A comfortable life without fear or hunger is something residents of stable governments take for granted. For the citizens of countries in constant political upheaval, it is an unachievable ideal. For centuries, people have travelled across vast territories to settle in regions with a more stable government and economy. These travellers dreamt of living a tranquil life, and not having to continuously worry about the ever drastic measures taken by the elites to fulfil their personal agendas. Today, some of them come looking for international protection. They are seeking asylum. The word ‘migrant’ describes a person who moves from one place, region, or country to another. The term ‘asylum seeker’ refers to a migrant who seeks international protection. No person would willingly put the life of their close ones at risk; knowingly taking the extremely arduous journey where it involves in many cases, crossing treacherous seas and unforgiving pathways. Not being aware of where the journey would take them, yet still undertaking it, contemplating a life without the fear of persecution or economic ruin. No person ever plans on getting displaced from their homeland, be it an internal displacement or an external to another foreign country. If the world’s government were to set aside their personal political motives, and were to truly act in the interests of their people, no person would ever have to go on this unknown journey. To live under constant threat is a death sentence. Tragically, once many of these asylum seekers reach their destination, their troubles are not over. They are looked down upon and face harassment. They are considered burdens on taxpayer money and are forced to live as outcasts. Escaping death, violence and political unrest in their home countries, now they have to live in constant fear of hate crimes. Tragically, once many of these asylum seekers reach their destination, their troubles are not over. They are looked down upon and face harassment. They are considered burdens on taxpayer money and are forced to live as outcasts Their way of life, customs and traditions are trivialised as ancient and barbaric. Women’s attire is plastered with the contention of being repressive by their male guardians, it is thought of as something which they are coerced into wearing and all their acquaintances have to offer is pity. There are a million negative notions that people form of the newly arrived asylum seekers, including that they are responsible for their governments shortcomings. Europe has been on the radar for most of the world’s migrant population in recent years. Many have lost their lives whilst making the journey, and many have managed to at last escape the wars and repressive regimes of their homelands. In Europe, international protection may take the form of refugee status or subsidiary protection. Refugee status is governed by the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It is granted by a foreign State to a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country of origin on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. If a foreign State deems that a migrant should be protected, but for reasons which are not listed in the Geneva Convention, it can decide to grant subsidiary protection instead of refugee status. The European Court of Human Rights — is not competent to examine the application of the Geneva Convention. And the European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a right to asylum. As a matter of principle, the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of non-nationals rests with the States. But the Member States of the Council of Europe are under the obligation to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction, including migrants, the respect of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. And it is to this end that the precedents set by the court imposes certain limitations on the right of States to turn someone away from their borders. There are a certain barriers for the states to remove asylum seekers once they have crossed a member states borders. In the first place, they are Article 2 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to life, and Article 3, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be returned to a place where he or she runs a real risk of being subjected to treatment conflicting to either of these provisions. Other barriers to the removal of an asylum seeker may result from the risk of a conspicuous breach of Article 5 or Article 6 of the Convention in the country of destination. Article 5 guarantees the right to liberty and security, and Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Member States of the Council of Europe are entitled to determine which asylum-seekers in fact qualify for international protection. It is not the task of the European Court to decide the merits of individual asylum claims. However, in exercising control of their borders, States must act in conformity with the ECHR standards and with the principles derived from the precedents set by the court in order to guarantee the respect of asylum seekers’ human rights. Too long for a place they can at last call home; too long for a place where they are treated like human beings deserve to be treated, is a fundamental right of every living being. To be able to provide for one’s family, and to be able to call someplace home, might never become a reality in its true essence, but it might provide the asylum seekers with a temporary relief of not being in constant fear for their lives. The writer is a corporate lawyer and an alumnus of SOAS, University of London. He can be reached at sami@samishahpartners.com Published in Daily Times, January 9th 2018.