COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS CONSIDERS REPORT OF MEXICO

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families has considered the second periodic report of Mexico on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Presenting the report, Salvador Beltran del Rio Madrid, Chairman of the National Migration Institute, said about 12 million Mexicans lived in the United States and every year 500,000 more people left Mexico for that country. Mexico was also a transit country for migrants. Repatriation was also an issue that the country faced and it was important to reintegrate migrants who had been repatriated to Mexico and the State had entered into agreements with different countries in the region to help in this area. International and trans-national organized crime was involved in very serious crimes such the kidnapping and trafficking of migrants. The Government of Mexico was combating this on two fronts: the investigation, prosecution and punishment of traffickers and better regional coordination to combat trafficking. The right to the access to justice for migrants was a key part of combating these crimes which was why they had instituted complaint mechanisms for migrants.

Mr. del Rio Madrid reiterated that the Government did not tolerate crimes against migrants or impunity. In 2009 new standards for the functioning of migration shelters were instituted and civil society organizations had visited these sites and could attest to their performance. Training for officials in the implementation of the Convention and other human rights laws was also an important aspect of the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers. In 2010 there was also reform of the General Law on Population to ensure the punishment of public servants who violated the rights of migrants and there were organizations for the defence of migrants. The Government also promoted the conditions for human rights defenders to carry out their work.

Committee Experts raised questions concerning, among other matters, reports that Mexican officials were involved in crimes against migrants and the role of trans-national organized crime in crimes against migrants including human trafficking, extortion, rape, and murder. Concerns were also raised about the lack of reliable data on migrants and migratory flows as well as training for officials responsible for promoting and protecting the rights of migrants. The delegation was asked numerous questions about gender and migration, unaccompanied minors, coordination between federal and state authorities, the management of migration flows, the repatriation of Mexican nationals from abroad and how they were reintegrated into society, how the State protected the pensions and social security rights of migrants workers at home and abroad, and whether migrant workers had the right to participate in trade unions.

In concluding remarks, Francisco Carrion Mena, the Committee member who served as the Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, said it was very clear from the rich exchange of ideas and information that the migration phenomenon in Mexico had a broad range of challenges, but there was a clear political will in Mexico to tackle the phenomenon and its implications. Mr. Carrion Mena said that he was particularly concerned about remittances because the point of people working abroad and sending money home was to create jobs back home, not just more consumption. Some issues that Mexico continued to face were corruption and trans-national organized crime.

Also in concluding remarks, Abedelhamid El Jamri, Committee Chairperson, said that the main conclusion they could draw from this dialogue was the need for a comprehensive migration policy and all the measures Mexico had undertaken needed to be integrated into one holistic policy. Mexico was a country in which migration was alive and dynamic as it was a country of origin, destination and transit. Mr. El Jamri said it was very important for Mexico to work on the regional aspects of migration and regional coordination as this issue could not be addressed in a vacuum. He encouraged Mexico to ensure that there was better implementation of the Convention and he said the Committee was there to help the State party in this endeavour.

The delegation of Mexico included representatives from the National Institute of Migration, the Secretary of Public Security, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Federal Judiciary, the Attorney General for the State of Chiapas, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the National Women’s Institute, the General Coordinator for the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Trafficking in Undocumented Migrants and Organized Crime, the Secretary of Health, the National System for the Development of the Family, the Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, and the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be on Friday, 8 April when it will publicly close its fourteenth session.

Report of Mexico

The second periodic report of Mexico (CMW/C/MEX/2) notes that while the growth rate of the Mexican migrant population in the United States has stabilized and even decreased since 2006, the total number of Mexican migrants in that country stands at 12.7 million, 55 per cent of whom are undocumented. Mexican nationals constitute the largest immigrant group in the United States, where they account for almost a third of all immigrants and are increasingly integrated. Undocumented migration, however, has attracted vast organized networks for trafficking in undocumented migrants. Possible factors in the decline in undocumented Mexican migration to the United States in recent years, currently estimated at approximately 315,000 persons per year, include economic factors, such as the downturn in the United States economy since 2006, and the restrictive measures taken by the United States authorities to curb undocumented migration (legislation, construction of walls along the border, raids, criminalization and deportation of thousands of Mexicans). The number of deportations from the United States to Mexico between 2006 and 2008 exceeded 500,000 per year. These measures have resulted in greater risks to migrants and their families, an increase in the cost of migration and a climate of hostility, anti-immigration and discrimination in the country of destination, which increases migrants’ vulnerability and makes the seasonal return of undocumented migrants to their place of origin increasingly difficult.

In recent years, Mexico’s southern border has seen a significant increase in both documented and undocumented migration flows. There are various reasons for this: some flows are seasonal and trade-related or concern the employment of agricultural day workers in border areas, primarily Chiapas. Nevertheless, the majority of these flows are made up of persons trying to cross the national territory to reach the United States. Public policies have been put in place to establish infrastructure and regulate the arrival and departure of documented flows of persons and goods. There are no reliable estimates of the flow of undocumented migrants entering Mexico through the southern border, mostly from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua; rough estimates from 2004 indicate that the number is over 400,000 per year. However, the migration flow has declined in recent years and the numbers are now lower.

The current context in which migration takes place shows the major role played by women migrants. Women account for 49 per cent of the migrant population worldwide and 50.4 per cent in Latin America. Women and their families who stay behind in the communities that migrants have left must come to terms with a new family and community environment, since, in addition to their traditional role, they assume that of breadwinner and linchpin of the family, which doubles or triples their working day. Against a backdrop of limited opportunities and economic hardship, this forces them to migrate. Currently, Mexico is the country with the highest emigration rate in the world.

Presentation of Report of Mexico

JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO, Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Chairman of the National Migration Institute would present the report of Mexico.

SALVADOR BELTRAN DEL RIO MADRID, Chairman of the National Migration Institute, presenting the second periodic report of Mexico, said that in 2008 Mexico had sent in a report on how the Government was implementing the recommendations made to it in 2006 after the presentation of its first periodic report. In 2009 they submitted their second periodic report and last week they submitted their replies to the list of issues.

There were three main trends in migration in Mexico including the design of a legal and institutional public policy framework. An example of this was a new migration law which sought to harmonize the normative framework with the Convention. Also constitutional reform on human rights was recently adopted by the Mexican congress and it was in the process of being ratified by the different states. This reform would allow for more effective compliance with the international instruments that Mexico had signed. A second trend they saw was the need to guarantee foreign migrants in Mexico the same rights and treatment they demanded for Mexican nationals abroad. The third trend was the building of institutional coordination within the federal framework to ensure all aspects of migration were covered.

About 12 million Mexicans lived in the United States and every year 500,000 more people left Mexico for that country. Mexico was also a transit country for migrants. Repatriation was also an issue that the country faced and it was important to reintegrate migrants who had been repatriated to Mexico and the State had entered into agreements with different countries in the region to help in this area. International and trans-national organized crime was involved in very serious crimes such as the kidnapping and trafficking of migrants. The Government of Mexico was combating this on two fronts: the investigation, prosecution and punishment of traffickers and better regional coordination to combat trafficking. The right to the access to justice for migrants was a key part of combating these crimes which was why they had instituted complaint mechanisms for migrants. Mr. del Rio Madrid reiterated that the Government did not tolerate crimes against migrants or impunity. In 2009 new standards for the functioning of migration shelters were instituted and civil society organizations had visited these sites and could attest to their performance. Training for officials in the implementation of the Convention and other human rights laws was also an important aspect of the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers. In 2010 there was also reform of the General Law on Population to ensure the punishment of public servants who violated the rights of migrants and there were organizations for the defence of migrants. The Government also promoted the conditions for human rights defenders to carry out their work.

The decriminalization of irregular migration and the adoption of the refugee law were two ways in which Mexico was changing its approach to migration. The draft law on migration was being discussed by the lower house of congress and contained recommendations from civil society such as access to justice, health and education. There were also temporary migration permits that allowed migrant workers to compete on an equal footing with Mexican citizens in all areas, not just agriculture.

Mr. del Rio Madrid said that Mexico had embarked on a comprehensive strategy to combat kidnapping and trafficking of migrants, and they had rescued migrants from organized crime safe houses and broken up many of these criminal gangs. There were no legal structures and local institutions to provide assistance to migrants in the states with the biggest migrant populations, including Chiapas and Oaxaca.

Questions by Experts

A Committee Expert noted the large number of Mexican nationals that had left the United States in the last year and asked for a clarification on the number and whether these returnees were people who were intercepted at the border before they actually made it to the United States or people who had made it to the United States and had been living there for some time. How many Mexican citizens had been regularized in the United States?

A Committee member commended Mexico for sending the large delegation that was present as well as its long time support for this Convention. The Expert noted that Mexico was in a complicated situation to say the least, sharing a border with the most powerful economy in the world that needed workers. Civil society and non-governmental organizations played an important role in this issue in the country. Those migrants who used Mexico as a transit country had suffered from extortion and abductions at the hands of trans-national organized crime, often linked to drug trafficking. There were also reports that Mexican officials were involved in crimes against migrants. The Expert expressed concern about the lack of reliable data on migrants and migratory flows through the country as well as training for officials responsible of ensuring the rights of migrant workers. What preventive measures had the branches of Government taken to punish those responsible for the murder of more than 70 migrant workers in August last year and what was being done to stop the abductions of migrant workers and related crimes such as rape? One got the sense from reading the report that corruption was an obstacle to tackling crimes against migrants. The speaker expressed hope that the Mexican Government would be able to capitalize on progress already made especially in the area of humanitarian visas. What services were offered by the Government to its citizens living abroad? Regarding the Mexican initiative to seek a link between the United Nations and the Global Forum for Migration and Development, the speaker said they had some reservations about this.

Another Committee member said that the federal Government appeared to be doing everything it could to combat human trafficking, but these trafficking networks were spreading like a cancer. How could the Government tackle this cancer? To put an end to these violations they had to work at the local level, but the question was how did the federal Government interact with local Governments and could the federal authorities get to the grassroots of these problems? How did the State work with the migrants themselves? Did they investigate and follow-up on complaints, prosecute traffickers and work with civil society and human rights defenders? How did the Government work with the National Human Rights Commission in terms of following up on recommendations?

An Expert said in presenting the report, the head of the delegation mentioned the 1 million people who had returned to Mexico last year. As had been noted that was an enormous number. How were these people provided with care and how did the State manage the needs and requirements placed on their services? Many of these persons returned with family members, but others left their families behind and when they returned they had no work and if there was no policy established for follow-up then it would be very difficult to identify them and provide for their needs. Was there a policy or programme with a framework or budget to deal with these returnees because a lack of such programmes could engender social problems such as gangs or crime?

What rights did migrants enjoy in the country? Did they enjoy the right to work and the right to organize and could they be members of trade unions? How was citizenship conferred on Mexican children born abroad? Did they automatically receive citizenship and if not, did they run the risk of being stateless? What social security rights and benefits did migrant workers enjoy in Mexico and how did the State ensure that Mexican migrants returning from abroad received social security and pension rights? What was the role of Mexican consulates in this regard?

Response by Delegation

Regarding the numerous questions raised about the kidnapping and abduction of migrants, the delegation said the State practiced a holistic strategy to combat the abduction of migrants and while developing these mechanisms, initiatives and activities at the regional level they had launched a strategy in October 2010 with 17 countries in the region and 21 actions were agreed upon such as the exchange of information between countries. In terms of the progress made in the investigation into the murder of the 70 migrant workers last year, they had been able to detain eight people and they had also established links from abroad with organized groups that brought these migrants to Mexico. There was also a reward for any information that would lead to the arrest of anyone involved in the murders.

Turning to the question of humanitarian visas, the delegation said that anyone who witnessed a crime or was a victim of a crime and helped the State in prosecuting these crimes could qualify for one of these visas which allowed them to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds on the basis of their cooperation.

Providing more information on the murder of the 70 migrants last summer, the delegation said eight people had been detained and prosecuted on charges of deprivation of liberty, organized crime, firearms laws and possession of restricted munitions, corruption of minors, murder, attempted murder and qualified homicide. Eight people are still detained and Mexico had requested help from other countries as they continued to carry out the investigation into this trans-national organized crime. An arrest warrant had been issued for three other people and a reward was available for any information leading to their capture. Mexico had identified 59 bodies that had been returned to their countries of origin and they were working on identifying the remaining bodies by their deadline of May 2011.

On the issue of the comprehensive, national strategy for combating abduction and human trafficking, the delegation said it was working to increase reliable data which went into a centralized database called the Mexico Platform in order to better combat these problems. A framework convention was created to specifically combat the abduction of children. There were links between abduction and drug trafficking and the groups that were carrying out these crimes were doing so in an organized fashion and it was hard to assign responsibility to specific groups. Receiving complaints was very important and people could file complaints via the Internet and from abroad and so far they had received 18 complaints from overseas since this complaint mechanism went into effect. People could also call a toll free telephone number and contact the Public Prosecutor’s office as well.

The delegation said the routes used by migrants were the same ones that were used by organized crime and Mexico’s southern border was long and porous so it was difficult to police. The Office of the Public Prosecutor had managed to dismantle 25 organized crime groups responsible for abductions and arrest 237 people. These groups tortured Central American workers, forcing them to contact their family members in the United States and demand a ransom for their release.

The State had passed protection measures for human rights defenders including the coordination of vigilance by security forces, setting up closed circuit cameras where human rights defenders lived or congregated, cell phones were active 24 hours a day and there was an emergency number for filing claims and investigations were carried out by authorities as well. The precautionary measures as well as cooperation with civil society were extremely important for the State because the work human rights defenders did was integral.

The delegation then turned to questions regarding the management of migration. In a two year period, between 2009 and 2010, 1 million Mexicans returned from the United States. In 2009 601,000 Mexicans were repatriated from the United States and in 2010 the number was 469,000; in 2005 this number was nearly 1 million. Many of these people were detained in the workplace and not at the border so many were already there and working and they had families so their situation was very complicated. Mexico also served as a transit point for many Central Americans trying to make their way to the United States and Mexico had detained about 65,000 of these migrants and 51,000 had been repatriated to their countries of origin. Mexico had agreements with Central American countries and the repatriations were carried out under these agreements, so there were no hearings or deportation proceedings. They constantly worked with these other countries to revise and refine these agreements.

In terms of the training of civil servants, every employee of the Migration Institute had to undergo training and state officials, particularly police officers, also underwent training in the human rights of migrant workers. These courses were also offered online for wider dissemination and to offer a broader scope. The issue of unaccompanied minors, including Mexican youths repatriated from the United States as well as Central American minors transiting through Mexico, was a big problem in the country and they had taken steps to address this.

Regarding impunity, the delegation said that multiple ways of filing complaints against public officials had been instituted including online complaints, a toll free telephone number and via the prosecutor’s office. Thus far, 18 complaints had been received online. Of 125 complaints filed against public officials, 81 had led to trials and convictions for the violations of rights of migrant workers and the delegation noted that civil servants convicted of such crimes were subject to harsher penalties and longer sentences than other people.

On the issue of the new law on migration and the rights of migrant women, the law had contributed to a mechanism designed to fight gender violence. The law had also contributed to making women’s issues a cross-cutting issue in all State policies and a rights framework for women throughout the country. The law also contributed to the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The State was convinced that a strategy without a budget was useless so the State had set aside 14 billion pesos over 4 years for the gender equality policy. A website for migrant women received 86,000 visits last year, but the delegation realized that not all migrant women had access to the Internet so the State had developed a handbook on the rights of foreign women workers in Mexico.

Questions by Experts

An Expert asked whether the Government could initiate a case for the violation of rights or did it have to wait until someone filed a complaint. The crime of abduction could lead to other crimes such as rape, so were there any specific measures to protect women and children against these abductions? Could the delegation provide more information on the groups that were established to protect the rights of migrant workers?

Another Committee member said that there were reports that the “migration business” brought in more money and was more profitable than drug dealing. Was the State doing anything to tackle this problem from the financial aspect? Also, how did the State manage remittances and what was the Government presence along the borders, especially in areas like Chiapas and along well known migration routes? These routes were featured in news reports and movies so why didn’t the Government have more of a presence along these well known routes? In terms of human rights defenders, the Expert said that there were reports that the protection granted to these defenders was insufficient.

The delegation was then asked what the State was doing to combat sexual violence against female migrant workers, and for more information on the police vetting system. There seemed to be a lack of trust by migrant workers in the system and it was the police who often abused their rights so what was being done to increase trust in public officials? Also, there was an article in the migration bill that was of concern to Committee members because it seemed to permit the expulsion of migrants without a trial. Could this article be removed from the law?

Another speaker asked how the Government measured the effectiveness of all the policies it had put in place, what it did to help Mexican nationals in the United States who had to wear ankle bracelets and who could not be regularized nor could they be repatriated so they were in a kind of limbo and what the Mexican Government proposed to do about undocumented migrants on its territory.

Response by Delegation

The delegation said it was concerned about the vulnerability of migrant women and children as well as human rights defenders. The Government had adopted a series of protection measures in order to provide protection to people working in human rights. There were seven protection measures in place, five of which stemmed from the National Human Rights Commission.

Regarding access to justice and crimes against migrants, the delegation said there were certain trends they could identify. The State had attempted to respond to each and every complaint against a public servant. In the last 5 years the National Human Rights Commission had registered 1,325 complaints and 20 recommendations were made and 61 were turned over the Migratory Institute. The Federal Police had also received 217 complaints against civil servants. The Marine Agency had received 20 complaints about mistreatment of migrants, 6 of which were still under investigation. These complaints had led to a certain number of convictions, including sentences for kidnapping and organized crime for civil servants found guilty of such crimes. Another issue was the trafficking of undocumented migrants. This had led to the punishment of civil servants and 966 persons had been arrested and 694 of these cases were before the courts. Regarding the abduction of migrants, there was a special law that went into force on 28 February 2011 that allowed authorities to investigate these crimes more immediately. An important aspect of the law was that there was no statute of limitations on this crime and there were new sentencing guidelines as well. Just a few days ago, the State had issued nine arrest warrants for organized crime and trafficking and six of these people were in custody. The Government had also established a specialized prosecutor’s office to deal with the crime of trafficking and sentences handed down so far ranged from 9 to 13 years in prison.

Both federal and local criminal codes included the crime of trafficking, but it was unclear when the state or federal law applied. In terms of prosecuting a crime, the Government did not have to wait for someone to file a claim. Once they became aware of the crime, they could open a formal investigation and start criminal proceedings. People could file complaints anonymously through a toll free number, consular offices abroad, and other anonymous methods. They had received an anonymous call that migrants were being held and the police had arrested four people and rescued four undocumented migrants. The people were sentenced to 10 years in prison. The State also ensured prevention and punishment for sexual abuse of migrant women. There were awareness raising campaigns by the Public Security Department and there were victim assistance and care centres and shelters and comprehensive care. All of these crimes, including smuggling and trafficking, were based on economic profit and there were provisions in the criminal code that allowed the State to confiscate these ill gotten gains and assets.

The delegation said that one had to approach migration in a holistic way, looking at countries of origin, transit countries and receiving countries. Concerning complaints received by the National Human Rights Commission, the 81 complaints had led to 168 officers being prosecuted. Impunity did not exist and these complaints were taken very seriously. These were not just cases of corruption, but also cases of violations of human rights. Just last week, three agents were prosecuted in Tabasco.

On the issue of holding centres run by the National Institute of Migration, the delegation said they had been designed followed standards and recommendations of international organizations such as the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Last year they received visits from foreign affairs ministers from Latin American countries to see these centres. They provided medical care in these centres as well as access to consular affairs services of their home country. There was an online registration that consulates could check to see if any of their nationals were being held in a holding centre. This information was available online, 24 hours per day. The menus were also designed taking into account dietary restrictions. The delegation said that they were also expanding their online training courses to increase training for the people who dealt with migrants.

Turning to the routes used by migrants, the delegation said they were strengthening their presence there. Groups who provided care for repatriated nationals were formed over 20 years ago and they were increasing the presence of these groups along migration routes because they had been very successful in providing help and care to repatriated individuals as well as migrants. The Global Forum on Migration noted this as a good practice during the meeting in Mexico last year. Regarding the migration law and the provision that a person could be expelled from the national territory, the Government was trying to harmonize the article of this law with article 33 of the Constitution. Committee members had asked about transit visas and the delegation said that the law as it was being discussed included the possibility of a transit visit good for 180 days for people who were just passing through the country.

Committee members had asked how the State measured the effectiveness of its public policies, and the delegation said there were different indicators that measured the progress of safeguarding human rights of border area inhabitants. They also measured inter-institutional coordination and there were mechanisms for coordination, trafficking, repatriation, and other areas. Article 1 of the Constitution governed the rights to social security, health, and employment. Education in the country was free and no questions were asked about migratory status. Mexico had agreements with Canada and Spain in terms of social security and pensions and this was monitored through the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, a government institution. The consular services also worked with Mexicans abroad to provide free legal assistance as well as the promotion and protection of their rights, such as in the case of the Arizona law that could result in profiling. The consulates also played an important role in terms of documentation and registration. All children of Mexicans were entitled to Mexican citizenship so even if they were born elsewhere, if the parents were Mexican by birth the children were entitled to Mexican citizenship as well so there was no chance of a child being born stateless.

On the topic of remittances, the Mexican State was involved in managing these monies in the sense that the consular services provided documentation that made it possible for migrants to open bank accounts which meant they could send money back much more cheaply than using money wire services.

The United States and Mexico had signed agreements regarding deportation that made the conditions of deportation much more humane and stipulated that unaccompanied minors were not to be deported, but rather were handed over to Mexican consulates. The Mexican Government was concerned about the use of electronic tags in the sense that they could create greater stigmatization. The delegation said that the treatment that Mexico demanded for its own citizens in the United States was the same treatment that it wanted to provide to migrants in its country, whether they were transiting through the country or working and living there.

Questions by Experts

In another round of follow-up questions, an Expert asked when the State would develop an integrated migration policy, rather than the piecemeal legislation they currently had.

Could the delegation describe in further detail the changes being planned to the proposed migration law? What measures had been taken to sign ILO Convention 97? Migrants were often victims of criminal gangs and trafficking and smuggling of human beings were often linked to trans-national crime. The complaints against public officials received by the National Human Rights Commission had continued to increase, but it seemed that some of these complaints were not followed-up. How many people had been charged and prosecuted based on these complaints? In order to establish dignified repatriation proceedings, the State had signed agreements with several countries. Were these agreements applied on an individual or group basis and was the repatriation voluntary or involuntary. What steps were taken to make sure that laws were compatible with the Convention and was civil society consulted when formulating laws? Could the delegation describe in further detail the training provided to judges and were migrants in holding centres systematically informed of their rights? In terms of regularization programmes, were all migrants entitled to participate in these programmes and who benefited exactly?

Had any measures been taken in terms of compensation for the families of migrant workers who were killed? How did the State give effect to article 76 of the Convention? Were Mexicans abroad able to vote? How did Mexico deal with asylum applications and could the delegation clarify the distinction between asylum seekers and people seeking refugee status?

Another Committee Expert asked about migrant, female, domestic workers and whether measures were taken through consulates to ensure the rights of these women were respected. They were very vulnerable and the Expert asked how they were cared for? Were they provided with information about their rights so that they were equipped and empowered to claim the basic rights linked to their working conditions? Did female, foreign workers in Mexico enjoy decent working conditions?

A speaker noted that it was good to hear from the delegation about conditions on the ground because the news only highlighted the bad news and negative information. Having said that, the speaker asked whether the State had given any thought to developing a comprehensive migration policy; laws were important but they needed to concentrate their efforts on three migration flows. How long were migrants kept in holding centres in general? What was being done to combat sexual violence against female migrant workers, as rape had come to be seen part of the price women had to pay for transit.

The delegation said that in July 2010 new protection measures for the protection of human rights defenders had been adopted in accordance with United Nations guidelines and a Committee member wanted to know if there was any data on how effective these measures had been. In light of recent world events, did Mexico have or intend to have any contingency plan to repatriate Mexicans back to the country in case of natural disaster or civil unrest?

Response by Delegation

In terms of a comprehensive migration policy in Mexico, the delegation said there were millions of Mexicans who crossed their borders in the north and south. The country had 54 holding centres in these border areas, 44 in the north and 10 in the south and they were thinking of opening 3 more. Last year over 9 million people arrived by air, while more than 20 million arrived via land entry points. They were dealing with this challenge by creating a new legal framework as their starting point. The delegation hoped that the new law before the parliament would be approved as this would give them legislation that was very forward looking because it responded to the rights of migrants and ensured compatibility of domestic laws with international obligations. The new migration law guaranteed a fair hearing and due process before someone was deported, but the article of the constitution dealing with expulsions had nothing to do with migrants, but rather other foreigners living in Mexico who the State had cause to deport.

In terms of birth registrations for children of migrants born in Mexico, this was a challenge that was being addressed by different agencies and non-governmental organizations. Anyone born in the country was a citizen, regardless if they were born to Mexican or foreign parents. They were working on training for those involved in birth registrations and judges and civil registry officials could not deny migrants the recognition of births, matrimony, divorce, or death. Also, the National Human Rights Commission received many more complaints than the recommendations it issued. All recommendations that had been made by the National Human Rights Commission had been fully complied with.

In 2008 the Government had decriminalized undocumented migration and it had signed a memorandum of understanding which provided a mechanism for the facilitation and contact with Central American migration authorities. Mexico was in the process of incorporating all the international treaties to which it was a party and it recognized the competence of all the Committees.

On the issue of political asylum and refugees, the law did make a distinction between asylum seekers from political persecution and refugees. This was governed by the General Population Law. Political asylum allowed for family reunification and people could stay in the country as long as they liked. A newly adopted law provided a broader definition of refugees, including gender based reasons. People could be held in holding centres for a maximum of 90 days.

The delegation said regarding the issue of female, domestic migrant workers living abroad, the consulates were very important in providing legal assistance and general guidance on significant issues such as employment. In terms of migrant workers living in Mexico, last year they received 28,544 migrants at border crossings and 4,931 of these were women and 22,912 were men. They needed a more efficient way to ensure that the provisions of the Convention and the constitution were fully implemented for the rights of women. In Chiapas there was a specific programme for sexual violence against female migrant workers. In 2007 they had no coordination mechanisms between institutions, while today they had resources and machinery that coordinated the Government and civil society. Fighting organized crime and criminal groups had also helped, but they also needed to continue to provide services to the victims of sexual violence. Sixty per cent of these female victims went back to their country of origin.

Regarding other questions, the delegation said that the vetting process of public officials was to ensure that people were not addicts and were not dishonest or corrupt. On the topic of the National Human Rights Commission, the delegation said that once it received a complaint the process could lead to a recommendation or reconciliation or the conclusion that there was no violation and these cases could be re-opened at any time if any new information came to light. Mexicans over the age of 18 had the right to vote. The Electoral Commissions organized elections and since they were independent of the executive branch of government this meant the consular offices abroad, which were part of the executive branch, could not be involved in the voting process so they had to develop a means by which nationals living abroad could vote.

In conclusion, the delegation said that the right to life and physical integrity of migrants was of the utmost importance and they were committed to these rights at all levels of government. The Mexican State was fully committed to the respect of the rights of migrants and the legislative, judiciary and executive branches were all working to ensure these rights through legal and policy measures as well as awareness raising campaigns.

Concluding Remarks

FRANCISCO CARRION MENA, Committee Member serving as Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, said Mexico was a true pioneer and promoter in migrant rights. There were a tremendous number of challenges and Mexico had to face this with determination. The size of the delegation was a testament to their determination to respect the rights of migrant workers. It was very clear from the rich exchange of ideas and information that the migration phenomenon in Mexico had a broad range of challenges, but there was a clear political will in Mexico to tackle the phenomenon and its implications. Mr. Carrion Mena said that he was particularly concerned about remittances because the point of people working abroad and sending money home was to create jobs back home, not just more consumption. Some issues that Mexico continued to face were corruption and trans-national organized crime. The Committee was committed to working hand in hand with Mexico to protect the rights of these human beings.

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Committee Chairperson, said that the main conclusion they could draw from this dialogue was the need for a comprehensive migration policy and all the measures Mexico had undertaken needed to be integrated into one holistic policy. Mexico was a country in which migration was alive and dynamic as it was a country of origin, destination and transit. Mr. El Jamri said it was very important for Mexico to work on the regional aspects of migration and regional coordination as this issue could not be addressed in a vacuum. He encouraged Mexico to ensure that there was better implementation of the Convention and he said the Committee was there to help the State party in this endeavour.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW11/003E