– The (British) government has entered into an agreement with the Rwandan government ensuring that asylum applications transferred to Rwanda are properly processed there, judge Clive Lewis said when the verdict was announced today.

People arriving in Britain hiding in trucks, or on boats across the English Channel, can now be sent to East Africa.

In April, the British government entered into an agreement with Rwanda. The first must pay 140 million pounds.

The latter has received asylum seekers, processed their applications and granted residence permits to those whose asylum applications were granted.

The proposal was criticized from several quarters.

Empty prison after genocide

Law professor Mads Andenæs said Rwanda was the ideal place, if the aim was to keep asylum seekers away from the UK.

This country has no beaches or major rivers. The location makes it difficult to return to Europe.

After the genocide in the early 90’s, 100,000 people were imprisoned. Most have since been released, freeing up thousands of prison places.

Andenæs visited several prisons when he was the UN special rapporteur on arbitrary imprisonment. The conclusion after the visit is very clear.

– Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is not allowed. There have been political imprisonments and enforced disappearances for low shoes, said the law professor.

Andenæs added that leading human rights organizations have criticized Rwanda for serious human rights violations.

Ex-convict tells that they had been beaten by guards and denied access to necessary food and medicine.

Andenæs had worked in England for several years and was also sent to Rwanda by the British government to investigate the country’s political system.

He is still not surprised by today’s verdict in England’s Supreme Court.

– The British courts were under great political pressure, and i in such cases where individuals most need protection, courts are not always able to do their job properly, Andenæs said.

– There would be an outcry if the court had concluded otherwise.

The proposal to send asylum seekers to Africa won a majority in the British Parliament. Andenæs said that the case would be appealed and was not in accordance with human rights.

– You have the right to have your asylum case processed in the country where you arrived. This case does not comply with international law or human rights, said Andenæs.

Record the number of boat refugees

There are some who criticize the UK government bill that appeared this spring. Both celebrities and then Prince Charlesactress Emma Thompson and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

As the first flight of asylum seekers was ready to take off on the runway at Gatwick, it was grounded. The European Court of Human Rights intervened. They made an emergency decision preventing refugees from being sent to Rwanda.

Beate Ekeløve-Slydal is a political adviser at Amnesty International Norway, he said That the intent behind the agreement was to prevent people on the run from coming to England. People would rather not have it in Europe at all.

– They say they do this so people on the run don’t have to make the perilous journey from France to England, but today nothing a safe and legal route for people fleeing to Europe.

This year 44,000 people fled across the English Channel. Never before had so many arrived as boat refugees in England in one year.

– NIf, against all odds, they make it to Europe, Britain deprives them of their basic right to apply for and receive asylum there, Amnesty advisers said.

The British Supreme Court claimed that the agreement made with Rwanda did not violate human rights.

– Under these circumstances, transferring asylum seekers to Rwanda is in accordance with the Refugee Convention and with other legal agreements made by the government, including Human Rights, Supreme Court judge Clive Lewis said today.

– Will be selected through in Norway

In Norway, the FRP has submitted several proposals to send asylum seekers to third countries. The last time the proposal was rejected Storting takes place in November.

– I have no doubt that eventually we will get an arrangement where we send asylum seekers to third countries, said the spokesperson for immigration and integration policy at FRP, Erlend Wiborg.

He said the FRP would submit the proposal again soon after the parties that had rejected it the last time turned around.

– I’m just afraid it will be years before we get there.

Wiborg was pleased that a British court had come to this conclusion, but was not surprised.

– This proposal has been thoroughly investigated by the UK and Denmark. We’ve shown that it’s not against the law.

Wiborg said this solution was in the best interest of the original asylum seeker, while punishing “lucky hunters”. He made it clear that Norway could not become a world “social office”.

– Genuine asylum seekers have the right to live in a country without bullets and gunpowder. But benefiting from the Norwegian welfare system is not part of the asylum mission.

The FRP has not fully investigated which third countries it wishes to send asylum seekers to.

A spokesperson for the Rwandan government assured Britain this summer that it would be a good receiving country for asylum seekers.

– We have been asked: why don’t refugees come to Rwanda? Part of the answer is the narrative that Africa is a shithole, for lack of a better word, says Yolande Makolo

– This doesn’t correspond to reality. And it is an insult to us, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government told British newspaper The Guardian in the month of June.