Experts of the Committee on Migrant Workers Commend Ecuador’s Migrant Protection Projects, Ask about Support for Persons Deported from the United States and Expedited Deportations during States of Emergency
The Committee on Migrant Workers this afternoon concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Ecuador on how it implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Committee Experts commended the State party’s projects to protect the rights of migrants, and asked questions on support for people deported from the United States and on expedited deportations from Ecuador carried out in the context of states of emergency.
Mohammed Charef, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Ecuador had begun several great projects to protect the rights of migrants, and noted with satisfaction that Ecuador had joined numerous instruments related to the rights of migrants.
Mr. Charef asked about complaints mechanisms and legal and medical assistance provided at Ecuadorian embassies in the United States to protect migrants who had been exposed to abuse or expulsion. What was done to provide a dignified and safe return? Edgar Corzo Sosa, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, also raised concerns about a 2025 agreement with the United States that enabled Ecuador to receive people from other nations with no links to the region.
Mr. Corzo Sosa asked if regulations had been passed regarding expedited deportation proceedings during states of emergencies. How were these deportations carried out? Was the presumption of innocence being violated, and was the right of people to be heard being upheld?
Saúl Pacurucu Pacurucu, Deputy Minister of Human Mobility, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, and head of the delegation, presenting the report, said Ecuador had over 2.4 million nationals abroad, around 500,000 foreign residents, and significant daily migration flows. It also hosted one of the largest refugee populations in the region. To address these realities, Ecuador had implemented the National Plan for the Global Compact for Migration 2025–2029, becoming the first country to adopt both national and local approaches.
The delegation said Ecuador had a protocol for the reception and initial assistance of deported Ecuadorian nationals, to whom various State authorities provided comprehensive psychological, educational and social care. Each deported person was provided with a card containing 40 United States dollars.
There had only been 10 flights with 96 people coming from countries such as Venezuela and Honduras under the agreement with the United States, the delegation said. The agreement solely covered the transfer of Spanish-speaking individuals from the Western Hemisphere.
The delegation also said the organic law on human mobility included the principle of non-refoulement and regulated deportation procedures, guaranteeing the right to legally challenge deportations. Under the law, the State party could adopt measures to deport foreigners who infringed migration regulations or represented a proven risk to public safety.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Charef thanked the delegation for its engagement in the dialogue and for the importance that the State party attached to migrants. By implementing measures to promote the rights of migrant workers and members of their families, the State party would continue down the path toward the full realisation of human rights, particularly for migrants, he said.
Mr. Pacurucu Pacurucu, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for the depth and rigour with which the dialogue was undertaken. He said Ecuador reiterated its full commitment to the Convention and its readiness to continue working in collaboration with the Committee towards its full implementation.
Prasad Kariyawasam, Committee Chair, said in concluding remarks that the dialogue had shown that the Committee and the State party shared the common objective of promoting the implementation of the Convention. The Committee welcomed the State party’s commitment in this regard and looked forward to continuing its fruitful collaboration with Ecuador.
The delegation of Ecuador was comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility; the General Directorate of Civil Registry and Identification; and the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee on Migrant Workers’ forty-second session is being held from 28 May to 12 June 2026. All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. Webcasts of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 3 June at 10 a.m. to conclude its consideration of the second periodic report of Ghana (CMW/C/GHA/2).
Report
The Committee has before it the fourth periodic report of Ecuador (CMW/C/ECU/4).
Presentation of Report
SAÚL PACURUCU PACURUCU, Deputy Minister of Human Mobility, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, and head of the delegation, said the Convention reinforced Ecuador's commitment to protecting its nationals and their families abroad while providing a framework for safeguarding the rights of migrant workers within the country. As a country of origin, destination, transit and return, Ecuador had over 2.4 million nationals abroad, around 500,000 foreign residents, and significant daily migration flows. It also hosted one of the largest refugee populations in the region, with more than 81,000 recognised refugees as of May 2026.
To address these realities, Ecuador had implemented the National Plan for the Global Compact for Migration 2025–2029, becoming the first country to adopt both national and local approaches. Civil society, migrant associations, local governments, international organizations, academia and the private sector participated in migration policy through the National Human Mobility Roundtable.
Local governments played a key role in integrating migrants into development plans and ensuring access to public services regardless of migration status. The State had also adopted protection mechanisms for its citizens abroad, including protocols for vulnerable Ecuadorians, missing persons, and repatriation of remains. Ecuador promoted orderly, safe and regular migration through circular migration agreements with countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. These programmes supported skills development and contributed to community development upon migrants’ return.
In cooperation with several United Nations agencies, Ecuador strengthened migrant integration and regional coordination, including through the Quito Process. Between 2019 and 2025, the Government conducted extraordinary regularisation processes, issuing over 104,000 visas and carrying out outreach campaigns to promote legal status and access to rights. The Ministry of Labour expanded employment services and inclusive recruitment initiatives, while Ecuador’s legal framework guaranteed equal treatment and non-discrimination for migrant workers and their families.
Access to education was guaranteed for all children and adolescents in situations of human mobility, with specific measures and protocols established to prevent violence, exploitation and psychosocial risks, particularly for migrant girls. Ecuador also protected unaccompanied and separated migrant children by prioritising their best interests and prohibiting actions that could result in family separation or return to unsafe conditions.
To support migrant women, Ecuador strengthened consular protection, particularly regarding gender-based violence, femicide and arbitrary detention. Awareness campaigns and training programmes helped Ecuadorians abroad understand their rights and reporting mechanisms. National laws also guaranteed gender equality in employment and professional opportunities.
The State had further strengthened its response to trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling through new legislation, national action plans, and an inter-institutional coordination mechanism focused on prevention, protection, prosecution and governance. Improvements in data collection included the launch of an interactive map on trafficking and smuggling to support evidence-based policymaking.
In conclusion, Ecuador reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the rights of migrant workers and their families in line with international human rights standards. The Government remained committed to implementing the Committee’s recommendations and continuously improving compliance with the Convention.
Questions by Committee Experts
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the fruitful dialogue with Ecuador was enriching for both parties. The question of migration in the subregion was a complicated one with many challenges, due to a lack of data, poor control at the borders, changes in migration flows, and rising violence, murders and trafficking in persons. Despite the many challenges, Ecuador had begun several great projects to protect the rights of migrants, which should be congratulated. It was also noted with satisfaction that Ecuador had joined numerous instruments related to the rights of migrants, and just last week, the State had participated in a meeting with other countries in the region on migration and borders.
Regarding the plan which addressed the daily lives of migrants, who were the stakeholders involved in the implementation of the plan? Was there any assessment of its effectiveness so far? What were the challenges, limitations and lessons drawn from this experience? What was being done to address the shortage of data? Various Ecuadorians had left the country due to high-risk situations and were seeking employment abroad. Could data on the number of people leaving, broken down by age, be provided? Where had they gone and where were they settling? What was Ecuador doing to involve the diaspora in the development of public policies?
How was the consular service distributed abroad? What practices, complaints mechanisms, and access to legal and medical assistance were provided at Ecuadorian embassies in the United States to protect migrants who had been exposed to abuse or expulsion? It was understood that the Ecuadorian Government offered grants to those expelled from the United States; was this the case? Was there any legal or medical support provided during deportation proceedings? What was done to provide a dignified and safe return?
Once back in Ecuador, what was being done to support individuals and mitigate their suffering? Most of them had returned in debt; were there measures or programmes in place to encourage them becoming economically empowered? Were there any bilateral agreements ensuring the exportability of their social rights? How could the transfer their remittances home, especially from the United States, be facilitated? In 2025, transfers reached a historic record. How could this significant jump be explained? Was there a tax on these remittances?
Ecuador had long been considered as a safe haven until recently in the subregion. The country had seen an increase in homicides over recent years, with deaths due to violence increasing by 30 per cent. This compounded the challenges faced by the country.
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Ecuador, said in March 2025, an executive decree suspended the implementation of the regularisation procedure on foreign aid, which had affected various non-governmental organizations. Was there any way of filing for alternative means of funding? What was the State planning to do to remedy the situation of women and girls whose migrant situation was unregulated? Over 350,000 migration certificates had been handed down, which was positive, but regulatory programmes had not been broadly implemented. The costs of the certificates were high, meaning a large number of people remained outside of the programmes. There were no permanent options for regularisation. Was the State planning to do anything to enable easier grating of visas, including making them low cost or free? Would specific measures be considered for the Venezuelan population?
Previously, the Committee had recommended that Ecuador redouble efforts to draft and implement a policy which was accessible and affordable to all migrant workers and their families. The efforts made by the State in this regard had showed their will to act. Those who could not get regularised were often forced to undertake informal labour in precarious positions. In 2024, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had recognised efforts made by Ecuador to regulate migration, but remained concerned that migrants, particularly those from Venezuela, continued to face barriers in access to employment, social security and education. Could the State party provide views on this? Should the regularisation of these workers continue? Had the Government taken steps to address the situation? What data and statistics were available to help the Committee better understand the impact of the strengthening of complaints mechanisms?
An agreement with the United States in 2025 enabled Ecuador to receive people from other nationalities who had no links to the region. Had regulations been passed regarding expedited deportation proceedings during states of emergencies? Between 2022 and 2026, the Committee had information that there had been at least five states of emergency due to domestic unrest. There had been a particular case where a Venezuelan migrant had been tortured during the state of emergency. There had also been cases where visas had been immediately revoked, and due process had been hindered, including deportations of journalists from Cuba and Colombia. This seemed to indicate a weakening of safeguards; could the delegation comment on these incidents? How were these deportations being carried out? Was the presumption of innocence being violated? Was the right of people to be heard being upheld?
A Committee Expert said the best interest of the child was the cornerstone of the protection of migrant children. How did the competent authorities determine the best interests of the child in asylum proceedings, regularisation and return, especially for unaccompanied children or those separated from their families? What specific measures had been taken to ensure that no child was deprived of their liberty due to their migration statue or that of their parents? What measures had been adopted to step up reunification procedures, to find long lasting solutions for migrant and refugee children, particularly those from Venezuela?
The Committee was also concerned about mechanisms for migrant children impacted by armed conflict and forced recruitment. What were the current procedures used in points of entry to identify children likely to be recruited and used in organised crime? What training was provided to officials to enable them to identify these children?
Another Expert commended the delegation of Ecuador for being present at the constructive dialogue with the Committee. There had been issues for migrants who wished to register with trade unions, despite the existence of decrees in this regard. What measures was the State party taking to ensure trade unions could freely register without discrimination, and migrant workers could join them and be members of the board of directors? How did the State support social security for women in need of services for maternity leave? Did the State plan to ratify Convention 155 on security at work?
Another Expert asked what kind of challenges the State faced in complying with the Convention? How did the Government work with the private sector to ensure the rights of migrant workers were respected? Did the State have plans to enhance Government and business cooperation to ensure the rights of migrant workers were being met?
A Committee Expert asked if there were any Ecuadorian nationals who had ended up in third party countries, and what had the Government done to assist them? Had any steps been taken to facilitate the resettlement of those who wanted to return to the country and enable them to invest the funds they had saved up? Did the State have a national human rights institution and if so, what was its status?
Another Committee Expert asked for more information about Ecuador’s consular points in the countries where Ecuador had the biggest migration flows? How did they provide services for Ecuadorians abroad? How did Ecuadorians abroad participate in elections? Were they able to vote?
An Expert asked how the digitised map was protected from traffickers?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said consular offices in the United States had been reinforced with a greater number of staff members, trained and available to address requests and vulnerability issues. Each deported person was provided with a card containing 40 United States Dollars, which allowed the returned person to buy a phone card, or a bus ticket to return them to their hometown. Psychological and health support was provided at the airport, and people were also given the opportunity to obtain documents. United Nations agencies such as the International Organization for Migration were present and could provide support as required. There had only been 10 flights with 96 people coming from countries such as Venezuela and Honduras, under the agreement with the United States. It only permitted Spanish speaking people hailing from the continent, requesting refugee status.
A web service had been used by over a million people, and a chat system addressed the overflow of phone calls at consulate offices to provide additional assistance. Online systems granted visas and other documentation, allowing more to be done online, reducing the number of persons going to consulates in person. A contingency plan had been drafted that provided assistance to Ecuadorian citizens in the United States via consulates. Once migrant workers arrived at the countries of destination, consular workers followed up on them and checked in on their wellbeing. A public policy meant Ecuadorians migrating no longer needed to incur debt; they were given housing and a visa. This was beneficial for all parties, particularly the workers who may be travelling abroad for the first time.
The State party recognised the supremacy of international human rights treaties over national documents. The consular network provided monitoring and ongoing support for the Ecuadorian migrant population. Between 2023 and 2026, more than 10,000 job vacancies were filled due to migration. Events were held by the consular offices to improve social cohesion, with more than 500 events held in 2024. These initiatives highlighted a unified consular services system. The Ombudsman’s office provided free legal assistance to vulnerable individuals. An online programme “Justice away from home” aimed to provide legal assistance and free legal representation.
Several laws enabled children to receive free and immediate health care whatever their migration status. Other rulings protected the right to education of a migrant girl, and laid out the obligation of the State for protection upon entry. These precedents showed increased usage of the Convention to improve the lives of persons on the move.
Various programmes had been implemented, including safe education communities, which sought to provide safe educational opportunities for children and families. There were also national programmes to eradicate violence and risk, as well as child labour. More than 48,000 educational professionals had been provided with training, including on courses preventing xenophobia and violence. Psychosocial support for teachers was also provided and action plans had been developed which went hand in hand with specific protocols to prevent and address racial discrimination in the national system.
The Constitution recognised protection for Ecuadorians on the move and the law on human mobility recognised returned Ecuadorians as a group which required particular attention. The possibility of recognising contribution periods abroad depended on the agreement between Ecuador and the country where the agreement was made. Measures required to be implemented for returnees included the recognition of education and labour courses conducted abroad. An instrument obliged public and private employers to register their employees and have checks conducted on their workers. Between 2020 and April 2026, more than 8,000 specialised inspections on health and safety in the workplace were conducted. More than 80,000 labour inspections in total had been conducted during this time period.
Voting abroad was not compulsory, but it had been coordinated so ballot papers could be transferred in a timely manner, enabling those abroad to vote on the same day as those in Ecuador. Over 470,000 people had registered to vote abroad.
In 2025, more than 9,400 Ecuadorians were deported. Almost 20,000 citizens had been deported in 2023 which represented the peak; the figures had been falling since then.
Questions by Committee Experts
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the figures, which were important. What happened to non-Ecuadorian deportees accepted by Ecuador who had no links to the country? Ecuador was the first country in Latin America to have given women the right to vote. Despite the notable progress, migrant women continued to face difficulties which seriously hindered progress in the country, particularly the issue of violence against women, including migrant women. Migrant women faced issues, including sexual violence and a lack of access to justice. What happened to children who were living far from their mothers? What was the place and role of non-governmental organizations regarding migration and how many were there in the country?
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Ecuador, said answers had not been received regarding the issues of expedited deportations, procedural weakening, xenophobia and racism against Venezuelan women, and abuses and crimes against migrants, among others.
Responses by the Delegation
Protection guarantees for refugees were included in the organic law on human mobility, which stated that refugee determination procedures needed to be individualised. The State party was required to provide a free interpreter for applicants and guidance in an understandable language. The law also protected applicants’ privacy rights and the best interests of the child. Guardians were appointed for unaccompanied minors. The organic law included the principle of non-refoulement and regulated deportation procedures, guaranteeing the right to legally challenge deportations. The State party could adopt measures to deport foreigners who infringed migration regulations or represented a proven risk to public safety.
Some 5,226 Ecuadorian children and adolescents had been deported from the United States from 2022 to 2025. The State party took actions in response in line with its international legal obligations. The Consular Embassy of Ecuador in the United States carried out consular protection duties to protect the integrity of Ecuadorian children and adolescents. The State also had a protocol for the reception and initial assistance of deported Ecuadorian nationals, to whom various State authorities provided comprehensive psychological, educational and social care. Children and adolescents who remained in the country while their parents resided abroad could access special protection services and education, health and other basic services.
The State party had implemented exceptional measures to close certain borders temporarily. These measures prevented the irregular entry and exit of individuals, the illegal smuggling of migrants, and related crimes. The closures were implemented in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality. The migration authority promoted dignified and respectful treatment of migrants.
The State party had improved its measures for searching for missing persons in the context of migration. In 2022, a manual on searches was developed, and an inter-institutional protocol on searches was developed in 2025, which was currently under review. The State planned to develop a specific protocol on foreigners in Ecuador in 2026.
The Ministry of the Interior trained around 4,500 people in 2025 to investigate cases of trafficking in persons. Within the Ministry, a case coordination team had been set up to provide timely, specialised assistance to victims of trafficking. The police carried out profiling, identification and victim rescuing activities and were working to dismantle trafficking networks. The Office of the Attorney General had in 2023 developed a guide on the criminal investigation of trafficking cases, and the Ministry of Interior had published an interactive map on cases of trafficking in persons.
Internal displacement was becoming more frequent in Ecuador due to natural disasters, armed violence, drug trafficking, pollution and other forms of social unrest. The Ombudsperson’s Office had drafted a report on the impact of violence and internal displacement between 2022 and 2024. The State was working on policies to address the needs of internally displaced persons and ensure their safety and rights.
In December 2019, a platform was launched for the drafting of reports submitted to United Nations treaty bodies and for monitoring of treaty bodies’ recommendations. Since 2019, Ecuador had been implementing extraordinary migration regulation processes, through which at least 150,000 visas had been issued, including 95,000 temporary resident visas.
Third-country nationals who entered Ecuador under the agreement with the United States were provided with regular migratory status and could opt for assisted voluntary return to their country of origin or to apply for asylum. Persons who chose voluntary return were hosted in shelters managed by international organizations through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The agreement solely covered the transfer of Spanish-speaking individuals from the Western Hemisphere.
In 2024, Ecuador adopted a policy and special measures to prevent sexual violence against migrants. These measures were implemented by an inter-institutional roundtable on the eradication of sexual violence. The State sought to strengthen capacity building for civil servants and officials related to the prevention of sexual violence, and to provide comprehensive care for children and adolescents who were victims of sexual violence in schools. Under the national action plan to eradicate violence in schools, adopted in 2025, the State had set up a technical board on the eradication of violence and implemented measures to prevent physical and psychosocial violence against children. Ecuador was further working to promote online safety among students and prevent and monitor digital violence.
The national education system provided comprehensive support to children and adolescents who had been deported or returned to Ecuador. Some 12,300 schools provided specialised support programmes for such children. Counselling professionals provided psychosocial support for students in vulnerable situations, benefitting 1.7 million students. The State party had developed pedagogical strategies to encourage children to stay in school.
Ecuador had bolstered its policy framework to prevent and eradicate violence against women, including through the law on the prevention of violence against women, the organic law on human mobility, and relevant labour regulations. The State provided consular protection services for Ecuadorian women on the move abroad. It had strategies for social protection for migrants and a project that aimed to improve integration opportunities for migrants.
Employers were obligated to register migrant workers and their work contracts with the State. Labour inspectors were authorised to carry out audits and random inspections, and issue sanctions to employers who paid migrants less than the minimum wage.
Questions by Committee Experts
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that in recent years in Ecuador, there had been an increase in discrimination and xenophobia against people on the move. Among reported incidents, there was physical violence, expulsion of migrants from host communities, prohibition of contracting foreigners, and expulsion of people out of homes. These actions largely targeted Venezuelans and were incited by hate speech from politicians and on social media. What was being done to prevent such actions? Were there State guidelines on the prevention of xenophobia and discrimination?
There were reports of systematic discrimination of Venezuelan women, who encountered barriers to accessing basic services and institutional protection. Some of these women were reportedly sexually harassed, including in health centres, which discouraged them from accessing essential health services. How was the State addressing this issue?
In April 2026, at least six Ecuadorian citizens were deported by the United States to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. How were these people supported? What was the State doing, beyond the 40 United States Dollars stipend, to support returning migrants to integrate into Ecuadorian society?
Around 11,000 women migrants were working as domestic workers. What steps had been taken to protect domestic workers’ rights and regularise their situation? How had the State party implemented International Labour Organization Convention 189 and its Labour Code in this regard?
There was no centralised data system on migrant workers or child migrants. When would the National Information System on Human Mobility be established? Was the platform for monitoring recommendations from human rights treaty bodies now operational? What training had been provided for public officials related to the Convention? Had the State party assessed whether it could make a declaration related to articles 76 and 77 of the Convention related to the individual communication mechanism?
What efforts had been made to reopen closed borders? Border closures made cross-border work more precarious and jeopardised industries that relied on open borders.
Did the Ombudsperson’s Office have a specialised mechanism for the promotion of migrant workers? The Office reportedly had a limited budget and weak leadership, limiting its operational capability. What was the State doing to strengthen the Office?
The Committee had received information on the case of a Venezuelan citizen who was arrested and tortured in 2024 by military officers who had since disappeared. What became of this person? What support measures and remedies were provided to victims of trafficking, and what types of exploitation were addressed in court cases involving trafficking? What impact had the national action plan to combat trafficking of migrants had?
It was reportedly difficult for irregular migrants to register their children born in Ecuador. How was the State party addressing this? Did civil society organizations participate in drafting the State party’s report and migration policy? There were 160 victims of femicide in Ecuador from 2014 to 2026. Did the State have an institution to address incidents of femicide? How was climate change impacting migration in Ecuador? Could the State party provide information on migrants with disabilities?
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that Ecuador had done much for migrants but much remained to be done. What resources were devoted to migration policies and projects? How did the State support civil society organizations? How effective was the organic law on human mobility? How many non-Ecuadorians had the State received? What was the State party’s position on assigning “climate refugee” status? Was the return of migrant children managed by the police department?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the Ombudsperson’s Office, the national human rights institution, was established in 1996. It was mandated to promote and protect human rights, prevent torture, and implement human rights educational programmes. The Ombudsperson’s Office could not be held criminally liable for their opinions or for the professional activities they carried out. The Ombudsperson’s Office had financial and administrative autonomy. It had a national mechanism for the protection of migrants.
The State carried out ongoing training activities on the rights of migrant workers. Between 2023 and 2025, thousands of migrants participated in employability and entrepreneurial courses.
The Constitution prohibited discrimination on various grounds, including ethnicity and place of birth. Penalties of one to three years of prison were issued for hate crimes and hate speech, or up to 26 years if the hate crime led to death. All State policies needed to be in line with the Constitution and could not violate people’s rights. The State had developed guidelines on the prevention of discrimination and on the collection of evidence, victim protection, and punishment of hate crimes. Between 2021 and 2026, there had been 145 cases involving trafficking heard by courts, and 347 cases of hate crimes. The law on public services governed the actions of civil servants. The Government had conducted awareness raising campaigns on non-discrimination. The judiciary had various policies in place to promote access to justice for women and to prevent revictimisation. Migrant women, regardless of their migratory status, could submit complaints and receive protection measures.
The State ensured migrant workers’ rights to form and participate freely in trade unions, in line with International Labour Organization Convention 87. It promoted access to labour contracts, social security, and decent working conditions for migrant workers. Domestic workers had the same labour rights as other workers. Labour inspections oversaw compliance with labour laws by employers of domestic workers.
The national directorate for civil registry conducted birth registration of foreign persons born on Ecuadorian soil in line with constitutional provisions, which recognised the right to an identity. The directorate ensured access to birth registration services for foreign persons, regardless of migratory status. When persons did not have the right documentation, they were issued with temporary identity documents until their status was regularised. Mobile units provided this service in remote areas.
Reform to the human mobility law did not exceed the limits established by the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. The reform included grounds for the cessation of migration status when persons had voluntarily settled in a third country or had been absent from Ecuadorian territory without authorisation to travel.
The police had a unit that was competent to protect minors and restore their rights. It implemented immediate interventions to remove minors from hostile environments and conducted training and awareness raising campaigns to prevent the violation of children’s rights.
The case coordination team worked to provide immediate assistance to victims of trafficking and developed tools for detecting victims. Regarding the 2024 case involving the alleged enforced disappearance of a Venezuelan citizen, court proceedings were underway involving military personnel who were allegedly involved, and over 300 pieces of evidence had been collected as part of investigations.
There were various Government programmes that promoted citizen participation and capacity building for civil society organizations.
Closing Remarks
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for its engagement in the dialogue and for the importance that the State party attached to migrants who settled in or transferred through Ecuador. Mr. Charef also welcomed the clarity and precision of the responses provided by the State party, which would help the Committee’s efforts to develop concluding observations. By implementing measures to promote the rights of migrant workers and members of their families, the State party would continue down the path toward the full realisation of human rights, particularly for migrants.
SAÚL PACURUCU PACURUCU, Deputy Minister of Human Mobility, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the depth and rigour with which the dialogue was undertaken. The delegation had presented the progress achieved by Ecuador in implementing the Convention and challenges that it faced in this regard. It welcomed the Committee’s recognition of the State’s important efforts to address migration flows that far exceeded its capacity, and of its ratification of international human rights instruments. Ecuador was the first country in the world to have ratified all 27 such instruments.
The State party was also pleased that the Committee had positively assessed the national action plan to implement the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The dialogue with the Committee had highlighted the importance of inter-institutional coordination and mainstreaming a human rights-based approach in migration management. Ecuador reiterated its full commitment to the Convention and its readiness to continue working in collaboration with the Committee towards the full implementation of the rights recognised therein.
PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had shown that the Committee and the State party shared the common objective of promoting the implementation of the Convention. The Committee welcomed the State party’s commitment in this regard. Its concluding observations would seek to further improve the State’s practices going forward. The Committee looked forward to continuing its fruitful collaboration with Ecuador.
___________
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.
CMW26.002E