COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS OPENS ELEVENTH SESSION

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this morning opened its eleventh session, hearing an address by Ibrahim Salama, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and discussing the initial report to be presented by Sri Lanka with non-governmental organizations. The Committee also adopted its agenda and programme of work.

Mr. Salama, opening the session on behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office had been engaged over the last couple of months in identifying its strategic priorities for the next biennium 2010/2011 and that one of those priorities was to ensure the realization of human rights in the context of migration. The Office would thus strive to make the international community more responsive to the human rights dimensions of migration. Increasing the number of ratifications of the Convention was also one of their aims. He noted that the recent accession to the Convention by Nigeria had brought the number of States parties to 42. Further the membership of the Committee would soon expand to 14 Experts.

Abdelhamid El Jamri, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the session starting today was taking place in a framework where they were seeing a lot of activities around the issue of migrants’ rights. They needed to increase the protection of migrant workers all around the world. He noted that migratory issues were increasingly being discussed all around the world, especially in the context of the economic crisis, given the rising unemployment everywhere. Because of the current economic situation, migration was also increasing.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts presented their inter-sessional activities, raised issues and asked various questions. One Expert noted that there was a fear about granting rights to migrants without papers. People saw this as a problem. The Convention covered a small group of people, but they had rights that needed to be protected. Another Expert stressed the importance of training and wondered on which priorities they should focus. Experts also wondered whether or not it would be appropriate for the Committee to address the issue of the “Kafala” system that was in use in Gulf countries and whether they should issue a general comment on it.

Speaking on the initial report of Sri Lanka, which will be discussed this afternoon and tomorrow, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said the report had dealt extensively with the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and also the labour rights enjoyed by Sri Lankan citizens. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan migrant workers were often living in another country where even the basic labour laws of the host country were not applicable. Lack of information among Sri Lankan workers was also a grave concern and a major contributing factor to worker/employer abuse.

Speaking were representatives of Action Network for Migrant Workers and the Women and Media Collective, Kav LaOved, Caritas Lebanon Migrants Centre, Migrant Workers Protection Society of Bahrain, and International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will start its consideration of the initial report of Sri Lanka (CMW/C/LKA/1).

Opening Statements

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chief, Human Rights Treaties Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, opening the session on behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office had been engaged over the last couple of months in identifying its strategic priorities for the next biennium 2010/2011. One of those priorities was ensuring the realization of human rights in the context of migration. The Office would strive to make the international community more responsive to the human rights dimensions of migration. Increasing the number of ratifications of the Convention was also one of their aims. Their strategy also focused on improving the reporting rate of States parties to the Convention. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was organising, in cooperation with the International Organisation of la Francophonie, a treaty reporting training for the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) region.

Mr. Salama also noted that the recent accession to the Convention by Nigeria had brought the number of States parties to 42. Further the membership of the Committee would soon expand to 14; elections would take place at the meeting of States parties on 3 December 2009.

Also, on 17 September 2009, the Human Rights Council had held a discussion, in plenary, on the rights of migrants who were in detention. This very important event had helped them to show how relevant the Convention was in the current context of the debate on migrations, said Mr. Salama. The Human Rights Council had adopted at its last session a resolution on migration and the human rights of the child. The resolution requested, among other things, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a study on challenges and best practices in the implementation of the international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration.

Turning to the harmonisation of working methods, Mr. Salama said that members of the different treaty bodies had met in Geneva for the ninth Inter-Committee Meeting in June. Also, in her opening speech to the twelfth session of the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner had underscored the importance of treaty bodies and noted the significant and ever increasing challenges to the system. She had thus invited all stakeholders to initiate a process of reflection on how to streamline and strengthen the treaty body system to achieve better coordination among treaty bodies, but also in their interaction with the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures.

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the High Commissioner had very much shown that she wanted to bring the Convention forward. The session starting today was taking place in a framework where they were seeing a lot of activities around the issue of migrants’ rights. The Committee was also happy to see Nigeria become the forty-second State to join the Convention. Also, from 2010 on they would have 14 Experts on the Committee.

Mr. El Jamri said that they needed to increase the protection of migrant workers all around the world. Committee members had met with the African Group to continue to promote their work and urged States to submit their reports. They had also participated in a panel discussion at the Human Rights Council, as Mr. Salama had noted, and had also participated in a preparatory meeting for the upcoming Athens Global Forum on Migration.

Mr. El Jamri noted that migratory issues were increasingly being discussed all around the world, especially in the context of the economic crisis, given the rising unemployment. Because of the current economic situation, migration was also increasing.

Mr. El Jamri further noted that he had taken the initiative to send a letter to the Swedish Presidency of the European Union and had asked for a meeting with them to address the issue of migration. This request had been accepted and the Committee would meet with them tomorrow afternoon in a private meeting.

Discussion with Committee Members

In the ensuing discussion between Committee Members and Mr. Salama, Experts presented their inter-sessional activities, raised issues and asked various questions. One Expert noted that there was a fear about granting rights to migrants without papers. People saw that as a problem. The Convention covered a small group of people, but they had rights that needed to be protected. Other Experts stressed the importance of the Convention and that it could help promote dialogue. Another Expert underlined the importance of training and wondered on which priorities they should focus, considering the objectives of the Convention and how they could find the appropriate tools. Another Expert also noted that the Convention was not often mentioned in national courts; this was an issue of training. More efforts were required to circulate information on the Convention.

Mr. Salama said that indivisibility was a key principle of human rights. The fact that there were several different conventions should not hide the fact that human rights were indivisible. Further, the objective of all their activities was towards harmonization of the system of conventions. The conventions should be implemented as one system.

Mr. Salama also noted that one could already see changes occurring in the way the rights of migrants were being addressed. Migrants’ rights were one of the six strategic priorities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the next biennium. Despite the relative modesty of what had been done so far, he thought that they were now moving forward in the right direction.

Experts also wondered whether or not it would be appropriate for the Committee to address the issue of the “Kafala” system and whether they should issue a general comment on it.

One Expert noted that the Kafala system was a system which existed in the Gulf countries. Under it, any person going to these countries needed to have a guarantor who was responsible for the person entering the country. This system had a legal and a practical side to it. While it had been put in place to protect people, the practical side of this system entailed some dangers. The guarantors often became a middle-man, who kept the passport of the migrant and asked him to bring him money.

Discussion with Non-Governmental Organizations on Report of Sri Lanka

A representative of Action Network for Migrant Workers and the Women and Media Collective, said that they had viewed with concern the report presented by the Government of Sri Lanka. The report had dealt extensively with the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and also the labour rights enjoyed by Sri Lankan citizens. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan migrant workers were often living in another country where even the basic labour laws of the host country were not applicable. Many of those working in the Middle East did not have the cover of any legislation other than the safety provided by the local Missions. The Committee had to examine the conditions and experiences of workers who were working and living in United Nations Member States that were not party to the Convention. Sri Lanka was a developing country and depended on the richer countries for loans and welfare measures, hence one of the major problems was its inability to strongly take up the issues with the richer countries in the Gulf region in relation to the rights of workers. The lack of political power was one of the major impediments as Sri Lanka remained a beneficiary with a dependency mentality and not a decision maker.

A representative of Kav LaOved said that Israel received a high number of Sri Lankan migrant workers. According to Israel’s Central Bureau for Statistics, some 2,200 Sri Lankan nationals had entered Israel with work permits in 2008; 80 per cent of them had been women. The majority of them came to Israel to work as caregivers for the elderly and the disabled. Despite the large degree of migrant workers entering Israel from Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan Government had neglected to enter into bilateral agreements or informal arrangements with Israel on labour migration. This lack of cooperation created a fertile ground for corruption exploitation and abuse of migrant workers. Lack of information among Sri Lankan workers was also a grave concern and a major contributing factor to worker/employer abuse. The current public information and education campaigns were ineffective and many Sri Lankan migrant workers arrived in Israel without having the most basic information about their rights. The need for effective pre-departure orientation for all migrant workers was paramount.

A representative of Caritas Lebanon Migrants Centre said that the demand for migrant workers to take low-skilled or unskilled jobs shunned by the local labour force had increased in Lebanon over the past 10-15 years. The Lebanese Ministry of Labour had indicated that the number of Sri Lankan migrant workers totalled approximately 90,000 people. They worked for rather low wages and under difficult conditions with the hope of sending their remittances or returning home eventually to improve their financial situation and that of their families. The main method in which Sri Lankan migrant workers came to work in Lebanon was through recruitment agencies. The lack of monitoring of the agencies on the ground had resulted in a number of rights violations. There had been reports of agencies recruiting children and assisting in the creation of false passports. Even when acting legally, these agencies charged exorbitant fees that were extremely difficult for the workers to pay back. On the pre-departure orientation, the majority of attendees had insisted that these sessions had suffered from a lack of efficiency and that the amount of information taken-in by the workers was quite low. Country-specific information on their rights and responsibilities in Lebanon was not being provided. There was also no signed agreement between the Governments of Sri Lanka and Lebanon on labour migration.

A representative of Migrant Workers Protection Society of Bahrain said that Bahrain was a receiving country and most Sri Lankan workers came to work as domestic workers or in the construction or garment industries. There was an urgent need for the opening of a Sri Lankan Embassy in the Kingdom of Bahrain and the appointment of a competent labour and welfare officer to address the labour issues of migrant workers. Without an Embassy, no official data was available to the Sri Lankan Government about the victims of abuses of human rights violations. Although the Government of Sri Lanka had signed bi-lateral agreements with Bahrain, in order for migrant workers to receive the benefits Sri Lanka had to effectively follow-up the implementation of such agreements. Further bi-lateral agreements were needed to provide protection to workers. In Bahrain domestic workers fell into the family category and were not provided many of the protections that other workers received. The illegal practices of recruitment agencies were an ongoing problem.

A representative of International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, said that a serious issue was the issue of Sri Lankan Embassy and Consulate personnel, as the officers did not receive enough training and could not handle the issues that migrants were facing abroad. As an example, staff members of the Sri Lanka embassy in Korea were not trained to speak the Korean language. Further, no measures had been taken by the Sri Lankan Government to offer pre-departure training. Also, the lack of awareness of the services offered was appalling. In one of the surveys they did they found out that migrant workers knew very little about the social security schemes that were offered to them. On the issue of bilateral agreements, they had called for transparency and to have a look at those documents to see how they complied with the Convention. The bilateral agreements should become a public document.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts made comments and asked questions, among which were whether there were any cases of women who had escaped prostitution rings and had gone back to Sri Lanka? Were there any lawsuits in this regard? Had testimonies of such women been included in training programmes for departing migrants? Another Expert noted that the presentations by the non-governmental organizations were only dealing with Sri Lankan workers that were abroad and noted that the Convention also covered the protection of migrant workers from abroad living in Sri Lanka. Further, what services did the representatives exactly expect from the Sri Lankan consular services? Was the number of agreements between the Sri Lankan Government and receiving countries linked to the number of workers in a specific country? What about the number of consulates abroad? Were there sufficient consulates in the countries of destination to meet the requirements of workers? Had the non-governmental organizations addressed their issues to the Government or consulate service of Sri Lanka? Had they done anything to protect Sri Lankan migrant workers hand-in-hand with the local embassies or consulates?

In their answers, non-governmental organizations representatives said that, with regard to the preparation of the Sri Lankan report, non-governmental organizations had not been consulted. However, representatives of the Sri Lankan Government had been invited to the conference that had prepared the shadow report and some of them had been present. Bilateral agreements between Sri Lanka and other countries were not transparent. The basic provisions of the Convention were apparently not included in these agreements. They wanted the Committee to be able to receive copies of these agreements to analyze them. Another concern was also the practice by some recruitment agencies that kept the passports of the migrant workers.

Some of the representatives said that they had not had any contacts or direct dialogue with the Sri Lankan Government. Others had made attempts but those had not been successful.


For use of information media; not an official record

CMW09016E