Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers Commend Kyrgyzstan on Trafficking Legislation, Ask about Kyrgyz Migrants in Russia and the Children of Migrant Parents
The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Kyrgyzstan, with Committee Experts commending Kyrgyzstan on the significant progress made on trafficking legislation, and asking about the rights of Kyrgyz migrants in the Russian Federation, and the situation of children in Kyrgyzstan whose parents were migrant workers abroad.
Jasminka Dzumhur, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said significant progress had been made in the reform of legislation, including criminal legislation which provided criminalisation on trafficking and smuggling in the context of migration.
Azad Taghi-Zada, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the largest migration flow from Kyrgyzstan went to Russia, and information had been received that these migrant workers could sometimes be used as mercenaries in military action. This was very worrying. Was there any up-to-date information on this? What figures existed, and what measures were being taken to protect the rights of the people concerned? Can Ünver, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Russian Federation was not party to the Convention. The availability of consular services represented a challenge for Kyrgyzstan. Were there new measures which enabled Kyrgyz workers in other countries to be assisted?
A Committee Expert asked which policies and measures were implemented to protect children whose parents were working abroad? In cases where parents had emigrated for work, there was a requirement to appoint a legal guardian for their children. Was this done in practice? Was there a law in place? If a legal guardian was not appointed, what was done to ensure proper guardianship for these children?
The delegation said the question of the potential participation of Kyrgyz citizens in the military zone was raised regularly during consultations with the Russian Federation. Kyrgyzstan had stated the total unacceptability of sending Kyrgyz citizens to the war zone. Russia had also said there were currently no convicts taken to special military operations, particularly through the Wagner outfit. Work was carried out by consular representatives to raise awareness about the non-acceptability of working with mercenaries, and the criminal liability which could occur. Within Russia, there were six representations of the Kyrgyz embassy, as well as six honorary consuls, spread throughout the country. Where there were no consular services, there were travelling services to address issues affecting citizens.
The delegation said a decree had been approved on temporary guardianship for children whose parents had left Kyrgyzstan in search of work. According to the provisions, a request could be filed by workers to the local authorities of their place of residence. The local authorities provided care for children in Kyrgyzstan and repatriated them from the Russian Federation and other States when necessary. The State provided benefits to protect the children of migrant workers. Over 1,200 families with children up to the age of 17 received benefits.
Nurdoolot Bazarbaev, First Deputy Minister of Labour, Social Security and Migration of Kyrgyzstan and head of delegation, presenting the report, said migration processes now affected almost everyone in the country and had become a central part of life. Since the submission of the country’s initial report in 2015, the trends of labour migration in Kyrgyzstan had changed significantly, as had the approach to State policy. Earlier, migration issues were approached from a social point of view, but now the State was trying to introduce economic instruments of regulation, taking into account the interests of migrants. According to Kyrgyzstan’s legislation, foreign citizens and stateless persons had equal rights and obligations with citizens of Kyrgyzstan, except in cases where laws or international treaties stated otherwise. Kyrgyzstan was moving from being a country of origin to a country of destination.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Dzumhur thanked Kyrgyzstan for the high-quality dialogue. She encouraged the State to take actions based on the Committee’s concluding observations, and to call on international organizations for technical assistance. She wished the delegation a successful return to Kyrgyzstan.
Mr. Bazarbaev thanked the Committee members for their contribution to the State’s efforts to protect the rights of migrant workers. Migration processes depended on interaction between sending and receiving countries. Kyrgyzstan would continue to make progress to achieve the highest possible standards in human rights.
The delegation of Kyrgyzstan was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Migration; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Administration of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic; and the Permanent Mission of Kyrgyzstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will next meet at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 30 November to start its review of the initial report of Sao Tome and Principe (CMW/C/STP/1).
The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Kyrgyzstan (CMW/C/KGZ/2).
Presentation of Report
NURDOOLOT BAZARBAEV, First Deputy Minister of Labour, Social Security and Migration of Kyrgyzstan and head of delegation, said Kyrgyzstan had recently reached around 7 million people in size. The economically active population was about 2.6 million people, and more than 1 million of them were in labour migration. Migration processes now affected almost everyone in the country and had become a central part of life. The Government was doing everything possible to reduce the negative consequences of migration and its associated risks, and to make the best use of its advantages. The regulation of migration processes in the country was carried out to ensure compliance with human rights and international standards.
Since the submission of the country’s initial report in 2015, the trends of labour migration in Kyrgyzstan had changed significantly, as had the approach to State policy. Earlier, migration issues were approached from a social point of view, but now the State was trying to introduce economic instruments of regulation, taking into account the interests of migrants. Kyrgyzstan’s legislation on migration was constantly changing, with a focus on simplifying the procedures for obtaining State services and simplifying the processes for the stay of foreign labour migrants in the country. According to Kyrgyzstan’s legislation, foreign citizens and stateless persons had equal rights and obligations with citizens of Kyrgyzstan, except in cases where laws or international treaties stated otherwise. Kyrgyzstan was moving from being a country of origin to a country of destination. The domestic demand for labour resources did not cover the current requirements in connection with the growth of the country's economy.
The Framework of Migration Policy of Kyrgyzstan for 2021-2030 was aimed at identifying priority tasks in the field of migration and was designed to ensure the consistency of State policy with the interests of migrants. The Government was making every effort to create jobs in Kyrgyzstan so that Kyrgyz people could work in their own country, close to their families. The Mekendeshter forum of compatriots was held regularly to ensure a dialogue on migration. A pilot programme had been launched with the International Organization for Migration to attract returning migrants to invest in business projects in Kyrgyzstan, on the principle that half of the amount was allocated by the State. This pilot initiative would make it possible to determine the necessary legislative framework for further development.
The criminalisation of migration-related crimes, including trafficking and smuggling, was an important aspect of public policy. In the latest edition of the Criminal Code, considerable work had been done to criminalise the smuggling of migrants, and an article had been added using definitions in accordance with the Palermo Protocol. It was hoped the Committee would appreciate the efforts Kyrgyzstan had taken to implement the Convention. The delegation was ready to answer any questions posed by the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
JASMINKA DZUMHUR, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said significant progress had been made in the reform of legislation, including criminal legislation which provided criminalisation on trafficking and smuggling in the context of migration. What were the impacts of those legislative changes? What was the impact of the war in Ukraine on Kyrgyz citizens living in Russia? What was being done to support HIV-positive Kyrgyz citizens living in Russia? Why had Kyrgyzstan not yet ratified the International Labour Organization conventions 183, 181 and 189? Could information be provided on diplomatic missions and their capacities? Who was Kyrgyzstan a destination country for? What were the institutions responsible for providing support to these individuals? Had the Ombudsperson visited places where migrants were accommodated? Was the Human Rights Commission able to provide protection for Kyrgyz citizens living in Russia?
AZAD TAGHI-ZADA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the largest migration flow from Kyrgyzstan went to Russia, and information had been received that these migrant workers could sometimes be used as mercenaries in military action. This was very worrying. Was there any up-to-date information on this? What figures existed, and what measures were being taken to protect the rights of the people concerned? Given the youthful demographic of Kyrgyzstan’s population, to what degree had training been organised to enable these young people to work in skilled employment abroad? Could more information about the agreement with Japan be provided? It would be useful if information on migration flows could be provided. It was important that support was provided regarding voting rights for Kyrgyz migrant workers abroad.
CAN ÜNVER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Russian Federation was not party to the Convention. The availability of consular services represented a challenge for Kyrgyzstan. Were there new measures which enabled workers in other countries to be assisted? Information and awareness raising for migrants was important. What was being done by the Government in this regard? Voting rights were a key issue. Were there any new steps being taken to resolve this issue?
A Committee Expert said the statistics of 1 million people working abroad, with 60 per cent of them being women, was quite striking. Were these figures correct? Had field studies been carried out to assess the problems faced by this group? Cash remittances by migrant workers were a significant source of income, at around 2.5 billion dollars. Was there a policy in place to channel those remittance flows? How would the State create associations for migrants?
Another Expert said policies had been geared towards limiting the migration of women below the age of 23 for safety purposes. Could more information about that initiative be provided? What policies and measures were implemented to protect children whose parents were working abroad? How were their mental health issues dealt with, in connection with their separation from their parents? In some cases, persons were driven abroad due to their sexual identity, but then they suffered abuses in other countries like the Russian Federation. How was the State addressing issues which had driven Kyrgyz individuals abroad?
A Committee Expert asked if there had been changes to the definition of migrants in Kyrgyzstan’s legislation? What was the national definition of the term “migrant worker”? In cases where parents had emigrated for work, there was a requirement to appoint a legal guardian for their children. Was this done in practice? Was there a law in place? If a legal guardian was not appointed, what was done to ensure proper guardianship for these children?
An Expert was struck by the extent of upward migration from Kyrgyzstan and its impact on the labour market. Could more information be provided on this? What types of skills were missing from the labour market because they were being migrated? It would be enlightening to learn more about the labour market in Kyrgyzstan, its shortages, and the kind of skills the labour market needed. What challenges were encountered when enforcing the Convention?
A Committee Expert congratulated the delegation for the comprehensive work that Kyrgyzstan had done. The 2021 Constitution gave pride of place to children. A Commissioner for the Rights of the Child had been established. What protection measures were in place for children left in the country of origin? What protocols were in place concerning family reunification? What was being done to strengthen the capacities of civil servants? A lot of progress had been made regarding free legal aid; the State made legal aid available for all persons, including refugees. What were the legal support measures in place which ensured the right to participate for children with disabilities? Could further information about children in situations of internal mobility or who followed a nomadic lifestyle be provided? Marriage of girls and bride kidnappings was raised in several documents. What protection was in place for those girls?
Another Expert said there was no national data for Kyrgyzstan on the migration database. It did not really allow for a full picture of the situation in the country. Was other data available to ensure that the rights of migrant workers could be upheld. There was an initiative to give the Ombudsperson a mandate for the rights of migrants. Could information be provided in this regard?
A Committee Expert asked if the second phase of the Kyrgyzstan migration policy had been adopted? Ombudsman office salaries had been tripled; why was this the case? Who was going to supervise the activities of the consular offices in Russia? It was important to have a presence of the Ombudsman in Russia to supervise the activities of the consular offices there, given the size of the migratory flow. It was recommended that Kyrgyzstan hold consultations with civil society to align the Office of the Ombudsman with the status of national human rights institutions. It was worth seeking for the Ombudsman office to have an A status; currently it had a B status. Incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred were criminal offences, according to the Constitution. Had there been cases of this and had people been found guilty?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said efforts had been made to improve the system to protect people from human trafficking. Kyrgyzstan had an effective legal basis for protecting people from human trafficking, including the Constitution, the law on human trafficking, and the provisions of the international instruments it had ratified, which guided action against human trafficking. Kyrgyzstan had ratified the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, and its Optional Protocol. A decree from 2022 resulted in the adoption of a programme on human trafficking in Kyrgyzstan, including a plan for implementation. The Criminal Code and its article on human trafficking foresaw imprisonment of up to 11 years for perpetrators.
In 2021, an agreement between members of the Eurasian Economic Union had been signed to uphold the pension rights of workers from Member States on an equal footing. Since 1 November 2020, a social security agreement was in place between the Government of Kyrgyzstan and the Government of Türkiye, foreseeing an equal distribution of social services and pensions in both States. Kyrgyz citizens with a stable condition of HIV were provided with medication for six to 12 months and could receive medication from a trusted person if they could not travel to Kyrgyzstan themselves. Kyrgyz citizens in the Russian Federation could benefit from these services free of charge. Kyrgyzstan was becoming an attractive place for the workforce. The quota for 2023 had been approved for 25,000 foreign citizens.
At the start of 2023, the corrective facilities of the Russian Federation held more than 5,300 Kyrgyz citizens. In 2022, there was a visit by Kyrgyz authorities to Russia to discuss repatriating these citizens. Individual meetings with more than 500 Kyrgyz citizens took place in this context. This year, Kyrgyz citizens had been repatriated from 58 institutions. The question of the potential participation of Kyrgyz citizens in the military zone was raised regularly during consultations with the Russian Federation. Kyrgyzstan had stated the total unacceptability of sending Kyrgyz citizens to the war zone. Russia had also said there were currently no convicts taken to special military operations, particularly through the Wagner outfit. Work was carried out by consular representatives to raise awareness about the non-acceptability of working with mercenaries, and the criminal liability which could occur. There was unfortunately no realisable data on the number of mercenaries in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. A lot of Kyrgyz migrants received Russian citizenship, which complicated the matter.
In Russia, where most of the citizens of Kyrgyzstan went, there were also ministry facilities to ensure help during the annual assistance session, working together with the Embassy. Over 150,000 citizens had been assisted through these channels. In most cases, the Kyrgyz citizens were unskilled workers, but Kyrgyzstan was seeking to improve the skills of migrants to ensure they could earn more. The migrant flows out of Kyrgyzstan were to Russia, European countries, the Persian Gulf, the Republic of Korea and Japan, among others. Previously the migration flow to Russia was over 90 per cent of migrants, but now it was less than 70 per cent. A memorandum had been signed between the ministries and police of Japan and Kyrgyzstan to provide an information partnership for the functioning of the system on foreign labourers. This made it possible for workers from Kyrgyzstan to take up employment in Japan under 12 occupations. There was an employment centre for Kyrgyz citizens abroad which worked with non-governmental organizations.
Secret ballots had been utilised to address the issue of voting rights. Kyrgyzstan was conducting a pilot project using digital technologies, which allowed users to vote on their smart phones. Changes had been made to the voting centres in consulates and in places where there were a lot of Kyrgyz citizens. In 2021, parliamentary elections were held, and the number of voting stations and voters from foreign countries had increased, compared to previous years. Kyrgyz citizens were able to vote in cities in the United States, Russia and Italy, under the organization of the Foreign Ministry. Where facilities in Russia were lacking, there were regular consular visits to provide information and consular services, and resolve issues of Kyrgyz citizens living in Russia.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said normally migrants set up their own associations; how did the State plan to encourage the creation of local and regional associations?
JASMINKA DZUMHUR, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if there were statistics for children born abroad? How were they registered and how did they obtain citizenship? How many children in institutions were children of parents who were abroad? What measures had been imposed to ensure the reunification of families? Was there information about the adoption of children from Kyrgyzstan by families in other countries abroad? How many unemployed persons were female? How many Kyrgyz citizens returned to the country? How did they obtain their rights? Why were foreigners obliged to test for HIV to get a residence certificate? Was this request integrated into the immigration policy? What gender equality mechanisms were in place?
A Committee Expert asked what types of skills were flowing from Kyrgyzstan? What about the foreigners migrating to Kyrgyzstan? Who were they and what were their skill levels?
Another Committee Expert asked about the International Labour Organization conventions? Were there any social security agreements with other countries beyond the Republic of Korea, given the number of migrant workers in different countries? How were the rights of migrant workers returning home to Kyrgyzstan guaranteed? What was being done to strengthen the work of the Ombudsperson’s Office? What mechanisms were in place to take those in irregular migrant situations into account? What were the challenges in this regard? To what extent was civil society involved in the protection of the rights of migrant workers?
Was the migration to Kyrgyzstan regular or irregular? What was being done about those in irregular situations? What was the state of affairs of the Ombudsperson’s office? Recommendations had been made by the Human Rights Committee to strengthen the office. What was Kyrgyzstan doing in that regard? What was the “blacklist” mentioned in regard to the Russian Federation?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said treatment for HIV was free of charge. When people emigrated for work, those who had a stable HIV condition were provided with medication for six to twelve months and could obtain this through a trusted person if they were unable to collect it themselves. Foreign nationals were screened for HIV to ensure the health and safety of the population. A decree had been approved on temporary guardianship for children whose parents had left Kyrgyzstan in search of work. According to the provisions of the decree, a request could be filed to the local authorities in the place of residence of the workers. The local authorities provided care for children in Kyrgyzstan and repatriated them from the Russian Federation and other States when necessary; 263 children aged one to three were repatriated in 2021. Repatriated children received psychological and pedological support. The State provided benefits to protect the children of migrant workers. Over 1,200 families with children up to the age of 17 received benefits.
Kyrgyzstan had approved a national strategy for achieving gender equality, up to 2030. Women participated equally in all levels of political and decision-making positions. Kyrgyzstan had a comprehensive system for gender equality, including through the National Gender Equality Council. Regarding the labour market, in most cases, citizens of Kyrgyzstan were low skilled. The State was working to develop technical and vocational training to raise the skills of migrant workers. Within the Kyrgyz territory, there was currently a demand for workers in the construction sector and the textile industry. In 2021, 540,000 requests had been processed for registration of foreign citizens. Mostly these citizens came from the Russian Federation and those who came to visit relatives and family, and engage in trade and the sale of goods. Citizens from the Eurasian States did not need to request a work permit to work in Kyrgyzstan.
Currently Kyrgyzstan’s labour law did not encompass the notion of domestic workers, but the State was working on preparing a definition. This would ensure more protection for domestic workers. Once this was prepared, the State would be able to accede to International Labour Organization Convention 189. State bodies always cooperated with non-governmental organizations, and carried out joint events on awareness raising, ensuring that the rights of migrant workers were respected. The “blacklist” was created by the Russian Federation and included migrants who had breached the migration laws of the Russian Federation. The people on this list were banned from entering the Russian Federation. Currently this applied to around 49,000 Kyrgyz citizens.
The economically active population of Kyrgyzstan represented around 2.6 million people, with around 1 million of them being migrant workers. Women represented 63 per cent of migrant workers in 2015, and 54 per cent in 2022. This was due to the high level of demand for women workers in the Russian Federation. Research was done to combat the problems faced by women, and crisis centres were opened in host countries, including through the consular office in the Russian Federation. Earlier this year, a roundtable discussion had been held on women and migration, which saw the participation of many high-level State and international actors.
In 2023, remittances from migrant workers abroad had decreased, mainly due to the situation in the host countries. In 2022, 2.76 billion dollars were transferred to Kyrgyzstan by migrant workers. Citizens rarely used banks due to the high charges and instead used businesspeople from Kyrgyzstan. There was a system of barter, where money was transferred in exchange for the payment of goods. Currently, migrants were seen as an economic stimulus to Kyrgyzstan’s development. All possible sources were used to gain adequate data. The sources of information came from the State bodies and the States where citizens were working.
When migrant workers travelled abroad, they could appoint a temporary guardian for their children, without applying to a court. Social workers could appoint a guardian without the parents’ consent. There were around 88,000 children in Kyrgyzstan who had been left without parental care.
A new employment programme was being developed to broaden the opportunities for citizens abroad. Kyrgyzstan was broadening treaties with the United Kingdom and Italy, among other countries. Seasonal workers were sent to the United Kingdom, and over a two-year project, 5,000 Kyrgyz citizens had worked in the United Kingdom. Kyrgyzstan had over 50 cases regarding violations of the human rights of citizens abroad last year, with most pertaining to the Russian Federation. In 2022, a pilot project was launched on the status of the digital nomad. This was being rolled out throughout the country. Kyrgyzstan was seeking to expand the employment of citizens to allow them to improve their living standards. Citizens could go to work in the Republic of Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Czechia or Poland, among other countries.
There were 18 crisis centres in the country for women and girls suffering from domestic violence. Support and social services were provided to victims. A non-governmental organization had won a tender to address the issues of gender and domestic violence, and provide a relevant programme, which included a shelter for victims of domestic violence. A State crisis centre had been opened, which allowed women to benefit from psychological and social support in one place.
There were two migrant associations registered in Russia which had been established by Kyrgyz citizens on their own initiative. Within Russia, there were six representations of the Kyrgyz Embassy, as well as six honorary consuls, spread throughout the country. Where there were no consular services, there were travelling services to address issues affecting citizens. Every year, the diplomatic services of Kyrgyzstan in Russia provided around 160,000 consular interventions for citizens.
There was no persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Kyrgyzstan. Discrimination against this community did not seem to occur on a regular basis, so there was no record of this. Kyrgyzstan ensured education on awareness raising and tolerance. Regarding the kidnapping of brides, every year the number of such cases was decreasing. Work was being carried out with non-governmental organizations and the State to raise awareness on this issue. Seminars and workshops were being carried out on the consequences of bride kidnappings and early marriage. Only 19 cases had been detected in 2023.
Questions by Committee Experts
JASMINKA DZUMHUR, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked for more information about fighting against corruption, including details on legislation, institutional capacities, and procedures. What had been done to bring corruption under control? How did migrants enjoy the benefits of trade unions in Kyrgyzstan? Practically speaking, how did those returning from long periods of work abroad have access to health care? Could information be provided on seasonal workers in Kyrgyzstan?
A Committee Expert said it was commendable that the State had ratified the Convention on Trade Union Freedom. How were migrants able to participate in trade unions? Did Kyrgyzstan have a national strategy for combatting the worst forms of child labour? Would the State consider ratifying International Labour Organization Convention 190 and implementing it?
One Committee Expert asked for more information on how the quota system worked for migrant workers. What happened if more migrant workers wanted to come into Kyrgyzstan in excess of the quota? How were sanctions of migrant workers regulated? Did migrant workers in Kyrgyzstan have the right to form a non-governmental organization? Could there be sanctions against foreign nationals working in Kyrgyzstan if they engaged in such activities?
Another Expert said the migrant population in Kyrgyzstan was very large. In the government development plans, did the State intend to integrate migrants from the outset, and how would they go about it?
A Committee Expert asked if Kyrgyzstan communicated with the Russian Federation about the “blacklist” situation? This stigmatised the migrants. What cases had come to light under legislation and media acts relating to hate crimes? Had there really been no cases of abuse of power by law enforcement agencies? An explanation about this striking statement would be welcome.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said measures had been taken to eradicate systemic political corruption, including through legislation. Kyrgyzstan had a law on combatting corruption and State bodies implemented the provisions of the law. The Prosecutor’s office helped coordinate this work, along with local government bodies. An analysis of corruption within State bodies was also carried out. In 2022, there were over 5,000 cases of corruption initiated, with 121 sent to court. Kyrgyzstan had ratified International Labour Organization Convention 190 and there were no restrictions on the formation of trade unions, including by migrants. There were trade unions formed by migrants in the country, and more than 8,600 migrant workers were members of trade unions, including in the Russian Federation.
A timeline had been developed for the early detection of child neglect, child homelessness and the exploitation of minors. Over 900 cases of child labour had been identified in 2022, and four of these children had been engaged in the worst form of child labour. The Commonwealth of Turkic States had been created with representatives from several States to develop common positions on foreign policy issues, including issues relating to the diaspora and migration. The labour quota was decided by the Kyrgyz Cabinet of Ministers. For 2023, it was at 16,000 workers. For 2024, it would be 25,000.
National legislation on migration fully reflected the fields of the Convention. Regarding cases of abuse by law enforcement agencies, Kyrgyzstan was mainly a country of origin, so it did not have this problem. Seasonal work was covered by agreements between the ministry and employers in the receiving countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea. In 2022, Kyrgyzstan was able to get a positive decision about 40,000 Kyrgyz citizens in Russia, who had been on the “blacklist”. Consultations were regularly held with the Russian Federation on this issue. In 2021, Kyrgyzstan’s consular service worked actively to reduce the bureaucratic difficulties citizens faced when accessing consular services. Costs of consular services had been reduced from between 40 to 80 per cent.
There was a law against illegal migration and people smuggling in Kyrgyzstan. In recent times, the State had identified 230 such cases of people smuggling, and perpetrators had been prosecuted. Eight companies were found to have been illegally smuggling people abroad. Thirty-nine criminal cases had been held regarding discrimination in the past year.
JASMINKA DZUMHUR, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked Kyrgyzstan for the high-quality dialogue. She encouraged the State to take actions based on the Committee’s concluding observations, and to call on international organizations for technical assistance. She wished the delegation a successful return to Kyrgyzstan.
AZAD TAGHI-ZADA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the knowledgeable delegation from Kyrgyzstan that had come to inform the Committee about the implementation of the Convention. It would be interesting to hear what was planned regarding the methodology for remote voting in consular services, as well as the timeframe for implementation. It was important to look at past trends to predict future trends, given the youthful demographic of the population. He thanked the delegation for the interesting and rich discussion.
CAN ÜNVER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the constructive dialogue. Migration outflows from the country were primarily for economic reasons. The remittances sent to Kyrgyzstan had an important place in the economy of the country. Migration in Kyrgyzstan had both positive and negative elements. He thanked the delegation for the successful and constructive dialogue.
NURDOOLOT BAZARBAEV, First Deputy Minister of Labour, Social Security and Migration of Kyrgyzstan and head of delegation, thanked the Committee members for their contribution to the State’s efforts to protect the rights of migrant workers. In Kyrgyzstan, the agenda on migration was of particular importance. Migration processes depended on interaction between sending and receiving countries. Kyrgyzstan would continue to make progress in the country’s efforts to achieve the highest possible standards in human rights.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.