Skip to main content

On the Use of Asylum Testimonies in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Proceedings: H. and J. v the Netherlands and Jaballah (Re)

Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT,volume 81)

Abstract

The number of asylum requests made to countries in the Global North involves an increasing amount of legal challenges. One of the challenges is the question of what happens to asylum seekers who are suspected of serious criminality. At present, there is a policy of separating possible foreign criminals from asylum seekers. A growing number of European countries resort to refugee law instruments to identify foreign criminals. However, resorting to refugee law instruments to detect possible criminals might violate the rights of the accused. This chapter analyses this tension between immigration law and criminal law through two key decisions: the H. and J. v. the Netherlands of the European Court of Human Rights, and Jaballah (Re) from Canada.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_12
  • Chapter length: 27 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-43732-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, “Bringing about positive change for people on the move” (21 February 2017). www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/bringing-about-positive-change-for-people-on-move.html.

  2. 2.

    In this chapter, an asylum seeker is a person who requested protection, but his/her claim has not determined yet. “Asylum-Seekers”, www.unhcr.org/asylum-seekers.html.

  3. 3.

    In this chapter, a migrant is a person who moves across international borders voluntarily for reasons other than saving his/her live or preserve his/her freedom. “Migrant definition” UNHCR Emergency Handbook, emergency.unhcr.org/entry/176962/migrant-definition.

  4. 4.

    According to the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2178, foreign terrorist fighters are “individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, including in connection with armed conflict”. UN Security Council, Resolution 2178 (2014), UN Doc. S/RES/2178, 24 Sep. 2014.

  5. 5.

    Vietti and Bisi (2016, p. 501).

  6. 6.

    Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, (28 July 1951), UNTS 189 at 137. Henceforth “1951 Refugee Convention”.

  7. 7.

    UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on International Protection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (4 September 2003), HCR/GIP/03/05, online www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857684.html.

  8. 8.

    Kaushal and Dauvergne (2011), Larsaeus (2004). See also UNHCR, Guidelines on Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article IF of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (HCR/GIP/03/05, 4 Sept. 2003, p. 2); Gilbert (2003, p. 425).

  9. 9.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2015).

  10. 10.

    Lawyers Committee on Human Rights (2000), p. 322.

  11. 11.

    Dauvergne (2013).

  12. 12.

    There are other means to identify perpetrators of serious international crimes through law relating to asylum and immigration. As an example, Article 2 of the EU Council Decision numbered 2003/335/JHA of 8 May 2003 on the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes requires members states to take necessary measures during permanent residency application if the information shows that an applicant is a suspect of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, these acts may be investigated and prosecuted.

  13. 13.

    Redress, International Federation for Human Rights (2010, p. 14).

  14. 14.

    The Long Arm of Justice: Lessons from Specialized War Crimes Units in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Human Rights Watch Report (September 2014, p. 2).

  15. 15.

    Canada also has a specialized police, prosecution or immigration unit. Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Dauvergne (2013) p. 3.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 10 August 1995.

  18. 18.

    UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (4 September 2003), online www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857d24.html. p. 11, fn. 22.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p. 11.

  20. 20.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, “Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions", online www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/additional-protocols-1977.htm.

  21. 21.

    Kai Ambos, Development of International Criminal Law and Tribunals, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice at 1030–1045.

  22. 22.

    UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Iraq, (31 May 2012) online www.refworld.org/docid/4fc77d522.html 145.

  23. 23.

    Kaushal and Dauvergne (2011, p. 58).

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Council Decision on the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, 2003/335/JHA, Official Journal 118/12, 14 May 2003.

  28. 28.

    Redress, International Federation for Human Rights (2010) p. 13.

  29. 29.

    Ibid at 14.

  30. 30.

    Vogler (2012).

  31. 31.

    Halsbury’s Laws of Canada—Administration Law (2013 Reissue), Guy Régimbald, Matthew Estabrooks (Contributors); HAD—3 Requirement of Procedural Fairness.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2014) at 267.

  34. 34.

    Keane and McKeown (2011, p. 595).

  35. 35.

    John Murray v. the United Kingdom, (Application no. 18731/91), ECtHR judgment 8 February 1996, § 45.

  36. 36.

    Ibid § 42.

  37. 37.

    According to the UNHCR, the integrity of the asylum system requires that “information given on the basis of confidentiality must remain protected” even when a final decision is exclusion from protection. UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (4 September 2003), www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857d24.html § 104.

  38. 38.

    “[U]nless this is necessary in the execution of the Aliens Act and in supervising aliens”. Reijven and van Wijk (2015, pp. 6–7).

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    Ibid at 13.

  41. 41.

    Ibid at 9.

  42. 42.

    Ibid at 9.

  43. 43.

    Case of Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00. Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), GC 11 07 2006, § 100; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64; Saunders v. The United Kingdom, § 68; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, §§ 40; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99 § 44.

  44. 44.

    Saunders v. The United Kingdom, § 68; Case of Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00- Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), GC 11 07 2006, § 100. H. and J. V. The Netherlands, § 68; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, §§ 40; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 44.

  45. 45.

    Case of Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00. Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), court (Grand Chamber) 11 07 2006 § 101; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 55; Bykov v. Russia [GC], § 104.

  46. 46.

    Case of Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00. Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), court (grand chamber) 11 07 2006 § 97; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97 § 57-58.

  47. 47.

    Saunders v. The United Kingdom, § 74.

  48. 48.

    Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., Article 7.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., Article 14.

  51. 51.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2014) p. 249.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    UNHCR, “Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims”, § 2.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., § 2.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., § 5.

  56. 56.

    UNHCR, “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees” HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1 Reedited, Geneva, January 1992, UNHCR 1979, § 196.

  57. 57.

    UNHCR, “Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims”, § 6.

  58. 58.

    UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (4 September 2003), www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857d24.html § 105.

  59. 59.

    UNHCR, “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees” HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1 Reedited, Geneva, January 1992, UNHCR 1979, § 205.

  60. 60.

    UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (4 September 2003), www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857d24.html § 111.

  61. 61.

    UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, § 35.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR Third Section Decision Application no. 42331/05 A.A.Q. against the Netherlands, § 37.

  63. 63.

    Section 26 (1) of the Aliens Act 2000.

  64. 64.

    Section 27 (1) a of the Aliens Act 2000.

  65. 65.

    Aliens Act 2000.

  66. 66.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2014, p. 253).

  67. 67.

    Ibid at 259.

  68. 68.

    Maarten P. Bolhuis, Hemme Battjes and Joris van WijK, “Undesirable but Unreturnable Migrants in the Netherlands”, RSQ, p. 74.

  69. 69.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2014, p. 259).

  70. 70.

    Reijven and Wijk (2014, p. 252).

  71. 71.

    Reijven and Wijk, (2015, p. 5).

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Article 2.2 of the Vreemdelingencirculaire (VC) 2000, Reijven and Wijk (2015) p. 9.

  75. 75.

    Reijven and Wijk (2015), at 9.

  76. 76.

    Didem Doğar, The Conversation, The trouble with impunity: War crimes and a humanitarian agency. www.theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-impunity-war-crimes-and-a-humanitarian-agency-94563.

  77. 77.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2015) p. 15.

  78. 78.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014.

  79. 79.

    According to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service’s decision, there are serious reasons to believe that Mr. H. had committed (in a leadership role or as a co-perpetrator or accomplice) crimes against humanity as per Article 1F (a), or in the alternative, that he had been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as per Article 1F (c). Mr. J.’s refugee status was withdrawn on the grounds of Article 1F. H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014, §§ 9, 16.

  80. 80.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 § 44.

  81. 81.

    In this chapter, I will not examine their complaints under Article 8, which set forth that “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

  82. 82.

    The relevant part of Article 6 of the Convention reads as follows “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…”.

  83. 83.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 at § 68.

  84. 84.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 at § 77.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., § 80.

  86. 86.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 at § 78.

  87. 87.

    Ashworth, “Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law- A Pregnant Pragmatism?” p. 752.

  88. 88.

    Saunders v. The United Kingdom, §§ 14–18.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., § 18.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., § 20.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., §§ 31–34. Later, the Court of Appeal quashed that conviction for one count and reduced his sentence to two and a half year’s imprisonment, § 38.

  92. 92.

    The Companies Act 1985, Section 434 (5).

  93. 93.

    Saunders v. The United Kingdom, § 50.

  94. 94.

    Ibid., § 72.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., § 75–76.

  96. 96.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 § 73.

  97. 97.

    Saunders v. The United Kingdom, § 74.

  98. 98.

    Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00. Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), GC 11 07 2006, § 97; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, 1997–1999 § 57–58.

  99. 99.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014 § 75.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., § 75.

  101. 101.

    Case of Jalloh v. Germany, Application no: 54810/00. Judgement (merits and just satisfaction), court (grand chamber) 11 07 2006 § 101; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 55; Bykov v. Russia [GC], § 104).

  102. 102.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014, § 78.

  103. 103.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 November 2014, § 77.

  104. 104.

    H. and J. v. the Netherlands, § 77, 78.

  105. 105.

    Funke v. France, § 42.

  106. 106.

    R. v. Noel, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 433 at § 113.

  107. 107.

    İbid.

  108. 108.

    R. v. White, [1999] S.C.J. No. 28, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417, at paras. 44-45.

  109. 109.

    R. v. P. (M.B.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 27, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555.

  110. 110.

    Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

  111. 111.

    Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at p. 358, and reiterated in Kuldip, at p. 629.

  112. 112.

    Linda Fuerst, “The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Disclosure in Cross-Border Investigations” p. 2, available at: http://www.litigate.com/files/15286_The%20Privilege%20Against%20Self-Incrimination.pdf [Fuerst, “Privilege”].

  113. 113.

    Public Safety Canada, “Security Certificates”, www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/scrt-crtfcts-en.aspx.

  114. 114.

    Expulsion and Extradition Factsheet of the ECtHR www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Expulsions_Extraditions_ENG.pdf. In the case of Chahal v. United Kingdom, the ECHR ruled that an alleged terrorist could not be expelled to India where there was a real risk of his right under Article 3 of the Convention to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would be violated. Chahal v. UK, Appl. no. 70/1995/576/662, ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 15 November 1996.

  115. 115.

    IRPA, sections 77–85; Public Safety Canada, “Security Certificates”, www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/scrt-crtfcts-en.aspx.

  116. 116.

    IRPA, section 87 (1).

  117. 117.

    Dauvergne used this example to explain the consequences of the loss of refugee status. Dauvergne (2013) at 6.

  118. 118.

    Jaballah (Re) 2010 FC 224.

  119. 119.

    Sidney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant, Michelle K. Fuerst, “The Law of Evidence in Canada, Fifth Edition”, Lexis-Nexis Canada § 13.46.

  120. 120.

    Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, see R.S.C. 1985, App. II (No. 44), s. 11(c).

  121. 121.

    Sidney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant, Michelle K. Fuerst, “The Law of Evidence in Canada, Fifth Edition”, Lexis-Nexis Canada § 8.255.

  122. 122.

    Sidney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant, Michelle K. Fuerst, “The Law of Evidence in Canada, Fifth Edition”, Lexis-Nexis Canada § 8.290.

  123. 123.

    Jaballah, § 6.

  124. 124.

    IRPA, section 44(1), Immigration Act 1976 45(2)-46(1).

  125. 125.

    Jaballah (Re) 2010 FC 224, § 78.

  126. 126.

    R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., § 98.

  128. 128.

    Ibid § 100.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., § 87.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., § 77.

  131. 131.

    In Canada, the use of the asylum seeker’s testimony is problematic regardless of the weight given to this testimony in the subsequent security certificate proceeding.

  132. 132.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2015) .p 12.

  133. 133.

    Reijven and van Wijk (2014, pp. 255–256).

  134. 134.

    An Afghan excluded individual expressed that “‘Because of you I am 1F, our kids have 1F.’ My children say: ‘why have you said you were in the military, why didn’t you lie?’ Because of the war I lost my brothers, parents and family. But because of the injustice here I lost my spouse, kids and life.” For a detailed analysis of the profile of excluded individuals and their living conditions, see Reijven and van Wijk (2014) p. 260.

  135. 135.

    Article 14 (2) of the ICCPR.

References

Canadian Legislation

  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c. 27, 1 Nov 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Interpretation of the Convention Refugee Definition in the Case Law (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

International Instruments

  • Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951) 189 UNTS 137

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), OJ L 337/9, 20 Dec 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Council Decision on the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, 2003/335/JHA, Official Journal 118/12, 14 May 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on combating terrorism (2001/930/CFSP). Article 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings, COM/2013/0821 final-2013/0407 (COD)

    Google Scholar 

  • The statute of the Office of the UNHCR, contained in the Annex to UN General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950. UNGA Resolution 428 (V) (14 Dec 1950)

    Google Scholar 

Court Cases

  • H. and J. v. the Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 978/09 and 992/09, ECtHR, 13 Nov 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaballah (Re) 2010 FC 224

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 10 Aug 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Noel, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 433

    Google Scholar 

  • The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 8 July 2008, LJN BC7421

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Materials

  • Monographs & Articles

    Google Scholar 

  • Crépeau F (2011) Anti-terrorism measures and refugee law challenges in Canada. RSQ 29:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Crépeau F, Nakache D (2006) Controlling irregular migration in Canada reconciling security concerns with human rights protection. IRPP 12:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne C (2013) The troublesome intersections of refugee law and criminal law. In: Aas KF, Bosworth M (eds) The borders of punishment: migration, citizenship, and social exclusion. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert G (2003) Current issues in the application of the exclusion clauses. In: Feller E et al (eds) Refugee protection in international law: UNHCR’s global consultations on international protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert G (2014) Exclusion is not just about saying ‘No’ taking exclusion seriously in complex conflicts. In: Cantor D, Durieux J-F (eds) Refuge from inhumanity? War refugees and international humanitarian law. Brill/Nijhoff, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsbury’s Laws of Canada—Administration Law (2013 Reissue), Guy Régimbald, Matthew Estabrooks (Contributors); HAD—3 Requirement of Procedural Fairness

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaushal A, Dauvergne C (2011) The growing culture of exclusion: trends in Canadian refugee exclusions. IJRL 23:1

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keane A, McKeown P (2011) Privilege. In: The modern law of evidence, 9th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 595

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsaeus N (2004) The relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international obligations of protection. The unresolved issue of excluded asylum seekers. Nordic J Int’l L 73:69

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawyers Committee on Human Rights (2000) Safeguarding the rights of refugees under the exclusion clauses: summary findings of the project and a lawyers committee for human rights perspective. Int’l J. Refugee L Supplementary Issue 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijven J, van Wijk J (2015) Alleged perpetrators of serious crimes applying for asylum in the Netherlands: confidentiality, the interests of justice and security. Crim Justice 1:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijven J, van Wijk J (2014) Caught in limbo: how alleged perpetrators of international crimes who applied for asylum in the Netherlands are affected by a fundamental system error in international law. Int’l J Refugee L 26:12

    Google Scholar 

  • Vietti V, Bisi M (2016) Caught in the crossfire: the impact of foreign fighters on internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and refugees from Syria and Iraq. In: De Guttry A, Capone F, Paulussen C (eds) (2016) Foreign fighters under international law and beyond. Springer, The Hague, p 501

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler R (2012) Due process. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Other Materials

Download references

Acknowledgements

The chapter is part of the author’s doctoral thesis, which is supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC) doctoral research scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Didem Doğar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Doğar, D. (2020). On the Use of Asylum Testimonies in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Proceedings: H. and J. v the Netherlands and Jaballah (Re). In: Kogovšek Šalamon, N. (eds) Causes and Consequences of Migrant Criminalization. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 81. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43731-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43732-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)