Le régime juridique des étrangers au Cameroun

With) Contents of the DUDH and the international Pacts

The DUDH was adopted and proclaimed by the General meeting of the United Nations (AG) in her Resolution 217A (III) of December 10, 1948^21(*). It lays out in its article first that « all the human beings are born free and equal in rights ». This assertion is also worth for the non-national ones of any State, because of the principle of non-discrimination on the origin of the human person. Moreover, article 13 adds that «any person has the right to circulate freely and to choose its residence inside a State. Any person has the right to leave any country... ». This provision regulates the principle of freedom of movement from abroad like their right of residence and establishment on any territory ; it envisages also a right to the emigration. Article 14 specifies that «in front of persecution, any person has the right to seek asylum in other countries. This right cannot in the case of be called upon continuations really founded on a crime of right common or contrary intrigues to the goals and the principles of the United Nations ». It acts as a whole of the conditions of granting of territorial asylum.

It should however be raised that, the DUDH, in spite of the interest which it grants the abroads, remains without constraining force for the States^22(*). Indeed, this Declaration is only one simple resolution of AG. As, to prevent as the States do not press with the feet various freedoms which it preaches, the international Pacts were adopted in 1966 by the United Nations. They are essential in all the States which ratified them, accepted or which adhered to it ; the PIDCP came into effect on March 23, 1976^23(*) and the PIDESC, January 03, 1976^24(*). Cameroun adhered on June 27, 1984 there.

The PIDESC presents a whole of rights intended for any human person as regards the aspects social, economic and cultural. So it implicitly grants these privileges the abroads. The PIDCP, for its part, rather clearly defines freedoms which are reserved for them. Indeed, except its article 2 which reaffirms in the direction of article 1 of the DUDH caused the benefit of the humans right for all, other provisions are very explicit. It is the case of article 12 which regulates the right to the emigration, as well as the freedom of circulation and residence for any regular foreigner installed in the State. The limitations relating to the full exercise of these rights must be envisaged by the national legislations. Article 13, on its side, draft of the expulsion from abroad. We can deduce from it that it must be a question of a penal sanction inflicted to the delinquents and not a sanction fixed arbitrarily by the State. Article 14 guarantees the equality of all in front of the judicial bodies. It thus does not envisage any barrier with the access of nonnational in justice.

It is important to stress that the PIDCP, just like the DUDH, do not create an absolute right of entry in a foreign country. It is rather about a relative right. Indeed, nowhere in these two texts, it is marked only the State has the obligation to let the non-national ones return on its territory. The right to immigration or import duty is of this fact a right of the State, an objective right. It is only in the States that it returns to carry it out. It is the same for the right of asylum because there is not one « right to asylum » ; these two legal instruments actually preach only it « right of asylum ».^25(*) IT thus returns to each country to fix the relating to it rules. Moreover, freedom of movement of the foreign people is recognized in the DUDH and the PIDCP only for the case of internal displacements. The regulation of the transborder migrations thus remains the kept hunting of the States exclusively. On the other hand, the right right to the emigration or to leave a territory and the right to circulate there, are subjective rights because they belong the abroads a priori. Indeed, each one has about it supremely in the strict respect of the conditions defined by the law the State of reception.

This situation is valid for all the expatriates without any discrimination based on the race, the origin, the sex, and even the age because the children also are concerned.

* ²¹ SCHUTTER (Olivier), TULKENS (Francoise), VAN DROOGHENBROECK (Sébastian), RUFFENACH (Sylvie), Code of international law of the humans right (CDIDH), 2nd edition, Brussels, Bruylant, 2003, p 11 to 16.

* ²² However, we make a point of specifying that since a State inserted in its legal scheduling, the constitution in fact, the DUDH acquires an obligatory function as well as the internal standards themselves.

* ²³ SCHUTTER (Olivier) and others, COp Cit, pp. 17 to 34.

* ²⁴ Idem, pp.40 with 50.

* ²⁵ Indeed, «  right of asylum  » is a right which the State can grant to foreigners who fear persecutions coming from their country of origin or any other country. It further goes than the simple right of immigration because it includes the right from abroad to remain in the State of reception. This right thus exists, but it remains a faculty of the State and not an obligation. On the other hand, «  right to asylum  » is non-existent because it would imply that each individual according to his will, has the right to enter and to remain in a foreign State.