The Safety of Rwanda Bill sought to establish through legislative means that Rwanda was a safe country despite the Supreme Court’s conclusion that it was not.129 A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the HRA was made when the Bill was introduced.130 The predecessor JCHR published a critical report on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, concluding, inter alia, that it was incompatible with Article 13 ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), was inconsistent with respect for universal human rights and for the UK’s obligations under the ECHR (including compliance with interim measures), and risked damaging the UK’s reputation for respect for human rights and the rule of law.131 128 R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 129 It should be noted that the Bill operated on the basis that the new, legally binding treaty with Rwanda met the concerns of the Supreme Court and thus legislating that the country was safe did not contradict the Supreme Court’s findings. 130 A statement under section 19(1)(b) HRA confirms that the Minister responsible for a Bill is unable to say that, in their opinion, the Bill is compatible with the rights guaranteed by the ECHR 131 JCHR, Legislative Scrutiny: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, Second Report of Session 2023–24 36