On 15 May 2026, all members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), signed the Declaration in Moldovia, said to clarify and underline the Committee of Ministers’ views on the Convention, notably in the context of migration. This includes the United Kingdom.
It is important to note from the outset that the Chisinau Declaration is a political declaration. It is not legally binding, it does not amend the Convention, and it cannot instruct the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) on how to interpret or apply it. Nonetheless, we recognise that political declarations of this nature do carry weight in how the Court contextualises its judgments over time. This is why we have significant concerns about the content and framing of the Declaration and believe it warrants careful scrutiny.
Article 3
ILPA welcomes “the deep and abiding commitment of the States Parties to the Convention”, reaffirmed at the start of the Declaration, and the affirmation that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Convention is absolute. Article 3, unlike most Convention rights, is an absolute right that admits no exceptions, derogation or legitimate interference, even in times of emergency.
However, we are deeply concerned about the intention of the Declaration to seek to narrow the application of that absolute right. Paragraph 23 of the Declaration encourages a re-examination of the threshold at which ill treatment is prohibited by Article 3 in the context of extradition and expulsions of foreign nationals. Raising that threshold interpretively on the basis of “avoiding unnecessary constraints on decisions” risks allowing treatment that is currently within the scope of the prohibition to fall outside it. The principles of non-refoulment, which is the obligation not to remove a person to a country where they would face persecution, including torture, inhuman or degrading treatment as prohibited by Article 3, is a well-established principle of customary international law. The prohibition on torture is protected within a number of international treaties to which the UK is a party, including the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
By signing the Chișinău Declaration, the UK Government has signalled its intention to water down the protections afforded by Article 3. We disagree with that choice and ask the Government to clarify how supporting the Declaration is consistent with its international obligations and its commitment to the prohibition of torture.
Article 8
The Declaration also addresses Article 8 of the Convention, which is the right to respect for private and family life, framing the balance to be struck between individual rights and what it describes as the “weighty” public interests of states in controlling migration.
We believe that the political debate that has surrounded Article 8 and its use (or alleged abuse) in deportation cases, fails to recognise the extent to which the UK has already legislated in this area. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Immigration Act 2014, provides a detailed statutory framework governing Article 8 claims in deportation cases. Parliament has set out, with considerable specificity, the circumstances in which a foreign national’s right to private or family life may and may not prevail against the public interest in removal. The Immigration Rules elaborate even further on how Article 8 applies in practice. That means that this framework is created by the UK Parliament, not imposed by Strasbourg.
Additionally, the Court of Human Rights has very rarely found the UK to be in violation of Article 8 in this context; in the last decade for example, findings of violation against the UK across all areas of Convention law have averaged fewer than four per year. We therefore believe that the premise underlying the Declaration’s treatment of Article 8 -that the Convention system constrains the UK’s ability to remove foreign nationals – does not reflect the domestic legal position. We note with concern that the current framing may be rooted more in political rhetoric than factual and legal analysis. Of approximately 50,000 cases currently before the Court only approximately 1.5% concern migration.
Universality of human rights
The Chișinău Declaration weakens protections for migrants and people seeking asylum, it threatens the independence of the Court, and undermines respect for the rule of law.
ILPA recognises that states have legitimate interests in managing migration, and that the Convention system leaves considerable room for states to do so. What the Convention does not allow is the erosion of rights that are universal, indivisible and inalienable.
ILPA will continue to monitor closely any developments in domestic courts, tribunals, and Parliament arising from the Declaration, and to engage constructively with the Government on the implications for immigration practitioners and those they represent.
- Document Date
- Thursday May 21, 2026