ECtHR, 27 October 2020, M.A. v. Belgium, Appl. no. 19656/18

The two faces of the moon of a decision condemning the 2017 cooperation between Belgium and Sudan

Abstract

In this case, the ECtHR ruled that Belgium had not respected its procedural obligations under Article 3 in relation to a Sudanese national who was deported to Sudan following the visit of a Sudanese identification mission. This decision should be welcomed in that it grants significant importance to the vulnerability of irregular migrants and thus further endorses a greater responsibility for national authorities to investigate risks under Article 3, including in relation to individual situations. However, this contribution contends that the Court missed the opportunity to take a more radical approach towards identification missions from the migrants’ country of origin. It argues that this method of migration management can constitute a novel form of violation of the principle of non-refoulement and claims that the manner in which the identification mission was organised is incompatible with the obligations of due diligence lying on Belgium.