedings as an
international crime. The article highlights aspects of the qualification of the crime of deportation in terms
of global, universal standards of international criminal law, international humanitarian law and
international human rights law. The global recognition of the illegality of deportation and the
understanding of its qualification as a criminal act have been proven on the example of relevant
agreements uniting the civilized countries of the world.
It has been proven that the prohibition of collective deportation directly follows from the
requirements of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It was proved that the relevant requirements of the Covenant were explained in General Comment
No. 27 of the UN Human Rights Committee in 1999. The Comments on freedom of movement enshrined
in the Covenant stated that in principle, nationals of a State are always lawfully present in the territory of
that State and that the State party has an obligation to ensure that the rights to freedom of movement are
protected against interference from not only the state, but also private individuals. This directly affects the
measurement of the known illegality of the deportation of its own citizens and the fact that the state is
responsible for deportations carried out by “non-state structures”, for example, mercenaries, terrorist
groups or with the involvement of private transport structures, “volunteers”, etc.
Article points on part 7 of the General Comment that clearly states that in accordance with Article
12 of the Covenant the right to reside in any place of one’s choice within the territory of the respective
state includes protection against all forms of forced displacement within the country, which directly
implies the need for protection against criminal deportation. Part 12 of the General Comment adds that
the conditions under which rights may be limited must be stipulated in the legislation itself, therefore
state reports should indicate the legal norms on which the restrictions are based, and if these restrictions,
which are not provided for by legislation or do not meet the requirements of the Covenant, they are a
violation of the freedom of movement.
Article points on part 14 of the General Comment that adds that possible restrictive measures
must comply with the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate for the performance of their
protective function; and must be the least restrictive means by which the desired result can be achieved;
and they must be proportionate to the interest being protected. According to part 15 of the General
Comment, states must ensure that any procedures related to the exercise or restriction of the right to
freedom of movement are carried out in the shortest possible time and reasons are given that justify the
application of restrictive measures. Therefore, this interpretation of the restrictions on the right to freedom
of movement allowed by the Covenant makes it impossible to understand collective deportation as such a
legitimate restriction of the corresponding right.
The relevant prescriptions of universal international treaties are important in measuring the right
to freedom of movement and the limits of legitimate restrictions of such a right; clarification of these
requirements of international law took place in the documents of the UN Human Rights Committee.
