Northern Cyprus: Challenging discriminatory immigration laws against HIV-Positive foreign national

The CAP 105 Aliens and Immigration Law prohibits HIV positive foreign nationals from staying in Northern Cyprus. Human rights organisations in the country have called for the policy to be set aside, arguing that it is discriminatory and that it undermines human rights. It also appears that the provisions of the Aliens and Immigration Law are not in line with the country’s own constitution, which provides for equality before the law and prohibits the enactment of any policy or legislation which is discriminatory.

PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH VS. UNDERMINING RIGHTS

Article 6(1)(c) of the Aliens Law and Immigration Law states that any foreign national suffering from a contagious or infectious disease that is a danger to public health (including HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis) may be deported. The supposed rationale behind this article is that allowing foreign nationals who are infected with a contagious disease to enter or stay in the country will pose a risk to public health, which the current health system may not be able to contain. However, this is not the case with HIV, as evidenced by a report on the analysis of the HIV epidemic in Cyprus which was presented by researchers from Near East University Experimental Health Sciences Research Centre to the Minister of Tourism and Environment, Fikri Ataoğlu, in 2018. The report stated that there was no likelihood of an HIV epidemic in Cyprus for the next 50 years.

A report by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) on HIV-related travel restrictions clearly shows that restrictions on entry, stay, and residence in a country based on HIV status are discriminatory and cannot be justified on public health grounds. It also indicates that such restrictions do not protect public health, but in fact impede efforts to protect public health by creating barriers to access services for people living with HIV and people at higher risk of HIV.

Voices of International Students, a local NGO in Northern Cyprus that advocates for the rights of international students, released a report titled “If laws kill!” in which they stated that by criminalising foreign nationals living with HIV, the Northern Cyprus government is, in fact, creating an environment for the transmission of the disease and other STDs. This is because if people fear being deported on the basis of a positive test, they will tend to not go for tests.

TREATMENT OF SIMILAR POLICIES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Although Northern Cyprus is a de facto state, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in Loizidou v. Turkey that the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) applies to Northern Cyprus by virtue of Turkey's control over that part of the island. Therefore, residents of Northern Cyprus can seek recourse from the ECHR after exhausting local remedies.

In Kiyutin v. Russia, the ECHR held that member states could not refuse foreign nationals residence permits on the basis of HIV status, as this was a violation of article 14 of the Convention which prohibited discrimination. Similarly, in the case of D v. the United Kingdom the court held that the removal of a patient dying of AIDS to his country of origin, where he had no access to adequate medical treatment, accommodation, family, financial, or moral support, constituted a violation of article 3 on the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Convention explicitly affirms that foreign nationals should enjoy the same rights as citizens, particularly the right of due process, political freedoms, and equal legal protection.

Under international law, it is acknowledged that states may impose immigration and visa restrictions as a valid exercise of their national sovereignty. However, they are also bound to uphold the human rights of non-discrimination and equality before the law. If states limit these rights, they must show that this is necessary to achieve a legitimate goal, and that the means used actually achieve the goal in the least restrictive manner possible. The Northern Cyprus government has not shown that they are limiting the rights of foreign nationals to achieve a legitimate goal. As stated above, such restrictions do not protect public health, but in fact impede efforts to protect public health by creating barriers to access services for people living with HIV and people at higher risk of HIV. In addition, the blanket exclusion of all people living with HIV is arguably not the most rational or least restrictive means possible of achieving the goal of protecting public health.

In 2008, the Seoul High Court in the Heo case prevented the deportation of a Chinese citizen of Korean descent from South Korea on the basis of his HIV status, stating that the protection of public health should be balanced against the right to medical treatment and the right to privacy. In 2010, the United States government removed HIV from the definition of “communicable disease of public health significance,” and from the scope of assessment for aliens entering the country. This act ensured that HIV status alone cannot be a reason for excluding, removing, or deporting a person from the United States. In March 2015, the Constitutional Court of Russia held that HIV status was not a ground for deportation. According to the ruling, being HIV-positive did not represent an unconditional basis for deportation from the country for foreign nationals who had families in Russia.

Sadly, the Alien and Immigration Law appears to be out of step with international law and norms. The trauma experienced by foreign nationals in this regard resonate in the words of a female Nigerian student who was deported from Northern Cyprus on the basis of her HIV status:

Recounting what happened from the day I was called to the police station, to having to sleep there for a night and then sent off to the airport with my luggage, being told to drag my luggage with handcuffs on my hands, wasn’t such a good image for people looking and I actually did not feel good about myself, I thought I was such a bad person but apparently that’s the law and I hope doing this, things will actually change for the better.

Challenging the constitutionality of the Aliens and Immigration Law in the local courts could prove difficult, unless an applicant with legal standing – such as a foreign national who is on the verge of deportation and who has the capacity to litigate – raises such challenges.