The first flight scheduled to transport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda was refused takeoff at the last minute on Tuesday, he wrote, among other things. BBC.

Seven people were supposed to be sent to the East African country, but the flights were canceled after the European Court of Human Rights intervened.

The plane was late Tuesday at a military airfield in Wiltshire, ready to take off. It is not clear when the flights will take place.

According to the news agency Sky Newstwo passengers due to be sent to Rwanda had their departure from the UK delayed earlier on Tuesday evening after repeated rounds.

CHR wrote in the ruling that at least one of the asylum seekers, an Iraqi man, should be allowed to stay in the UK, as he could be in danger of being sent to Rwanda. The UK is a signatory to the court, separate from the EU.

Initially, 130 asylum seekers will be sent on the first flight. But the number was eventually reduced to seven before a court decision Tuesday.

Will not be hindered

The British government is disappointed, but will not be “deterred from doing the right thing”, said Home Secretary Priti Patel.

In a statement, he said the plan would help destroy the people-smuggler’s business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring people who really need it are protected.

– It is surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite its previous success in our domestic courts, said Patel.

– We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and implementing a plan to control our country’s borders. Our attorneys are reviewing all decisions made in relation to this flight, and preparations for the next flight are starting now, more stated

Criticism object

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government, which promised to tighten borders after Brexit, has been pressured by the large numbers of migrants crossing the English Channel from northern France.

More than 10,000 have crossed the Channel since New Years.

A deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers there was agreed in April, with the aim of scaring migrants and refugees from crossing the canal. In return, Rwanda received several million pounds of development assistance.

This has been heavily criticized by human rights groups and the United Nations. Critics say it is illegal and inhumane to send people to distant countries they don’t want to live in.

Additionally, they made reference to the human rights situation in Rwanda, where President Paul Kagame ruled with an iron fist for nearly three decades.

Human Rights Institute has also documented widespread human rights violations and accused security forces of arbitrarily imprisoning people and torturing them in a systematic and most brutal way.

The government in Rwanda has rejected the criticism.

Decision in July?

On Friday, a British judge ruled that Rwanda’s policies should be fully reviewed, but that sending certain asylum seekers to Rwanda while a review was underway was not an offence.

The ECHR said on Tuesday that deportations must wait until a British court makes a final decision on whether the practice is legal. It will happen in July.

This practice is not unique to the UK. Politicians in Denmark and Austria are considering similar plans, while Australia has operated an asylum center in the Pacific nation of Nauru since 2012.