The assertion that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) did not play a fundamental role in ruling the Rwandan policy as unlawful is flawed. It is evident that these legal instruments indeed played a significant role in the judgment, as non-refoulement, a principle protected by human rights, was central to the case.

To begin with, it is important to understand what non-refoulement means. Non-refoulement is a principle of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where they may face persecution or serious harm. This principle is deeply rooted in human rights protection and ensures that individuals are not subjected to torture, cruel treatment, or other violations of their fundamental rights.

In the context of the Rwandan policy case, it can be argued that non-refoulement was at the core of the judgment. The policy aimed at forcibly repatriating Rwandan refugees back to their country, despite concerns about their safety and potential persecution upon return. By doing so, this policy directly violated the principle of non-refoulement.

Moreover, both ECHR and HRA provide legal frameworks for protecting human rights and ensuring compliance with international standards. The ECHR guarantees fundamental rights such as the right to life (Article 2), freedom from torture (Article 3), and protection against arbitrary detention (Article 5). Similarly, HRA incorporates these rights into domestic law in the United Kingdom.

In light of these legal provisions, it becomes evident that any policy or action contradicting these fundamental principles would be deemed unlawful. In this case, since non-refoulement is an integral part of human rights protected by both ECHR and HRA, any violation of this principle would inevitably lead to a ruling against such policies.

Furthermore, it should be noted that judgments are not made solely based on one specific legal instrument but rather on a combination of various factors and legal principles. While non-refoulement may have been the primary reason for ruling the Rwandan policy as unlawful, it does not diminish the role of ECHR and HRA in shaping this decision.

The ECHR and HRA provide a comprehensive framework for protecting human rights, including non-refoulement. These legal instruments establish a clear standard against which policies and actions are measured to ensure compliance with international law. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that the ECHR and HRA played a crucial role in the judgment by upholding the principle of non-refoulement.

In conclusion, it is evident that the assertion claiming that the ECHR and HRA did not play a fundamental role in ruling the Rwandan policy as unlawful is unfounded. Non-refoulement, a principle protected by human rights enshrined in these legal instruments, was central to the case. The ECHR and HRA provide a robust framework for protecting human rights, ensuring compliance with international standards, and ultimately shaping judgments against policies that violate these principles.

A afirmação de que a CEDH pode ter falhado quanto à essa questão é possível, o que por si só não desmerece a importância e a necessidade da CEDH.