East African Asians v United Kingdom [1973] ECHR 2

East African Asians holding UK citizenship were refused entry to Britain under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. The European Commission of Human Rights found the legislation discriminated on racial grounds, constituting degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR, establishing that racial discrimination in immigration control can violate human dignity.

Facts

The applicants were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of Asian origin, resident in East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania). Following independence of these territories, they retained their UK citizenship rather than acquiring local citizenship. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 imposed immigration controls on UK passport holders who lacked a qualifying connection with the United Kingdom through birth or ancestry. This effectively prevented most East African Asians from entering Britain, despite their citizenship status. Meanwhile, ‘Africanisation’ policies in East Africa deprived many applicants of their livelihoods, rendered their residence illegal, and left them with no country to which they could claim admission.

Background Circumstances

The applicants had retained UK citizenship believing it guaranteed them the right to enter Britain. Following the 1968 Act, they were subjected to immigration control while white Commonwealth citizens with ancestral connections to the UK remained exempt. Six applicants were British protected persons whose situation was distinguished from the main group of 25 applicants who were full citizens.

Issues

The principal legal issues were:

• Whether the UK’s refusal to admit the applicants constituted ‘degrading treatment’ under Article 3 ECHR
• Whether the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 discriminated against the applicants on grounds of race or colour
• Whether Article 5 (right to liberty and security) was violated
• Whether Article 8 (right to family life) read with Article 14 (non-discrimination) was violated regarding male applicants refused reunion with their wives

Judgment

Article 3 – Degrading Treatment

The Commission examined the meaning of ‘degrading treatment’ under Article 3, establishing that it need not involve physical acts. The Commission stated:

“treatment of an individual may be said to be degrading in the sense of Article 3 if it grossly humiliates him before others or drives him to act against his will or conscience”

The Commission confirmed its earlier view:

“discrimination based on race could, in certain circumstances, of itself amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention”

The Commission found that the 1968 Act had racial motives and covered a racial group, concluding:

“the 1968 Act, by subjecting to immigration control citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in East Africa who were of Asian origin, discriminated against this group of people on grounds of their colour or race”

The Commission emphasised:

“publicly to single out a group of persons for differential treatment on the basis of race might, in certain circumstances, constitute a special form of affront to human dignity”

By six votes to three, the Commission concluded that Article 3 had been violated in the 25 cases of UK citizens. However, unanimously, no violation was found regarding the six British protected persons.

Article 5 – Security of Person

The Commission interpreted ‘security of person’ in the context of ‘liberty’ and found no violation by eight votes to one.

Articles 8 and 14 – Family Life and Discrimination

Regarding three male applicants whose wives had been admitted to the UK while they were refused, the Commission found by seven votes to two that there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, as the immigration rules discriminated against male immigrants on grounds of sex.

Implications

This case established important principles regarding racial discrimination and human rights:

• Racial discrimination in immigration control can constitute degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR
• The prohibition on degrading treatment extends beyond physical acts to include interference with human dignity
• Citizens cannot be reduced to ‘second-class’ status through discriminatory legislation
• States must exercise immigration powers within the limits of Convention obligations
• Sex discrimination in immigration rules affecting family reunification violates Articles 8 and 14

The case demonstrated that while the Convention does not guarantee a right of entry to one’s own country, refusal of that right in circumstances involving racial discrimination can independently violate other protected rights. The judgment significantly influenced subsequent human rights jurisprudence on discrimination and immigration.

Verdict: The Commission concluded by six votes to three that Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) was violated regarding the 25 applicants who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Unanimously, no Article 3 violation was found for the six British protected persons. By eight votes to one, no violation of Article 5 was found. By seven votes to two, a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 was found regarding three applicants denied family reunification due to sex discrimination.

Source: East African Asians v United Kingdom [1973] ECHR 2