According to jurists, the conversion law approved by the parliament is against international law.
The conversion law, which was approved by the Parliament with a vote of 167–31, has attracted interest around the world as well. Even before its adoption, the law was considered to have several problems in terms of international law and human rights treaties.
The new Conversion Act enables the reception of asylum applications to be suspended if Russia deliberately directs people to the Finnish border.
An assistant professor at the University of Tampere who studied immigration Anitta Kynsilehto says that the law can call into question the operation of the rule of law in Finland.
– Jurists have shown that since the law would be against EU law, it would at some point be considered by the EU court, Kynsilehto stated before Friday’s vote.
According to legal scholars, at least these three issues are problematic in the conversion law.
1. The Translation Act is at war with EU law
At the level of EU legislation, the biggest problem concerns the return ban.
Non-refoulement refers to the principle that no one may be returned to an area where they face the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment.
The ban on returns is stipulated in international agreements. The law has also been confirmed in EU law, and breaking the law can therefore bring Finland to the EU court, says Kynsilehto.
In addition, according to the assistant professor, the Conversion Act also goes against other EU asylum legislation.
2. The translation law is against international agreements
The Translation Act is considered to violate a wider range of international agreements.
Kynsilehto brings up the UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights as examples.
During the spring and summer, Finland has been appealed to on several international levels. Among others, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner has expressed his negative position on the conversion law Michael O’Flaherty as well as other international human rights actors, such as the UN refugee agency UNHCR.
3. Unreasonable responsibility of border guards
According to the assistant professor, one of the biggest problems in the conversion law is the ambiguity of the border guards’ responsibilities.
After the Parliament has decided on the passage of the conversion law – and thus the violation of international agreements – individual border guards become law enforcers.
– It has been argued that the responsibility left to an individual border guard in the implementation of the Conversion Act would be unreasonable, Kynsilehto says.
In practice, the task of the border guard remains to assess which asylum seekers are in such a vulnerable position that their application must be accepted.
According to Kynsilehto, the limited opportunity for asylum seekers to appeal the decisions made by the border guards is particularly problematic.
– So what are the possibilities of complaining about a decision that takes place in such a very short meeting, probably even without a common language? the assistant professor asks.
– This issue of the responsibility of the border guards is one that, in my opinion, has not been resolved in any way.