HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS IN DETENTION CENTERS

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the human rights of migrants in detention centres.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel discussion, said the decision of the Human Rights Council to tackle this specific issue was very timely. The Human Rights treaty bodies, the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review had in fact underscored with increasing urgency concerns about human rights violations related to the detention of migrants and of asylum seekers. The overall picture remained one of inadequate protection, leaving too much room for arbitrariness. The issue of arbitrary detention gave rise to the question of when and under which circumstances administrative detention of irregular migrants could be justified. Another crucial aspect of the discussion pertained to the treatment and conditions of migrants who were held in detention. The Human Rights Council must play a key role in ensuring that immigration detention, and conditions and treatment of detained migrants, complied with international human rights law.

The following Panellists participated in the discussion: the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention; the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; the Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families; the Representative of the Australian Human Rights Commission; and the Representative of Migrant Forum in Asia/Migrants Rights International.

El Hadji Malick Sow, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said the penalization of irregular migration remained a subject of preoccupation and further efforts were needed to ensure that administrative detention was but a last resort, legislation determined a maximum duration of detention, and detainees were informed of the reasons of their detention as well as of their rights. This situation was very preoccupying. Irregular immigrants should not be qualified as criminals, nor treated as such, and they should not be considered solely from a national security perspective. The detention for immigration reasons must never be used as a means of dissuasion.

Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said that the need to address the human rights concerns raised by the detention of irregular migrants was pressing in today’s context of increasing cross-border mobility. Underlying causes of those concerns included both the lack of recognition of the correlation between irregular migrations and work labour demand in countries of destination, and the growing tendency to criminalize irregular migration. Identifying and implementing alternative right-based measures to detention might help States to better comply with their human rights obligations in relation to the treatment of migrants and needed to be systematically considered by States.

Abdelhamid El Jamri, Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, said migrant workers and their families had a right to direct protection from the State from threats, violence and bodily harm, and could not be collectively or individually arrested or arbitrarily detained. They could not be arrested merely for their status as migrants. Whilst there were positive and negative points relating to international practice, it was positive that efforts were being made and that in some States systems for the transfer of migrants in detention centres had been created. However, there were also shortcomings that required efforts on the part of States and there was a lack of information on the situation of migrants detained in certain States.

Vanessa Lesnie, Director of Strategic Projects of the Australian Human Rights Commission, said that Australia had been the subject of much criticism by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Working Group on arbitrary detention for its detention of asylum-seekers. The Australian Human Rights Commission was however pleased to say that there had been significant improvements to the immigration detention policy and practice in Australia over the past few years. Although the Commission continued to have concerns about the detention of immigrants, it believed that the Australian Government was learning from the mistakes of the past. Over the years, the Australian Government had also learned that working in cooperation with the National Human Rights Institution and non-governmental organizations brought better results for everyone.

William Gois of Migrant Forum in Asia/Migrants Rights International, said examining the effectiveness of models and “alternatives” to detention should not detract from the general principle that migrants should not be detained. The current practice of detaining undocumented migrants or migrants in irregular situation did neither respond to nor resolve the root causes of why migrants ended up, or resorted to, being in an undocumented or irregular status. Of grave concern was not only the proliferation of detention centres across the world, but also the increasing involvement of private, profit-making companies. Tolerance of practices of arbitrary detention had a corrosive impact both on those who implemented them and on the societies that tolerated them.

In the course of the panel discussion, speakers said the Council should consider the possibility of preparing general guidelines to prevent the violation of human rights of migrants in detention. Detention should be used rationally and only to protect society. Voluntary return was the principal option and decent treatment should be given to migrants until their return. There was also a need to assess the basic needs of migrants as per international law. The situation of children and minors was also of great importance. Further, States had an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil a wide range of human rights for all those in their jurisdiction, regardless of their status as irregular migrants. However, over the last years, practices involving detention of migrants in administrative detention centres had increased, and migrants therefore lacked access to the rights promulgated in international human rights instruments. The issue of migrants and irregular detention also merited more than a mere morning in the Council. Further, many States had reacted to migration by hardening restrictions on migrants, leading to an increase of irregular migration and an increase in criminal groups trafficking and smuggling. States should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families.

Speaking in the discussion this morning were Côte d'Ivoire on behalf of the African Group, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Tunisia on behalf of the Arab Group, Mexico, Italy, Australia, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, France, Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR, China, Egypt, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Brazil, United States, Algeria, Ecuador, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Senegal, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Angola, Morocco, Philippines, Peru, Bangladesh, and Gabon. Also speaking was the Consultative Council for Human Rights of Morocco.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Migrants Rights International, World Organization against Torture, and International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights First, Global Alliance against Traffic in Women, Centre Independent de Recherches et d'Initiatives pour le Dialogue, and Medecins Sans Frontieres.

The next meeting of the Council will be this afternoon at 3 p.m., when the Council is scheduled to hold hear presentations from the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights and the Working Group on the right to development. It will then hold interactive discussions with them, as well as with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, who presented his report yesterday afternoon. Time allowing, the Council will also take up follow-up to the seventh special session on "the negative impact on the realization of the right to food of the worsening of the world food crisis, caused inter alia by the soaring food prices" in accordance with resolution S-7/1 and to the tenth special session on "the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights" in accordance with resolution S-10/1.


Opening Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel discussion, said the decision of the Human Rights Council to tackle this specific issue was very timely. Promoting a human rights-based approach to migration would be one of the priorities of the Office for the next biennium, and in this framework one of the tasks was ensuring that immigration control did not compromise human rights. The human rights treaty bodies, the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review had underscored with increasing urgency concerns about human rights violations related to the detention of migrants and of asylum seekers. Moreover, these bodies had drawn attention to the overall context which facilitated such violations, including the disturbing trend to criminalise irregular migration. The association of irregular migration with criminality promoted the stigmatisation of migrants and encouraged a climate of xenophobia and hostility against them.

The question of the legal basis of detention should be probed against the fundamental human rights which proscribed arbitrary detention, the High Commissioner said. This right was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although the deprivation of liberty should be a measure of last resort, migrants arriving irregularly in a new country were often detained as a routine or even mandatory procedure, often without proper judicial safeguards. Such procedures did not spare migrant children. Although many States had tried to strengthen safeguards by informing migrants about their rights and by removing obstacles that hampered reports of and recourse against abuse, the overall picture remained one of inadequate protection, leaving too much room for arbitrariness. The issue of arbitrary detention gave rise to the question of when and under which circumstances administrative detention of irregular migrants could be justified.

Another crucial aspect of the discussion pertained to the treatment and conditions of migrants who were held in detention. This related to the fundamental human rights which imposed an obligation on States to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty were treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Related to these observations was the important question of what possible alternative measures to detention should be enforced. The meeting today would provide a very useful opportunity to share experiences and good practices in this regard. International human rights norms and standards provided a solid framework to address the critical challenges related to the detention of irregular migrants. The Human Rights Council must play a key role in ensuring that immigration detention, and conditions and treatment of detained migrants, complied with international human rights law. Ms. Pillay was confident that today's deliberations would help to bring that goal closer.

Statements by the Panellists

EL HADJI MALICK SOW, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, commended the High Commissioner for Human Rights for having included the human rights of migrants among the priorities for the period of 2010/2011. The Working Group had recommended in its 2007 annual report that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights organize an in-depth deliberation on this subject with a view to identify efficient measures to avoid the violation of rights guaranteed by international juridical instruments. The Working Group was happy to see that this recommended deliberation in fact was taking place today. The Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention also commended the High Commissioner for recognizing that the penalization of irregular migration remained a subject of preoccupation, and that administrative detention could be but a last resort and must imperatively be placed within a juridical and judiciary context. The detention of minors, particularly of non-accompanied minors, required particular attention, and needed to conform to the dispositions of article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further, legislation should determine a maximum duration of detention at the end of which detainees needed to be released automatically. Detainees must also be informed of the reasons of their detention as well as of their rights, including their right to contest the legality of their detention or to have access to a lawyer.

As for the challenges regarding the implementation of these rights, the Working Group noted that some national legislation failed to stipulate that a detention needed to be ordered by a judge, and that there must be a judiciary examination of the order for detention. Detainees frequently did not have the right to contest the legality of their detention and the law often failed to stipulate a maximum period of detention, which resulted in extended detention. This situation was very preoccupying. Further, particularly precarious conditions of detention, including those which could impact a detainee’s right of defense or more generally impact the detainee’s capacity to follow the procedures in his regard, were simply unacceptable. This increased the risk of a whole series of other human rights violations, such as economic, social and cultural rights. To more systematically and comprehensively take account of the conditions of detention at a global level, and in order to provide recommendations to concerned States, the Working Group suggested in its annual report to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that the mandate of the Working Group be expanded. This would allow controlling the respect of States for their obligations relating to all human rights of detainees. The Working Group also wished to reiterate that irregular immigrants should not be qualified as criminals, nor treated as such. They must also not be considered solely from a national security perspective. Finally, the detention for reasons of immigration must never be used as a means of dissuasion.

JORGE A. BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said that the need to address the human rights concerns raised by the detention of irregular migrants was pressing in today’s context of increasing cross-border mobility. Underlying causes of those concerns included both the lack of recognition of the correlation between irregular migrations and work labour demand in countries of destination, and the growing tendency to criminalize irregular migration. Recognizing the demand for labour force of irregular migrants in countries of destination should be considered as the basis for the moral and legal obligation of countries of destination and origin to be co-responsible in the shaping and implementation of a human rights-based approach to migration governance. The criminalization of irregular migration fostered an environment of intolerance and discrimination, where root causes of irregular migration were not addressed and detention was used as an immigration deterrent, with detrimental consequences from the human rights perspective.

Mr. Bustamante reiterated that the State’s sovereign rights to safeguard its borders and regulate its migration policies should also respect both the refugee law for the protection of asylum-seekers and the State’s obligation to respect and protect all human beings under its jurisdiction, irrespective of their migration status. Identifying and implementing alternative right-based measures to detention might help States to better comply with their human rights obligations in relation to the treatment of migrants. Those might vary from cost-effective options already available in several legal systems, to more innovative ones such as open and semi-open centres, directed residence and others. Alternative measures needed to be systematically considered by the States and should be the least intrusive and restrictive and should not discriminate against particular groups of non-nationals. The case of children deserved particular attention since deprivation of liberty of children in the context of migration should be a measure of last resort. Migration-related detention of children should not be justified on the basis of maintaining the family unit. Mr. Bustamante said that much remained to be done to end arbitrariness and irregularities in the deprivation of liberty of irregular migrants and invited all stakeholders to continue to explore alternative measures to detention that promoted and protected the human rights of migrants.

ABDELHAMID EL-JAMRI, Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, said he was happy that the Council took the initiative to prepare this panel discussion. Migrant workers and their families had a right to direct protection from the State from threats, violence and bodily harm, and could not be collectively or individually arrested or arbitrarily detained. On being arrested they should be informed in a language they understood and their country of origin should be informed of their arrest or detention and the reasons for it. They had the right to appeal before a court against their arrest or detention, and had the right to reparation. They could not be arrested merely for their status as migrants. There were positive and negative points relating to international practice, and it was positive that efforts were being made in some States to improve legislative reform on migrants. In some States systems had been created for transfer of migrants in detention centres.

However, there were also shortcomings which required efforts on the part of States. There were circumstances where migrant control and detention officials were not always those mandated by law. Migrant workers arrested for having infringed migration provisions were not always held separately from other detainees, and could be subject to torture. There was a lack of information on the situation of migrants detained in certain States. The Committee had come up with a number of recommendations to States, and these were proposals to address the situation. One important point was that there was constructive dialogue between the Committee and States, and there was always an attempt to find a constructive and helpful solution. There was generally positive feedback from States following the recommendations of the Committee, and there was thus constant improvement in a range of fields. Civil society also played an important role in improving the situation of migrants.

VANESSA LESNIE, Director of Strategic Projects of the Australian Human Rights Commission, said Australia had been the subject of much criticism by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Working Group on arbitrary detention for its detention of asylum-seekers. The Australian Human Rights Commission was however pleased to say that there had been significant improvements to the immigration detention policy and practice in Australia over the past few years. For example, Australian legislation now included the principle of detention as a last resort for children, and the Government recently announced its ‘New Directions in Detention’. This indicated Australia’s much stronger human rights approach to immigration detention policy. Further, the conditions inside detention centers had generally improved and alternatives to detention were increasingly used. Although the Australian Human Rights Commission continued to have concerns about the detention of immigrants, it believed that the Australian Government was learning from the mistakes of the past.

As Australia’s National Human Rights Institution, they had extensively investigated and documented the impact of expanded and indefinite detention of children, families and adults. The results of those investigations were that arbitrary detention was wrong and harmed both detainees and the community in which it occurred. The recent experience of Australia with alternatives to detention suggested that community-based options were substantially cheaper and often more effective than closed detention, and that approximately 94 per cent of participants complied with reporting or other conditions. Over the years, the Australian Government had also learned that working in cooperation with the National Human Rights Institution and non-governmental organizations brought better results for everyone. For example, the community detention scheme was currently managed by the Australian Red Cross under contract with the Government. The relationship between the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Department of Immigration had also become more consultative and cooperative over the past few years. Further, the Australian Human Rights Commission had been frequently invited to comment on the human rights aspects of proposed immigration policy and laws.

ASHLEY WILLIAM BONAVENTURE GOIS, of Migrant Forum in Asia/Migrants Rights International, said he was looking forward to the outcome of this session leading to a resolution calling for thorough inspection and correction of the gross human rights violations happening in the current practice of arbitrary detention of migrants. In reference to the report that the Working Group on arbitrary detention had presented to the Human Rights Council at its tenth session, Mr. Gois said that examining the effectiveness of models and “alternatives” to detention should not detract from the general principle that migrants should not be detained. Very often in seeking alternatives “to” detention, such methods operated as alternatives “for” detention. The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants had elaborated on “10 Ways to Protect Undocumented Migrant Workers”, while the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had put together a “10-Point Plan of Action to address mixed migratory movements”. Mr. Gois urged the Council to call upon policy makers to test the same in adopting “alternatives” to detention. If any alternative was considered, he said, it must be open for scrutiny to human rights organizations and institutions, international organizations and embassies.

The current practice of detaining undocumented migrants or migrants in irregular situations did not respond to nor did it resolve the root causes of why migrants ended up or resorted to being in an undocumented or irregular status. Of grave concern was not only the proliferation of detention centres across the world, but also the increasing involvement of private, profit-making companies despite the consistent reporting of abuses and exploitation that occurred. The private sector involvement would not present deterrence to irregular migration. Tolerance of practices of arbitrary detention had corrosive impact not only on those who implement them, but also on a society that tolerated them. Accepting detention as a norm in managing migrations presented a corrosion of societal norms, Mr. Gois concluded.

Discussion

Among the questions and issues raised by speakers during the general discussion were that the Council should consider the possibility of preparing general guidelines to prevent the violation of the human rights of migrants in detention and to provide remedies in cases where this occurred. Detention should be used rationally and only to protect society. The situation of children and minors was also of great importance. Voluntary return was the principal option allowing for the best interests of the migrant to be taken into account. Decent treatment should be given to migrants until their return to their country of origin. There was a need to assess the basic needs of migrants as per international law. Negative conditions of detention led to feelings of humiliation and hatred, and this issue should be studied seriously in order to work towards solutions to relieve the pressures in the detention centres. Awareness raising on the crime of trafficking was a positive element in combating this phenomenon. Access to legal advice and information was also crucial.

States had an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil a wide range of human rights for all those in their jurisdiction, regardless of the status of irregular migrants. Throughout their stay in detention, the fundamental human rights of migrants should be fully respected. Only a structured dialogue could provide a comprehensive response to the migrant situation. Over the last years, practices involving detention of migrants in administrative detention centres had increased, and migrants therefore lacked access to the rights promulgated in international human rights instruments. No socio-economic conditions could justify detaining thousands of migrants in situations where they had no contact with the outside world or their families. There had been an increase of the phenomenon due to pressure on developed countries, and concerted international efforts should be made to combat the phenomenon, with alternative measures to administrative detention developed under the relevant United Nations and Security Council provisions. Administrative detention should be exceptional and a last resort.

Speaking in the discussion were Côte d'Ivoire on behalf of the African Group, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Tunisia on behalf of the Arab Group, Mexico, Italy, Australia, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, France, Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR, China, Egypt, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Brazil, United States and Algeria.

Also speaking was the Consultative Council for Human Rights of Morocco. NGOs taking the floor included Migrants Rights International, World Organization against Torture, and International Commission of Jurists.

Response from Panellists

ABDELHAMID EL-JAMRI, Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, said an issue which had not been raised in this discussion was that of migrants who were detained by organizations of organized crime. This was also true of migrants in transit, many of whom spent over three years in transit and suffered various forms of violations of their human rights. This issue needed to be borne in mind as this category of migrants was a major category. Further, it was necessary to seek the causes of irregular detention and attempt to reduce them, which was opposed to today’s practices where they waited for the problem to arise before solutions to it were sought.

VANESSA LESNIE, Director of Strategic Projects of the Australian Human Rights Commission, presented two pilot alternative approaches developed in Australia. The first one was a case-management approach that provided assistance to people who were given temporary visas. It included community assistance, immigration assistance and legal assistance, in cooperation with various organizations and institutions. Community detention had been introduced to address specific vulnerabilities of women and children in detention. The results of those two initiatives, both of them only a few years old, were significant lowering of costs, low rate of absconders, settlement outcomes were better and the health and welfare of the people were improved.

ASHLEY WILLIAM BONAVENTURE GOIS, of Migrant Forum in Asia/Migrants Rights International, said an alternative framework was already emerging as shown in the discussion, such as in the remarks made by Brazil, which noted that irregular migrants were not detained as irregular migration was not criminalised. Brazil had also offered that regularisation of irregular or undocumented migrants was the best way to solve the solution. Consular services should also be provided to migrants across the world, and giving access to consular officials was paramount in finding an alternative to detention. The United States response also provided solutions, namely the conducting of routine and random investigation of detainee grievances, which, with access to detention centres, should be opened to national human rights institutions as well as non-governmental organizations and consular services. A study should be made of the cost incurred in setting up the detention centres, and the cost in stemming irregular migration in the country of origin in deterring migration, to determine whether they were commensurate. Global migration should be examined from a perspective of dialogue among States in order to be able to address the root causes of migration - this should help improve the situation.

Discussion

Among questions and issues raised by speakers during the second part of the discussion were that the importance of the issue of migrants and irregular detention merited more than a mere morning in the Council, and that the time should be used effectively to come up with concrete proposals requiring at least an ethical commitment from States both present and absent. International humanitarian law established that every person had the right to freedom of movement, and that none should be arbitrarily deprived thereof. Many States had reacted to migration by hardening restrictions on migrants, leading to an increase of irregular migration and an increase in criminal groups trafficking and smuggling, which led to a criminalisation of migrants in irregular situations. States should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families, which contained special provisions extending to irregular migrants.

The Human Rights Council, as the primary body responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the world, could only enhance its credibility by discussing this issue, as no issue should be taboo in the Council, and it should lead to specific measures by States to improve the situation. International human rights applied to all, regardless of their nationality. The reality for many migrants was deplorable and even alarming. Detention should only be used as a final resort, and should not be excessively prolonged. The detaining of the vulnerable, such as pregnant women, mothers with children, those with disabilities and the elderly should be avoided as far as possible. Assuring the protection of migrants from the violation of their rights whilst in detention facilities should be ensured through the application of international instruments. The challenges faced by developing countries in their infrastructure and capacities to deal with the issue at hand should be recognised. Those who found themselves in the unfortunate situation of irregular migration should be sensitively treated.

Speaking were Ecuador, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Senegal, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Angola, Morocco, Philippines, Peru, Bangladesh, and Gabon. NGOs taking the floor were Human Rights First, Global Alliance against Traffic in Women, Centre Independent de Recherches et d'Initiatives po0ur le Dialogue, and Medecins Sans Frontieres.

Response from Panellists

EL HADJI MALICK SOW, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said that he was of the opinion that what had been heard was a sufficient response to the questions which had been asked this morning. He would nevertheless like to welcome the open spirit in which this panel had been conducted. This was part of the High Commissioner’s policy to make this issue a central one of her activities over the forthcoming two years. However, it was necessary to go further, to take stock of the current position as well as good and poor practices. The latter needed to be abolished.

JORGE A. BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, called the attention of the Council to the element not raised during the discussion, which was labour demand for irregular migrants in countries of destination. Migration was shaped by this factor of demand and supply. The notion of detention centres led to impressions of culmination of irregular migrants, supporting the vision of migrants as criminals or people who came to harm the nationals in countries of destination. Debate on migrants must ensure co-responsibility of countries of destination and country of origin, Mr. Bustamante concluded.

ABDELHABMID EL-JAMRI, Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families, said some speakers had called for ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers. This Convention was a guide helping countries to develop their own migration policies. Issues related to migrants were addressed in the Convention, and States could develop their own ideas on how to deal with migrant workers. States should continue to improve the conditions in centres of detention, and solve over-crowding. Migrants should not be placed in detention in places for confinement of criminals. All complaints of humiliation and abuse by public authorities in places of detention should be investigated and the guilty should be punished. Families should be informed when a migrant worker was arrested and put in detention, and this arrest should only be carried out by the appropriate mandated authorities. All judicial persons and law-enforcement officials should be given human rights training and all discrimination based on ethnic or national origin must be excluded. States needed to be vigilant with regards to detention by employers.

VANESSA LESNIE, Director of Strategic Projects of the Australian Human Rights Commission, said she would like to reiterate the call of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, namely to take stock of already existing guidelines. The Australian Human Rights Commission would like to encourage States to look at these. Many principles were already there and it was now a question of implementing them. Many models existed that could be useful to be consulted with a view to take next steps.

ASHLEY WILLIAM BONAVENTURE GOIS, of Migrant Forum in Asia/Migrants Rights International, made several proposals to the Council with regard to irregular migrants. The global recession resulted in thousands of migrants becoming irregular and Mr. Gois called for cessation of deportation programmes that many Governments had resorted to in order to deal with this problem. Countries should look into just incentives for return instead. He suggested establishment of a support desk and support system staffed by human rights institutions and social workers to meet deportees and to document deportation experiences. Finally, Mr. Gois called on the delegations to categorically reject privatisation of the migration industry.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC09104E