COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS OPENS THIRTEENTH SESSION

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this morning opened its thirteenth session, during which it will review the reports of Albania, Ecuador and Senegal on how those countries are fulfilling their obligations under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The Committee also heard an address by a representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, updating members on developments since their last session, and held a public meeting with non-governmental organizations on the reports of Ecuador and Senegal to be presented later this week.

In opening remarks, Craig Mokhiber, Officer in Charge, Development and Economic and Social Issues Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made the promotion of the human rights of all migrants one of its six thematic priorities of this biennium. The High Commissioner currently chaired the Global Migration Group, a collective of 14 United Nations agencies, the International Organization for Migration and the World Bank. Through the Global Migration Group, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sought to promote and mainstream a human rights based approach to migration within the UN system and beyond, and to highlight key migration and human rights issues at the international level. On 30 September 2010, the Global Migration Group Principals adopted a landmark statement on promoting and protecting human rights of perhaps the most vulnerable of all migrant groups, those in an irregular situation. The statement unequivocally declared that universal human rights norms applied to all migrants, regardless of their immigration status.

Mr. Mokhiber noted that this session was a particularly important one as it marked the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. The chosen theme for this event, “Protecting Rights, Building Cooperation”, spoke to the essence of the Convention. The theme of this year’s Human Rights Day, discrimination, was equally relevant for this Committee. It called upon people to “Speak Up: Stop Discrimination”. On many occasions the High Commissioner had expressed concern at the rise of intolerance, xenophobia and racism directed at migrants and their communities, including acts of extremist violence against migrants in transit, and urged States to take firm measures to protect them.

During the discussion with non-governmental organizations, speakers noted that bilateral agreements between countries could sometimes undermine rights guaranteed by the Convention and that in some countries, domestic laws had not been brought into line with States’ obligations under the Convention. Speakers also touched upon issues of arbitrary detention, deportation, the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, conditions in detention centres, discriminatory visa regimes and the obligations of States to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.

During this meeting the Committee also adopted its agenda and programme of work.


When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon it will begin consideration of the initial report of Albania (CMW/C/ALB/1).


Statement

CRAIG MOKHIBER, Officer in Charge, Development and Economic and Social Issues Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said he was pleased to inform the Committee that the Chairpersons of the treaty bodies had issued a joint statement on the occasion of the Millennium Development Goal Summit in September. In the statement the Chairpersons urged Member States to be guided by human rights in finalizing the Summit Outcome Document and in establishing national action plans. They drew the attention of Member States to the guidance offered by human rights treaties and to the work of treaty bodies and emphasized that realizing the Millennium Development Goals was an important step on the longer road towards the full and effective realization of human rights for all and that at the same time the protection and promotion of human rights was critical for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

Mr. Mokhiber said that as the Committee was aware, the calls to strengthen the treaty body system and to make it more effective continued unabated. A meeting of treaty body experts on this topic was held in Poznan, organized by the University of Poznan with the support of Polish authorities, at which participants reflected on the independence of members and the enhancement of the role of the Chairpersons. In addition, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was facilitating a series of consultations involving all treaty bodies. A meeting with the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was scheduled for 9 April 2011, together with members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The objectives of these consultations were to identify options for the future work of the treaty body system as a whole, including in respect to working methods and to allow treaty body members to discuss in advance issues tabled by the Inter-Committee Meetings and the Meetings of Chairpersons.

Mr. Mokhiber went on to say that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made the promotion of the human rights of all migrants one of its six thematic priorities of this biennium. Together with their colleagues in the field and across the globe, they carried out numerous activities, with the United Nations and other partners, to promote and protect the human rights of all migrants, drawing also on the work of this Committee. The High Commissioner currently chaired the Global Migration Group, a collective of 14 United Nations agencies, the International Organization for Migration and the World Bank. Through the Global Migration Group, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sought to promote and mainstream a human rights based approach to migration within the UN system and beyond, and to highlight key migration and human rights issues at the international level. Mr. Mokhiber was pleased to inform the Committee that on 30 September 2010, the Global Migration Group Principals adopted a landmark statement on promoting and protecting human rights of perhaps the most vulnerable of all migrant groups, those in an irregular situation. The statement unequivocally declared that universal human rights norms applied to all migrants, regardless of their immigration status.

Mr. Mokhiber said that slowly but steadily acceptance of the Convention continued to grow. The recent accession to the Convention by Guyana and by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines brought the number of States parties to 44. The number of States parties that had accepted the competence of the Committee to consider complaints under article 77, however, remained unchanged at two.

Turning to the work ahead, Mr. Mokhiber said that agenda for this session would be a heavy one, which was considered an indication of the future workload trends of the Committee. For the first time it would examine three State party reports as well as adopt a list of issues on the second periodic report of Mexico. The Committee would also devote several meetings to its first draft General Comment on migrant domestic workers. The choice of this subject, long neglected as a human rights issue, was most timely given the large numbers of migrants engaged as domestic workers, their vulnerability due to their often undocumented status and irregular nature of their work, their treatment as criminals under most jurisdictions and the high risk of sexual violence. Mr. Mokhiber was pleased to note the great interest that the subject had generated among the other treaty bodies, and he looked forward to seeing inter-Committee support in a solid text.

In closing, Mr. Mokhiber noted that this session was a particularly important one as it marked the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. The chosen theme for this event, “Protecting Rights, Building Cooperation”, spoke to the essence of the Convention. The theme of this year’s Human Rights Day, discrimination, was equally relevant for this Committee. It called upon people to “Speak Up: Stop Discrimination”. On many occasions the High Commissioner had expressed concern at the rise of intolerance, xenophobia and racism directed at migrants and their communities, including acts of extremist violence against migrants in transit, and urged States to take firm measures to protect them.

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Committee Chairperson, thanked Mr. Mokhiber for his statement and for the support the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had shown this Committee. The Chairperson said that in the talk of human rights, migrants had been left by the wayside by organizations and people who should be defending them such as trade unions and civil society. One could not draw distinctions between workers based on their origin and development was dependent on migrant workers and the protection of their rights. The rights of these people had to be pressed, even in States that had not ratified the Convention. Mr. El Jamri said that there would be ongoing celebrations to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and the impact of this Convention would be discussed in events across the globe.

Meeting With Non-Governmental Organizations

Senegal

IBRAHIM GUISSE, of the African Association for the Defence of Human Rights, speaking on behalf of a coalition of non-governmental organizations, said that the alternative report that he presented focused mainly on the violations of rights enshrined in the Convention, particularly the rights of migrants in transit through Senegal and the illegal expulsion of migrants. A number of violations had been committed during the reporting period related to inhuman conditions, physical assaults and arbitrary detention. Mr. Guisse said that the periodic report of Senegal gave few details concerning the Government’s work or activities in the area of the protection and promotion of the rights of migrants.

Senegal had signed bilateral agreements with European Union countries, including France and Spain, which fomented unfair treatment of migrants and violated the freedom of movement and the right to leave a country. Senegal was also involved in violations committed outside the country and beyond its borders in terms of its citizens who were migrants in transit through other countries, including Senegalese nationals who went to Spain to work and had problems returning to the country.

Mr. Guisse said the coalition of non-governmental organizations had several recommendations for Senegal including: respecting migrants’ rights contained in the Convention; amending laws that criminalized migration; not collaborating with European laws that criminalized migrant workers; carrying out further research in this area; and increasing protection afforded to migrant workers.

Questions by Committee Members

A Committee member asked whether the drafting of the bilateral agreements with other countries had been done in consultation with civil society organizations and whether the 2005 law relating to the fight against trafficking in human beings contravened the Convention. Domestic laws must be in line with the Convention so if this law did not conform to the treaty then the Committee could recommend that the law be amended to harmonize it with the treaty.

Another Expert asked whether Senegalese civil society was involved in the drafting of the State party’s periodic report and whether the Convention had been invoked in courts or was referred to in domestic laws.

Reply of Senegalese Non-Governmental Organization

As far as consultation with civil society was concerned, Mr. Guisse said consultations had basically not been carried out and this was one of the weaknesses of the provisions in laws; there was a very limited involvement of civil society and this was true for the 2005 law as well, it was adopted with no consultation with civil society which would have had much to say on this matter.

Mr. Guisse said there was also a general lack of reference to the Convention as well as a problematic situation on the ground currently in terms of deportation orders because the host country became a collaborator in this process. This indicated a wider, chronic problem in terms of the lack of support for Senegalese nationals abroad and this also related to European migration laws as there were some loopholes people could fall through because there was no policy that could be used to support these people. This was a cross-cutting question that related to most African countries because these nationals did not have access to a coherent policy that drew together all the legal provisions to which they were entitled. It was difficult to grasp the impact of the agreement between Senegal and Spain regarding Senegalese migrants in that country because there was no campaign informing people of their rights and there was a sense of that this law would not help them in the host country. At the end of their work contracts, many of the workers became irregular migrants as most employers refused to renew their contracts and when they went to the immigration service they were denied residence permits and thus they became clandestine. Mr. Guisse said he did not see any real benefits for migrants in the agreement with Spain, which was supposed to help them avoid such situations.

JOHN BINGHAM, of the International Catholic Migration Commission, commented that his organization had focused on migrants from Senegal who travelled by boat to Spain, Italy, Malta and Greece. He said the question of whether a State party could do indirectly what the Convention did not allow it to do directly deserved more consideration. These bilateral agreements should be looked at more closely as it touched on the obligations of States to provide consular services to their nationals, and issues of expulsion and readmission.

Ecuador

JAVIER ARCENTALES, of the Coalition of Migrant Workers and Refugees, presented the follow-up alternative report of a coalition of non-governmental organizations. Ecuador had migratory flows leaving Ecuador, with approximately 3 million Ecuadorians living abroad, largely in the United States, Spain and Italy. At the same time, there were many migrants coming to Ecuador particularly from Colombia and Peru, and now this migratory flow was diversifying with Cubans, Haitians and people from Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as others coming to the country.

The Ecuadorean constitution expressly prohibited discrimination based on migratory status, the treatment of individuals as illegal, and refoulement. Despite these parameters in the constitution, the secondary legislation that existed was not necessarily in line with the constitution, which was approved two years ago. In that regard, there was still the law on foreigners and the law on migration, both of which dated from the 1970s and established certain deportation procedures which violated human rights and were not in line with the constitution or the Convention. There was also arbitrary detention, with people in prison more than 50 days without having a detention order issued or the proper deportation hearing so the right to defence was not being upheld. Cubans and Colombians were disproportionately affected by these laws.

Mr. Arcentales said that the disbursal of responsibility for migrants and their rights also led to many problems for people because there were various departments responsible for different aspects of migrant workers and their status in the country. The issue of human trafficking was also a concern as it was something that was not prosecuted robustly. There was a serious case in which some Ecuadoreans died and there was not a great deal of judicial intervention as often the traffickers were not caught because they had contacts within the migration police. There was no proper care for people who were victims of human trafficking and they were often criminalized and deported to their country of origin, rather than being treated as victims. Mr. Javier asked that the Committee, as one of its recommendations, suggest that Ecuador carry out regularization of migrants in Ecuador. Because there were few avenues to becoming regularized, Mr. Arcentales said this meant that many people used the refugee system which prevented people who really were refugees, such as those fleeing violence in Colombia, from accessing proper treatment. Also, for some people there were problems going back to their home country; in the case of Cuba for example if someone left the country for more than 11 months and 30 days they had a hard time returning.

Questions by Committee Members

A Committee Expert asked about detention centres and whether they offered basic social services such as health services. How was this situation resolving itself considering the growing migratory flows in the country and the increasing role of Ecuador as a destination and host country?

In terms of visa requirements, a Committee member asked about the controls set up in Ecuador and whether they were legal or had violated the rights of particular people based on the national law.

Reply of Ecuadorian Non-Governmental Organization

Mr. Arcentales noted that in Ecuador it was hard to quantify how many people from various countries were in an irregular situation in the country. It was hard to identify and monitor the movement of migrants, but this was done on the border and in cities by the police. There was also an increasing level of xenophobia, which had unfortunately been fomented by the media, as people were attributing the rise in crime to the increase in the arrival of people of certain nationalities, particularly Colombians and Cubans.

Mr. Arcentales also outlined the issue of people, such as refugees or those seeking visas, who had been detained around official buildings. In Quito, these people were taken to an overpopulated prison with no basic provisions for health or social security, no hygiene facilities or bathrooms, and extremely small cells. In the provinces outside the capital, these people were taken to prisons used for regular criminals. There was also the criminalization of people who had been deported from Ecuador and wanted to return to the country; this was punishable by up to six years in prison. The police also had a wide reaching power to set up registers of any people who found themselves on Ecuadorian soil. The law of migration and the law of foreigners were by their nature criminalizing laws and they needed to be overhauled as they excluded people from rights rather than affording them rights.

With respect to the visa issue, measures that had been taken to fill this gap might also prove to be discriminatory because visas were now required for certain nationalities, largely from Africa and Asia.