4.8.5 Refusal to issue travel documents (ICCPR art 12(2)) Condensed entry: Passports and other travel documents should be issued or renewed within reasonable time and the cost should not substantially exceed the cost of production. The issuance of identity and travel documents by the State of residence does not release the State of nationality from its obligations to issue or renew a passport. States have an obligation to issue passports for their nationals living abroad. It is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport. States have an obligation to remove any discriminatory regulations with regard to how travel documents are issued. A state may refuse to issue travel documents or revoke them if (a) provided for by law, (b) consistent with other rights and (c) necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. Comprehensive entry: The HRC has noted:[1] Since international travel usually requires appropriate documents, in particular a passport, the right to leave a country must include the right to obtain the necessary travel documents. The issuing of passports is normally incumbent on the State of nationality of the individual. The refusal to issue or renew as well as the revocation of passports constitutes a violation of the freedom of movement unless provided for by law, consistent with other rights and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.[2] Passports should be issued within reasonable time and the cost should not substantially exceed the cost of production.[3]The issuance of identity and travel documents by the state of residence does not release the state of nationality from its obligations to issue or renew a passport.[4] States have an obligation to issue passports for their nationals living abroad.[5] The HRC has held that the refusal of the Uruguay authorities in Mexico to renew the applicant’s passport without explanation or justification constituted violation of the freedom of movement.[6] According to the HRC ‘[i]t is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport.’In El Ghar v Libya,[7] Libyan authorities in Morocco informed Ms El Ghar, who resided in Morocco, three years after her application for a passport, without explanation, that she could only be given a travel document, a laissez-passer, to return to Libya. The HRC found a violation of article 12(2) because Libya denied the author a passport 'without any valid justification and subjected [her] to an unreasonable delay, and as a result prevented the author from travelling abroad to continue her studies'.[8] The laissez-passer, according to the HRC, 'cannot be considered a satisfactory substitute for a valid Libyan passport that would enable the author to travel abroad'.[9] States have an obligation to remove any discriminatory regulations with regard to how travel documents are issued.[10] The CEDAW Committee has criticised Uganda for requiring paternal consent for a woman's minor child to be included in her passport and for requiring a married woman to secure the written consent of her husband for being issued with a passport.[11] While the refusal to grant passport to or confiscation of passport of individuals due to their political opinion clearly violates their right to freedom of movement,[12] the right to leave any country may be limited if provided for by law, consistent with other rights and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.[13] (See *leave any country*; *freedom of movement*). Such limitations should be construed narrowly. Refusal to grant a passport to a person living abroad who refused to perform his military service has been held by the HRC to not constitute a violation of freedom of movement.[14]
[1] HRC General Comment 27 para 9. [2] ICCPR art 12(3). On refusal to issue passport see Vidal Martins v Uruguay communication 57/1979 (HRC 1980) para 9. On revocation of passport see Varela Nunez v Uruguay communication 108/1981 (HRC 1983) para 9.3. [3] HRC General Comment 27 para 17. [4] Lichtensztejn v Uruguay communication 77/1980 (HRC 1983) para 8.3. [5]Vidal Martins v Uruguay para 9. [6] Lichtensztejn v Uruguay para 8.3. [7]El Ghar v Libya communication 1107/2002 (HRC 2004). [8]El Ghar v Libya para 8. [9]El Ghar v Libya paras 7.2. [10] HRC General Comment 27 para 18, General Comment 28 para 16. [11] Concluding Observations, Uganda: A/57/38(SUPP) (CEDAW, 2002), para 141 ter. [12] Bwalya v Zambia communication 314/1988 (HRC 1993) para 6.5; Kalenga v Zambia communication 326/1988 (HRC 1988) para 6.4. [13] ICCPR art 12(3). [14]Peltonen v Finland communication 492/1992 (HRC 1994) para 8.4.
Condensed entry:
Passports and other travel documents should be issued or renewed within reasonable time and the cost should not substantially exceed the cost of production. The issuance of identity and travel documents by the State of residence does not release the State of nationality from its obligations to issue or renew a passport. States have an obligation to issue passports for their nationals living abroad. It is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport. States have an obligation to remove any discriminatory regulations with regard to how travel documents are issued.
A state may refuse to issue travel documents or revoke them if (a) provided for by law, (b) consistent with other rights and (c) necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
Comprehensive entry:
The HRC has noted:[1]
Since international travel usually requires appropriate documents, in particular a passport, the right to leave a country must include the right to obtain the necessary travel documents. The issuing of passports is normally incumbent on the State of nationality of the individual.
The refusal to issue or renew as well as the revocation of passports constitutes a violation of the freedom of movement unless provided for by law, consistent with other rights and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.[2]
Passports should be issued within reasonable time and the cost should not substantially exceed the cost of production.[3]The issuance of identity and travel documents by the state of residence does not release the state of nationality from its obligations to issue or renew a passport.[4]
States have an obligation to issue passports for their nationals living abroad.[5] The HRC has held that the refusal of the Uruguay authorities in Mexico to renew the applicant’s passport without explanation or justification constituted violation of the freedom of movement.[6]
According to the HRC ‘[i]t is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport.’In El Ghar v Libya,[7] Libyan authorities in Morocco informed Ms El Ghar, who resided in Morocco, three years after her application for a passport, without explanation, that she could only be given a travel document, a laissez-passer, to return to Libya. The HRC found a violation of article 12(2) because Libya denied the author a passport 'without any valid justification and subjected [her] to an unreasonable delay, and as a result prevented the author from travelling abroad to continue her studies'.[8] The laissez-passer, according to the HRC, 'cannot be considered a satisfactory substitute for a valid Libyan passport that would enable the author to travel abroad'.[9]
States have an obligation to remove any discriminatory regulations with regard to how travel documents are issued.[10] The CEDAW Committee has criticised Uganda for requiring paternal consent for a woman's minor child to be included in her passport and for requiring a married woman to secure the written consent of her husband for being issued with a passport.[11]
While the refusal to grant passport to or confiscation of passport of individuals due to their political opinion clearly violates their right to freedom of movement,[12] the right to leave any country may be limited if provided for by law, consistent with other rights and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.[13] (See *leave any country*; *freedom of movement*). Such limitations should be construed narrowly. Refusal to grant a passport to a person living abroad who refused to perform his military service has been held by the HRC to not constitute a violation of freedom of movement.[14]
[1] HRC General Comment 27 para 9.
[2] ICCPR art 12(3). On refusal to issue passport see Vidal Martins v Uruguay communication 57/1979 (HRC 1980) para 9. On revocation of passport see Varela Nunez v Uruguay communication 108/1981 (HRC 1983) para 9.3.
[3] HRC General Comment 27 para 17.
[4] Lichtensztejn v Uruguay communication 77/1980 (HRC 1983) para 8.3.
[5]Vidal Martins v Uruguay para 9.
[6] Lichtensztejn v Uruguay para 8.3.
[7]El Ghar v Libya communication 1107/2002 (HRC 2004).
[8]El Ghar v Libya para 8.
[9]El Ghar v Libya paras 7.2.
[10] HRC General Comment 27 para 18, General Comment 28 para 16.
[11] Concluding Observations, Uganda: A/57/38(SUPP) (CEDAW, 2002), para 141 ter.
[12] Bwalya v Zambia communication 314/1988 (HRC 1993) para 6.5; Kalenga v Zambia communication 326/1988 (HRC 1988) para 6.4.
[13] ICCPR art 12(3).
[14]Peltonen v Finland communication 492/1992 (HRC 1994) para 8.4.