refullment of those sent to it. that is something the courts have already accepted. it is something that it is open to this house to do, and it is something in myjudgment, which is perfectly legitimate for parliament to undertake, it would be different if it was to reverse a decision against an individual, but even if i am wrong about that, even if, as a matter of constitutional convention, it were under social for this house to reverse the effect on a question of principle, namely whether rwanda is safe for the purposes of refullment, the facts have changed. there is now a binding treaty, which is not only binding in international law, but is binding in domestic rwandan law, because rwanda has a system, my right honourable friend the memberfor stone has rightly analysed the situation of international law, in in country we have a dualistjurisdiction where treaties are self executing but in rwanda the treaty is self executing so the treaty will be binding not only as a matter
analysis provided by the society of conservative lawyers in a paper and i declare my interest as chair of executive written by lawyers both experienced in international law. it is best to go to people with experience in the international law field rather than other field, experience in the international law field rather than otherfield, they conclude as i do that although there are areas which certainly need to be examined with care, the bill falls on the right side of the line. deeming provisions are not unprecedented as has been put out, as has already been set out. i am concerned and i hope the minister will take on and explore the situation raised by the memberfor kenilworth about how deeming provisions deal with international law o obligation because you the deem in domestic law but you can t to oust your international law obligations, that said, i think there is force i refer to the very useful analysis in the society for conservative lawyers pamphlet that in realityf c