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
homeless. he had a history of mental illness. fairly low level events. things illness. fairly low level events. things such as protesting with a banner outside a mosque. and being banned banner outside a mosque. and being banned from entering court buildings in like banned from entering court buildings in like burn banned from entering court buildings in like burn after verbally abusing a member in like burn after verbally abusing a member of the public there. but low-level a member of the public there. but low level things. a member of the public there. but low levelthings. but a member of the public there. but low level things. but things remembered by people who knew him. the key remembered by people who knew him. the key question is now in this investigation being run by the fbi and british police are to the motive and british police are to the motive. why did he do it? and very importantly, motive. why did he do it? and very importantly, why now as well? how did he