INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS: AHANI V. CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ahani v. Canada, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the procedural and institutional rights conferred by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on aliens who face deportation on national security and other grounds. By “reading in” some of the due process protections reflected in article 14 of the Convention, the decision gave meaningful content to an alien’s article 13 right to submit reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by a competent authority. These include the right to sufficient notice of the case so that the alien can resist removal, accompanied by appropriate disclosure, and the right to reasons for the final removal decision. Unfortunately, the decision failed to determine whether article 14 applied directly to immigration decision-making, entitling aliens to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The author argues that the Committee should have addressed this question and found, in light of the travaux préparatoires of the Covenant, the Committee’s jurisprudence, and that of the European Court of Human Rights, that article 14 does apply to some immigration decision-making, including deportation proceedings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".