Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Asylum Case

    Uploaded by

    Safia Naz
    76 views8 pages
    1) In January 1949, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the head of the American People's Revolutionary Party in Peru, was granted asylum by the Colombian embassy in Lima after being accused of leading a failed military rebellion in Peru in October 1948. 2) The Colombian government informed Peru of the asylum and requested a safe conduct pass for Haya de la Torre to leave Peru, but Peru disputed his status as a political refugee and refused the pass. 3) The case was submitted to the International Court of Justice to determine if Colombia had the right to unilaterally qualify the offense for the purpose of granting asylum, and if Peru was obligated to allow Haya de

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) In January 1949, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the head of the American People's Revolutionary Party in Peru, was granted asylum by the Colombian embassy in Lima after being accused of leading a failed military rebellion in Peru in October 1948. 2) The Colombian government informed Peru of the asylum and requested a safe conduct pass for Haya de la Torre to leave Peru, but Peru disputed his status as a political refugee and refused the pass. 3) The case was submitted to the International Court of Justice to determine if Colombia had the right to unilaterally qualify the offense for the purpose of granting asylum, and if Peru was obligated to allow Haya de

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    76 views8 pages

    Asylum Case

    Uploaded by

    Safia Naz
    1) In January 1949, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the head of the American People's Revolutionary Party in Peru, was granted asylum by the Colombian embassy in Lima after being accused of leading a failed military rebellion in Peru in October 1948. 2) The Colombian government informed Peru of the asylum and requested a safe conduct pass for Haya de la Torre to leave Peru, but Peru disputed his status as a political refugee and refused the pass. 3) The case was submitted to the International Court of Justice to determine if Colombia had the right to unilaterally qualify the offense for the purpose of granting asylum, and if Peru was obligated to allow Haya de

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8

    Thursday, 3-4 pm

    October 3rd, 1948- military rebellion broke out in Peru. It was suppressed on the same day. Next day, a decree charging a political partythe American Peoples Revolutionary Party- for preparing directing the rebellion was published. The partys head-Victor Raul Haya de la Torrewas denounced as being responsible. January 3rd, 1949- Columbian Embassy in Lima-granted him asylum.

    January 4th , 1949, The Columbian Ambassador informed the Peruvian Government of the asylum granted to Haya de la Torre and asked for a safe-conduct to be issued in order to enable the refugee to leave the country. January 14th, the refugee was qualified as a political refugee. The Peruvian Govt. disputed this qualification and refused to grant a safe-conduct. Submitted the case to the International Court of Justice(ICJ).

    Was the Columbian Govt. , as the country granting asylum, to qualify the offence for the purposes of said asylum? Was Peru, as the territorial State bound to give the guarantees necessary for the departure of the refugee from the country, with due regard to the inviolability of his person?

    Columbia maintained that according to the following conventions in force she was entitled to qualify the nature of the offence for the purpose of the asylum1) Articles 4 and 18 of the Bolivarian Agreement of 1911 on Extradition. 2)Article 2 of the Havana Convention of 1928 on Asylum. 3)the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on Political Asylum.

    4) American International Law. The Court considered that, if the qualification in question were provisional, then the diplomatic representative would consider whether the required conditions has been satisfied ,he would pronounce his opinion and if that opinion were contested, a controversy would the arise which might be settled according to the methods provided by the Parties. But Columbia claimed the right of unilateral and definitive qualification binding upon Peru.

    Article 4 of the Agreement is concerning extradition of a criminal refugee from the territory of the State in which he has sought refuge. Extradition Political Asylum

    It didnt recognize the right of unilateral qualification either explicitly or implicitly

    You might also like