The Rights Report - Why the Chisinau Declaration Matters for Human Rights in Scotland
The Rights Report - Why the Chisinau Declaration Matters for Human Rights in Scotland
Introduction
With the Scottish parliamentary elections underway, all eyes are understandably focused on the outcome from today’s vote.
However, the Scottish election is not the only event in May that will have significant ramifications for human rights in Scotland: on 15th May 2026, governments from across Europe, including the UK, will gather in Chi?in?u, Moldova.
During the summit, states will adopt a “political declaration” deciding how the European Court of Human Rights – the international Court that decides if European governments are breaching their human rights obligations (see our explainer on the Court here) – should address cases involving migrants and asylum seekers.
Although the event takes place over 1000 miles away, it will have direct repercussions for the 6, 888 asylum seekers based in Scotland. The declaration comes at a time when calls to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights are growing, and when migrants are increasingly blamed for social problems they did not create.
In this blog, we offer readers a breakdown of what has led to this moment and take a deep dive into the very serious implications of the upcoming declaration.
How did we get here?
The conference in Chisinau is being organised by Europe’s oldest international organisation, the Council of Europe (CoE). Composed of 46 member states, including the UK as a founding member, the CoE is dedicated to promoting human rights, democracy and the Rule of Law (see our explainer).
For the last year, this organisation has been embroiled in a controversy about how much leeway governments should be granted to manage migration.
The controversy began in May 2025, when 9 countries belonging to the Council of Europe signed an open letter misleadingly accusing the Court of extending the protection of the Convention too far and protecting “the wrong people”. The letter repeated common populist talking points about migrants breaking away into “parallel societies” and committing crimes and demanded that national authorities should “have more room nationally to decide on when to expel criminal foreign nationals”.
The letter triggered months’ worth of negotiations over how the Court should address migration. These negotiations culminated in a political conference in December 2025, which brought Justice Ministers from across Europe together. The UK’s Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy, also flew to Strasbourg to attend the meeting.
The Justice Ministers asked a committee of legal experts, called the Steering Committee on Human Rights (known under its French acronym CDDH), to begin drafting a political declaration on migration.
Even more concerning, however, was not the official outcome of the December conference. On the margins of the Justice Ministerial, the UK joined forces with 26 other countries to adopt an informal statement. The Scottish Human Rights Commission responded by issuing an unprecedented joint statement in partnership with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, urging the UK not to commit to reductions in human rights protections.
The key points from the informal statement were as follows:
- migrants were blamed for abusing European hospitality;
- when it comes to deporting foreign national offenders, less weight should be attached to the offender’s ties to the host country, and more weight should be accorded to national security; and
- the protection of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture or ill-treatment) should be restrained to the most serious of cases.
The message behind the informal declaration was clear: that Europe’s most important human rights body should deliberately apply less protective standards in cases involving migrants. However, this strikes right at the heart of a cardinal principle – that human rights are owed to all individuals universally, regardless of their background.
The CDDH outcome document
Following three rounds of negotiations, held in a very tight time frame and with minimal civil society input, the CDDH eventually produced its “outcome document”. The outcome document is essentially a list of potential talking points that European governments can include in the declaration to be adopted in Moldova.
Intensive negotiations have allegedly modified the most problematic elements of CDDH’s proposals. Despite this, Amnesty International issued a joint letter to the CoE Secretary General, demonstrating how the document falls short of respecting human rights obligations. CDDH’s recommendations make some references to the universality of human rights. Nevertheless, the document places greater emphasis on states’ rights to deport migrants than it does on migrants as rights holders (see an expert analysis here).
Some of the elements that CDDH proposes for the upcoming declaration are as follows:
- states have the sovereign right to decide on and control foreign nationals’ entry into their territory (even though no human rights expert has ever denied this);
- the inability to expel or extradite an individual convicted or charged with a serious offence can lead to significant challenges for States (even though, as shown below, the Court has become less protective of foreign offenders overtime);
- where seriously ill migrants are to be expelled, the quality of accessible healthcare in the receiving State should only be taken into account in very exceptional circumstances;
- states should be free to pursue so-called “innovative” solutions to migration, like asking third countries to process asylum requests.
Ill-informed, dangerous and unnecessary
The above diplomatic statements are all based on the same false idea: that Europe is facing “unforeseen” migratory challenges but is somehow being held back by an ‘activist and interfering’ Court of human rights.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, expert analysis has shown that the Court has become more protective of state interests over the last ten years. Over the last decade, only 6% of migration-related complaints have led to the finding of a violation against a state. Even in cases involving the deportation of seriously ill migrants, the Court has taken a restrictive approach. In one case, the deportation of a migrant which could have caused a serious relapse into Schizophrenia was not considered to trigger the prohibition of ill-treatment.
The Court has always stated that states have a sovereign right to manage the entry and exit of immigrants. However, they must do so in a way that respects the fundamental rights of migrants and protects them from exposure to countries where they face ill-treatment. This obligation is reflected not just in the ECHR, but in numerous other instruments such as the Anti-Torture Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Restraining the Court’s ability to decide on migration cases, will not change these fundamental obligations.
Taken together, these circumstances suggest that the upcoming declaration is politically motivated. The declaration is not aimed at fixing anything fundamentally wrong with the Court; rather it’s about sending a signal to domestic audiences that European governments are “tough on migration” (see more analysis here). The Chi?in?u Process: Dialogue or Duress? - ECHR Blog However, it will ultimately be the most vulnerable groups who will be affected. Even though a political declaration is not legally binding, the pressure on the Court to reduce its protection of migrants or face member-state backlash will be only too real. Furthermore, some of the “innovative” solutions proposed by member states, have already been found to result in serious human rights abuses when implemented by various countries.
That’s why Amnesty, in its open letter to the CoE, made several concrete recommendations. These include supporting the independence and impartiality of the Court; placing international obligations at the centre of discussions; and respecting the universality, indivisibility, inalienability and interdependence of human rights. These should be clear rallying points for civil society in the run-up to and following the Chisinau conference.
Download plain text version here.
RSS