Appeals Procedures “ Any type of return, whether voluntary or otherwise, must be consistent with our obligations under international human rights law and in compliance with the principle of non‑refoulement.” An appeals procedure provides an opportunity for an independent, impartial and effective review before a court or tribunal of the decision to remove the person, and is New York Declaration on Refugees and an important check against refoulement. Many States that Migrants, UN Doc. A/RES/71/1, 2016, para. 58 experience a high volume of cases have opted to include appeals procedures of an administrative or quasi-judicial character in order to more speedily handle cases, while affording the necessary safeguards. Many of them also continue to allow a final judicial determination of the case. For countries with a constitutional guarantee against refoulement, there are also generally opportunities to bring constitutional challenges before the courts. Features of an effective appeals procedure include: • accessibility; • conducted by decision-makers or judges who are competent, independent and impartial; • timelines for lodging appeals are to be reasonable so as not to render the submission of an appeal impossible or excessively difficult; • cases are to be considered and decisions delivered in a timely manner; • procedural rights are to be guaranteed, with a preference for an oral hearing; • consider the merits of each appeal; • have automatic suspensive effect, that is, the individuals concerned should be allowed to remain on the State’s territory pending the outcome of their appeal; and • the decision is to be shared with the individual concerned and, if it is negative, it should include the reasons. Angola: Constitution guarantees a judicial ruling prior to expulsion Among other things, Article 70 of the Constitution of Angola of 2010 provides that the expulsion of “foreign citizens or stateless persons with authorisation to reside in the country or those who have requested asylum shall only be determined by a judicial ruling”. Lebanon: judge can prevent removal In Lebanon, pursuant to Article 579 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judge has competence to prevent the enforcement of an administrative decision concerning a person’s removal from the country where there is a danger that they would be subjected to torture in their own country, in accordance with Article 3 of UNCAT and other provisions of international treaties ratified by Lebanon. Uganda: torture-specific law specifies factors to consider in assessing cases In Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012 states that in determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person is likely to be tortured or in danger of being subjected to torture the courts “shall take into account all factors including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the state seeking extradition or deportation of the person.” TOOL: Non-refoulement procedures and safeguards 5/13