Assessing Damage, Urging Action The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recognised the human cost of some of the measures being introduced by Member States, noting that: “The application of expulsion measures against [long-term immigrants] seems both disproportionate and discriminatory: disproportionate because it has lifelong consequences for the person concerned, often entailing separation from his/her family and enforced uprooting from his/her environment, and discriminatory because the state cannot use these procedures against its own nationals who have committed the same breach of the law”.226 2.2 National security detention pending deportation The Panel received evidence suggesting that, otherwise lawful, residents (including permanent residents) were detained for a prolonged period on national security grounds pending deportation, especially in those cases where the individual cannot be deported because of the risk of serious human rights violations in the country of origin. This issue was extensively discussed at the Hearings in Canada and the UK. On security grounds, the system of Canadian “security certificates” allows for the detention of non-citizens, without charge or trial, pending deportation.227 A security certificate is issued by two Government Ministers stating that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible “on grounds related to security, the violation of human or international rights, serious criminality or organised crime”. Reference was made at the Hearing in Canada to the lack of due process rights; the lack of a clear time-limit to the period of detention and prolonged detention as a consequence; reliance on intelligence not disclosed to the person affected; broadly defined grounds for detention pending deportation; and a relatively low level of proof (“reasonable suspicion”). According to the evidence submitted, there have been six Muslim men detained for up to six years on the basis of “security certificates”.228 In February 2007, a constitutional challenge was brought by several individuals who were the subject of “security certificates”; the Canadian Supreme Court found the regime unconstitutional, due to its inadequate due process protections.229 The Panel heard directly from some of those caught up in these legal conundrums, and it may help to convey the human impact that these measures have on individuals and their families if some detail is given about one emblematic case. 226 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1504 (2001) on Non-expulsion of long-term immigrants, adopted on 14 March 2001, para. 3. See also written submission by Human Rights Watch, EJP European Union Hearing. 227 The scheme of security certificates has existed in various forms since 1976. The current provisions date from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which was revised by the House of Commons shortly before 9/11, and subsequently amended as a consequence of a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada – Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9, 23 February 2007. 228 See summary of the EJP Canada Hearing and oral testimonies by Adil Charkoui and Paul Copeland representing three persons subjected to “security certificate”. 229 Supreme Court of Canada, Charkaoui v. Canada, op. cit. 97