COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS CONSIDERS INITIAL REPORT OF KYRGYZSTAN

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Kyrgyzstan on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Gulnara Iskakova, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Kyrgyzstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that migration in Kyrgyzstan today remained dynamic and large scale. Foreign citizens, including labour migrants, had equal rights as Kyrgyz nationals. That was applicable to all rights except voting rights and serving in the army. All of the rights related to labour migrants were enshrined in the Constitution. In Kyrgyzstan, there was a quota system when it came to recruiting labour migrants from other countries, in accordance with the State’s interests and the needs of the domestic labour market. Speaking of Kyrgyz migrant workers elsewhere, Ms. Iskakova informed that most of them were in Russia (over half a million) and Kazakhstan (85,000). Entry of Kyrgyzstan into the Eurasian Economic Union should ease certain procedures and overall conditions for Kyrgyz workers in those countries.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts wanted to know more about the rights of migrant workers in Kyrgyzstan, the treatment of irregular migrants and their protection, as well as health services provided, including reproductive and sexual health services for migrant women. More information was sought on consular protection provided by Kyrgyzstan to its citizens abroad, primarily in Russia, and on the functioning of the quota system. Other issues, including the traditional practice of bride kidnapping, combat against racism and xenophobia, treatment of workers of Uzbek ethnicity, the effect of drug trafficking on migration and training on the implementation of the Convention, were also raised by Experts.

In concluding remarks, Jose Brillantes, the Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, thanked the delegation for providing a clearer, more precise and positive picture of the situation in Kyrgyzstan, and giving replies in a spontaneous and genuine manner. Azad Taghi Zada, the Committee Expert acting as Co-rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, said that the delegation’s frankness when speaking about obstacles, challenges and future plans was appreciated. The Committee’s questions should help the State party concentrate its attention on the most pertinent issues.

Ms. Iskakova, in concluding remarks, stressed that the dialogue had helped the delegation learn about major issues and would assist the State party to do more on the rights of migrant workers. The Committee members were thanked for their dedication and professionalism. The delegation was looking forward to good, implementable recommendations.

The delegation included representatives of the Ministry of Labour, Migration and Youth, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Kyrgyzstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon for the consideration of the initial report of Peru (CMW/C/PER/1).

Report

The initial report of Kyrgyzstan (CMW/C/KGZ/1) can be found here.

Presentation of the Report

GULNARA ISKAKOVA, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Kyrgyzstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that migration in Kyrgyzstan today remained dynamic and large scale. Difficulties in the domestic labour market and demographic changes had had an important impact on migration trends. Kyrgyzstan had ratified 53 relevant International Labour Organization conventions. At present, there were programmes to promote employment and combat human trafficking in the country.

Foreign citizens, including labour migrants, had equal rights as Kyrgyz nationals. That was applicable to all rights except voting rights and serving in the army. All of the rights related to labour migrants were enshrined in the Constitution. Everyone in the country had the right to free-of-charge education at primary and secondary levels. Rights and freedoms could only be restricted by special laws. Everyone had the right to leave the country if they so wished, and to appeal to human rights bodies, in the country and abroad, if they felt that their rights had been violated.

There was legislation for the introduction of visa-free regimes for nationals of certain countries. In Kyrgyzstan, there was a quota system when it came to recruiting labour migrants from other countries, in accordance with the State’s interests and the needs of the domestic labour market. The quota legislation set the numbers of persons, broken down by sectors and regions of the country. In 2014, for example, there had been a quota for 12,990 foreign workers; 12,031 foreigners had eventually been hired. According to the quota, more than 50 per cent of those recruited were working in Bishkek, and 13.4 percent in Zhalal Abad. The industrial and construction sectors counted for 50.7 percent of those recruited, and trade and services made up 21.8 percent. People from 73 countries had come to work to Kyrgyzstan in 2014, mostly coming from China, Turkey and Pakistan.
Foreign enterprises in Kyrgyzstan employed some 18,500 workers. Work migrants in Kyrgyzstan enjoyed the same rights as nationals of Kyrgyzstan, when it came to health, education and social services; they paid less in income tax than nationals.

The State was creating favourable conditions for ethnic Kyrgyz who had worked abroad, if they wanted to return home. Between 1995 and 2014, more than 40,000 ethnic Kyrgyz had received Kyrgyz nationality. Kyrgyzstan was also receiving refugees, and there were 171 of them as of 1 January, the majority of whom were from Afghanistan. The largest number of labour migrants from Kyrgyzstan went to Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. More than half a million Kyrgyz nationals worked in Russia, and some 85,000 were in Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan expected a number of advantages once Kyrgyzstan became a full member of the Euro-Asian Economic Union. The conditions for Kyrgyz labour migrants in those countries should consequently improve, and procedures would be significantly simplified.

The population of Kyrgyzstan was 5.8 million, while the unemployment rate stood at 8.3 per cent, more than 41 per cent of whom were youth. In 2014, thanks to the activities of employment bodies, more than 48,000 persons had found employment, specified Ms. Iskakova. The State was undertaking a number of activities to provide employment to the unemployed.

Questions from Committee Experts

JOSE BRILLANTES, Committee member serving as a country rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, welcomed the initial report of Kyrgyzstan. The State party was clearly undertaking efforts domestically, but a lot of activities ought to be taken in Russia, followed by Kazakhstan, where hundreds of thousands of Kyrgyz migrant workers lived and worked.

A question was asked about the registration of children of migrants in Kyrgyzstan or those children whose parents had left to Russia for work, which could violate their right to education.

There was reportedly a high proportion of women working in the informal sector, to whom there was no labour law applicable. Those women were thus made more vulnerable to harassment and violation of their rights.

The practice of bride kidnapping – ala kachuu, which was a cultural practice, was brought up. Could it affect migrant workers in Kyrgyzstan?

Why were the workers of Uzbek descent not being protected when they were in Russia or when they returned to Kyrgyzstan?

Mr. Brillantes wanted to know more about the combat against xenophobia and hate crimes against Kyrgyz nationals in Russia.

The State party was commended for more than 120 bilateral agreements in migrant matters and for taking into consideration contributions of the civil sector.

Was there any training on the dissemination and application of the Convention, he asked.

More details were sought about agreements and legislation on the provision of health care. Were there unions which did not allow foreign workers to become members?

Could the delegation explain how minors, especially those in irregular situations, could return to their original State?

AZAD TAGHI ZADA, Committee member serving as a co-rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, asked the delegation to accept all questions raised by the Committee as a way to help resolve the existing issues and challenges.

The Expert wanted to know the formal position on the connection between the Convention and domestic legislation. Were measures being taken to remove the contradictions existing in Kyrgyz legislation regarding the definition of migrant workers? The definition in line with the Convention was paramount for migrants’ protection.

While Kyrgyzstan joining the Euro-Asian Union would provide major advantages, what would the legal coverage of its migrant workers be? Was the State party prepared for the new legal context?

The statistics provided by the delegation were quite general and not broken down sufficiently, he noted. The Committee would certainly appreciate having more detailed statistics. More details were needed about the detention of Kyrgyz workers in Russia – what were the causes of their detention?

Another Expert asked about the precise legal framework within which the Committee could establish that domestic legislation was in line with the Convention. If there was no legal text within Kyrgyzstan, what precisely was the place of the ratified Convention in the Kyrgyz legal system?

Kyrgyzstan seemed to be on the route of drug trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe. Was drug trafficking an element in the movement of Kyrgyz migrant workers, and were they participating in it? What was being done to prevent and break such a nexus?

Were most migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan in Russia ethnic Kyrgyz or Russian? Did they normally return to Kyrgyzstan? Migrant workers’ participation in elections seemed to be minimal. Were those low numbers because most migrants were not from the main ethnic group?

Could the delegation elaborate how the demographic trends in Kyrgyzstan impacted the implementation of the Convention?

A question was asked about how highly skilled migrants from a wide array of countries were contributing to the economy of the State party? Could more information be provided about remittances?

How was human trafficking affecting Kyrgyzstan, the Expert inquired.

Regarding the long border and the flow of people between China and Kyrgyzstan, an Expert wanted to know whether it was mostly a one-way flow.

While the Committee took good note that there was the Ministry of Labour, Migration and Youth in place, more information was needed on the exact activities of that Ministry. How were different activities coordinated?

Returning to the issue of quotas, an Expert asked how that system dealt with persons who were undocumented. Experience from other countries showed that quota systems normally led to a rise in informal employment.

There had been reports of attacks against Chinese migrant workers – what was being done in that regard?

On the reproductive health of women migrant workers in Kyrgyzstan, a question was asked about their reported high maternal mortality rates.

Did the delegation have any estimate of the impact of the Convention on the economy of the State party?

How was the issue of intermediary employment agencies regulated? Was that issue addressed with the Russian Federation?

Another Expert asked for more information about the factual reality on the difficulties encountered by the State party in dealing with migration. What were the real limitations in the implementation of the Convention?

Why had there not been any training in the State party on the implementation of the Convention, the Expert asked. Did the judges and prosecutors have a good understanding of the Convention, given the absence of training?

Turning to the issue of the detention of migrants for administrative offences, the Expert asked if they were kept in prisons with ordinary criminals. How was legal assistance provided and under which conditions could migrants avail themselves of free legal aid?

Could details be provided about the access of temporary residents to health care?

The Committee had been informed that in practice foreign migrant workers were victims of various types of discrimination. What measures were being taken to remedy this situation? If ethnic Kyrgyz were given a priority, did that not create grounds for the rise of discrimination?

Another Expert asked what Kyrgyzstan was doing to ensure that its migrant workers were helped by the State’s consular services abroad.

The issue of the votes of Kyrgyz nationals living abroad was brought up again by an Expert.

Given the huge numbers of Kyrgyz migrant workers in Russia, how was it ensured that their remittances were used in the best possible way?

Responses from the Delegation

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided support to Kyrgyz citizens abroad, a delegate explained. In Russia there were around half a million Kyrgyz nationals rather than one million, as mentioned by a Committee member. The overall number of Kyrgyz citizens abroad stood at around 700,000.

Since most Kyrgyz citizens working abroad were in Russia, the entry of Kyrgyzstan into the Euro-Asian Union in May would provide a new stage in that regard. The number of Kyrgyz nationals charged in Russia for various crimes in 2014 was in the hundreds. When a Kyrgyz citizen died abroad, the State party was in charge of transporting his or her remains back home.

Foreign citizens arriving for work in Kyrgyzstan could follow the fast-track citizenship acquisition process, the delegation stated.

Statistics on Kyrgyz nationals abroad existed and were desegregated according to sex and age. The dominant group was that of men between 29 and 39. There was constant legal work on protecting Kyrgyz nationals abroad. In Russia in 2015, two other consular representations had been opened, with the view of providing additional support to Kyrgyz nationals living there.

Draft consular conventions existed between Kyrgyzstan and Italy, and between Kyrgyzstan and the United Arab Emirates. There were a number of draft agreements with the Russian Government. There existed an agreement with Russia to combat illegal migration and on the status of migrant workers, both from 2010.

The delegation said that there was a centre working on managing the migration flow from Kyrgyzstan to Russia. In 2014, there had been applications from more than 2,000 employers, who had looked for employees from Kyrgyzstan. The conditions for labour migrants varied, but they normally had a labour contract which reduced the risk of their rights being violated. Some employers provided free accommodation and medical care, which depended on the contract. The overall trend was improving, which ought to be recognized.

Speaking of Kazakhstan, a delegate stated that there were no language barriers between the two countries. The entry of Kyrgyzstan into the Euro-Asian Union in May was expected to improve matters in that regard as well.

There were no statistics on cases of xenophobia, but they were a matter of concern for the State party.

Up to half a million Kyrgyz citizens could sometimes take part in seasonal labour engagements, mostly in Russia. Labour migrants in Russia were the most vulnerable category. Every year, the labour quota was actually smaller than the number of people working there. From May on it was expected that it would be easier to deal with such issues.

Labour migration had halved the level of unemployment in Kyrgyzstan and brought in significant remittances - around $ 413 million in 2014. The figure had decreased since the imposition of sanctions against Russia.

There had been cases when labour migrants had left their children behind for various reasons, and the Ministry of Social Care was looking into that. No children would be left abandoned in Russia, and Kyrgyzstan was going to bring them back.

The delegation said that Kyrgyzstan was one of the very few States in its region to have ratified the Convention. Kyrgyzstan perceived the protection of migrants as a major value in the contemporary world, affecting both internal and bilateral affairs.

If women migrants did not have particular labour documents or contracts, there were certain institutions to defend their rights. In the Prosecutor’s Office, there were staff in charge of oversight to ensure that employers respected the rights of their migrant employees. If there was no contract in place, the workers would thus have a number of possibilities in place in order to ensure that their rights were respected.

Regarding bride kidnapping, which was a cultural tradition, there was a particular article under the Criminal Code which provided for liability if a woman was abducted against her will.

Responding to the questions on projects in the migration field, a delegate said that Kyrgyzstan had been a party to a number of programmes to improve its statistics collection and implementation of the Convention. Kyrgyzstan was coordinating its efforts with the International Labour Organization, the International Organization for Migration and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

With regard to drafting legal contracts and outsourcing, the delegate responded that such cases were generally quite unusual, and it entailed a certain amount of risk. The advantage was that the worker did not have to look for the job, but the intermediary company provided him with placement.

A “labour migrant” could be described as anyone travelling from one country to another to look for work. There were admittedly some contradictions in Kyrgyz laws, but that did not affect the way that the authorities proceeded in their treatment of migrant workers. In practice, those with an irregular status were not treated that differently, but some adjustments in the legislation were needed.

Government bodies in the countries where workers were operating, especially in the Russian Federation where there were the most migrants, needed to inform Kyrgyz consular authorities if Kyrgyz nationals needed help or were detained.

In Kyrgyzstan, the Ministry of Labour, Migration and Youth maintained constant dialogue and consultations with the non-governmental sector, in particular when it came to migration. There was also a special advisory body under the Ministry which had a civil sector representation. That was a positive development with the view of improving conditions for migrant workers no matter where they were.

Regarding the legal regime once Kyrgyzstan entered the Eurasian Economic Union, the State party did not see that development as restricting it from fully implementing the Convention. Provisions dealing with migrant workers would thus be upheld.

The delegation said that campaigns to promote international conventions were rarely undertaken. The Government was aware that efforts ought to be stepped up to find means and resources for outreach projects.

The Constitution contained provisions which were applied as mandatory throughout the country, and were not to be contradicted by any laws or statutes. Rights enshrined in international instruments to which Kyrgyzstan was a party were automatically part of the law in the country. There were numerous provisions on human rights in the Constitution which fully upheld standards and norms of the Convention. Those provisions were applied to citizens and non-citizens alike.

With regard to drug trafficking, a delegate explained that those dealing with drugs naturally used various excuses for travelling in and out of the country. In 2014, 547 Kyrgyz nationals had been charged in Russia for dealing with illegal drugs, which was a modest figure bearing in mind that there were more than 500,000 Kyrgyz migrants in Russia. The problem existed and could lead to additional scrutiny and inspections by the Russian authorities upon their arrival.

Some six per cent of Kyrgyz nationals who had acquired Russian nationality still maintained Kyrgyz citizenship. Those emigrating from Kyrgyzstan did so primarily for economic reasons and in search of work.

Concerning irregular migrants, the delegation said that in Kyrgyz law there was no provision for extreme administrative measures to detain or evict such persons, especially if it was their first offence. Usually, an administrative fine was imposed. If a person reoffended, a deportation could be imposed as a result of a court ruling. Such a court ruling could be appealed, and the case could be taken all the way up to the Supreme Court, whose decision would then be final.

On the question of Chinese migrants, it was said that there were some 7,800 Chinese nationals working in Kyrgyzstan, mostly in road construction and setting up of power lines and oil refineries. In 2012, the quota for foreign workers was more than five times higher than it had been in 2003. Most of the quota had been used and no deficit was noticed there.

Most migrant workers were young people, from 18 to 29 years of age, the delegation stated, and it led to an overlap of labour and youth concerns. It was hoped that more Kyrgyz youth would be able to find work at home rather than leave the country to seek employment abroad. The youth labour exchange was overseen by the Ministry of Labour, Migration and Youth. A hotline had been established which provided all the information on visas, conditions and risks of working abroad.

Regarding private employment agencies, there had to be a special authorization to deal with brokering jobs for Kyrgyz nationals abroad. A number of documents needed to be submitted before such agencies were authorized to operate. In 2014, five private employment agencies had been approved by the authorities. There was currently a draft bill calling for an assessment of such business agencies.

Answering the question on the detention of foreign nationals in Kyrgyzstan, the delegate said that they were not detained separately from Kyrgyz nationals. For administrative offences, a fine was normally imposed and there was no detention. If a crime was committed, offenders were treated as would Kyrgyz nationals.

There were efforts to establish an intra-agency electronic system to keep track of migration inflows and outflows. A pilot project was running at the moment. There had been very few illegal entrances in Kyrgyzstan in 2015.

On corruption, the delegation said that Transparency International had placed Kyrgyzstan at the 164^th place on the corruption perception index in 2011, while in 2014 it had moved up to the 136^th place. It showed progress, which had been complemented by anti-corruption programmes and a presidential decree. An increase in governmental salaries also contributed to the fight against corruption.

If a person was not in a position to get his own attorney, one was provided by the Government. No distinction was made between nationals and non-nationals in that regard.

Regarding high maternity death rates, the delegation said that the State party had not fulfilled that Millennium Development Goal. Migrants living in Kyrgyzstan were equally affected. Reasons for such high rates were connected with the economy and the health system as a whole.

International agreements to which Kyrgyzstan was a party were part of the national legal system. Agreements dealing with human rights had a priority over other norms in the legislation. Kyrgyzstan was a relatively new subject under international law, and had acceded to most major human rights treaties. More time was needed for full implementation of all those conventions.

In April 2010, the delegation explained, there had been a revolution in Kyrgyzstan akin to the Arab Spring, which had led to the adoption of a new Constitution and the first democratic transfer of power.

Kyrgyzstan was planning to open special offices for assisting migrant workers in all main countries where Kyrgyz nationals sought work. A special agreement in that regard, as earlier indicated, would be signed with the Russian Federation. Inside the country, work was underway to establish a highly qualified “foreign specialist” category, which would be excluded from the general quota system. Proper wage levels were also being looked into.

A delegate explained that foreign nationals residing in Kyrgyzstan could be provided with health care along the same lines as Kyrgyz nationals. Their children were provided with free health care until the age of five.

Questions from Committee Experts

An Expert asked about the link between the laws dealing with refugees and migrants.

Another Expert wanted to know about how social security was provided for Kyrgyz workers who retired abroad. Were there any agreements in place between Kyrgyzstan and the countries in which most Kyrgyz migrants were working?

Were courts in Kyrgyzstan applying Convention provisions? Were civil servants aware of the Convention and how it could best be applied?

An Expert wanted to hear if Kyrgyz migrant workers living abroad had the right to take part in parliamentary and presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan.

In cases when Kyrgyz migrant workers were abused or exploited, had any court actions been taken in the host country? What rights did irregular migrants not have access to?

Could the delegation provide more information about measures taken to combat racism and xenophobia?

Questions were asked about policies adopted to fight brain drain from Kyrgyzstan, and to maintain contact with second or third generation Kyrgyz emigrants.

Were migrant workers of Uzbek origin mistreated and did they face xenophobia, both while outside of Kyrgyzstan and once they returned home?

More details were asked about the number of Kyrgyz consular offices and the services they provided.

Responses from the Delegation

The delegation stated that some organizations had voiced concerns about the mistreatment of ethnic Uzbek migrant workers, but Kyrgyz legislation did not make a distinction between various ethnicities of Kyrgyz nationals. The Uzbek population did not seem to be particularly targeted. Several years earlier, in June 2010, there had been a brief outbreak of ethnic conflict between the ethnic Kyrgyz and the ethnic Uzbek. A comprehensive report of an independent investigation into those events had been published. There was a special office attached to the President’s Office in charge with implementing a plan of action on interethnic integration. Kyrgyzstan was committed to not allowing similar events to happen again.

On the second and third generation Kyrgyz emigrants, the delegation said that there were no residence requirements for returning families, who could apply for the status of returnees, which was processed quickly. Shortly afterwards, they could apply for citizenship.

Responding to a question, a delegate stated that there were a number of laws dealing with external as well as domestic migration. Those on domestic migration dealt with their domestic residence and employment. As far as external migration, legislation dealt with visas, finding employment abroad and necessary papers for having work abroad.

Speaking of services provided to Kyrgyz migrants, a delegate said that there were, inter alia, videos and a hotline aimed at helping Kyrgyz nationals going abroad for work. Free legal aid and a whole range of consular services were provided to Kyrgyz nationals abroad; just the previous year, more than 35,000 such services had been provided to Kyrgyz nationals abroad. Efforts were underway to open additional consular offices.

There were some 17 different bodies operating in the diaspora and helping Kyrgyz migrant workers, mostly in Russia. They were assisting the diaspora to prepare for the October 2015 parliamentary election.

Within the Commonwealth of Independent States, there was an agreement in place on pensions. Discussions were currently underway on social security within the Eurasian Economic Union. Kyrgyz nationals employed in the Republic of Korea were provided with such payments.

There was no distinction on how foreign nationals in Kyrgyzstan were treated when they needed assistance, the delegation stressed.

While brain drain was not an overriding consideration, the Government was trying to make sure that highly skilled Kyrgyz nationals would be motivated enough to find employment at home rather than leave.

Concluding Remarks

JOSE BRILLANTES, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, thanked the delegation for providing a clearer, more precise and positive picture of the situation in Kyrgyzstan, and giving replies in a spontaneous and genuine manner. It was clear that the delegation had come prepared, and the Committee was very pleased with the delegation’s participation.

AZAD TAGHI ZADA, Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur for Kyrgyzstan, said that the dialogue had been very gratifying. The delegation had spoken about conditions in the country and on the situation of Kyrgyz nationals abroad. The delegation’s frankness when speaking about obstacles, challenges and future plans was appreciated. The Committee’s questions should help the State party concentrate its attention on the most pertinent issues.

GULNARA ISKAKOVA, Permanent Representative of Kyrgyzstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the dialogue had helped the delegation learn about major issues and would help the State party do more on the rights of migrant workers. The Committee members were thanked for their dedication and professionalism. The delegation was looking forward to good, implementable recommendations.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW15/003E