The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that in her first report to the Human Rights Council, she had set out some of the most important contemporary challenges confronting the independence of judges and lawyers. The independence of judges and lawyers was a bedrock foundation on which the protection of all other human rights rested. A judge who feared dismissal or harassment by the Government would struggle to find that the State committed acts of torture, or that the arrest and harassment of those who protested against the Government was a violation of the right of peaceful assembly. Judges who were partial could not constitute a bulwark against discrimination.
Protecting the independence of lawyers and judges was a vital means of shoring up rights-promoting systems, as well as ensuring that individual rights claims received a fair hearing, Ms. Satterthwaite said. States had an obligation to ensure lawyers were able to play their critical role in defending human rights. Lawyers increasingly faced threats, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and even death, often as a direct result of carrying out their duties. This violated the rights of individual lawyers, and undermined the rights of other individuals to a fair trial, and the broad range of human rights meant to be protected by the rule of law and a functioning judicial system.
In the ensuing dialogue, some speakers said an independent and impartial judiciary, an independent legal profession, an objective and impartial prosecution, and the integrity of the judicial system were fundamental for the protection of human rights and were one of the foundational building blocks of democratic societies. Speakers welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s plan to focus on challenges to judicial independence linked to disinformation, online harassment and threats, as well as artificial intelligence. The rise of reprisals against lawyers and other judicial practitioners was of concern to many speakers. The independence of the judiciary was vital to bolster the achievement of human rights. Autocratization as well as systemic inequalities and discrimination were among the priority challenges to judicial independence. Equal gender representation for lawyers and judges was needed to strengthen the justice system, provide better justice services for all, and improve the perception of the justice system by the society.
Speaking in the dialogue were the European Union, Hungary on behalf of a group of countries, Uruguay on behalf of a group of countries, United Nations Development Programme, International Development Law Organization, Lithuania, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Israel, Armenia, Belgium, Luxembourg, United Nations Women, Timor-Leste, France, United States, Iraq, Maldives, Malaysia, Morocco, United Kingdom, Venezuela, South Africa, Pakistan, Namibia, India, Malawi, Iran, Gambia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Sudan, Cuba, Russian Federation, Romania, Algeria, Botswana, Lesotho, Tunisia, Cameroon, Ukraine, Cambodia, Australia and China.
Also speaking were National Human Rights Commission of India, Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l’homme (Burundi), Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil Conselho Federal, Law Society on behalf of International Bar Association, Lawyers for Lawyers, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, International Bar Association, Centre for Justice and International Law, Open Society Institute, Law Council of Australia on behalf of International Bar Association, National Human Rights Civic Association Belarusian Helsinki Committee, and Freedom Now.
The Council also started an interactive dialogue with Felipe González Morales, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, who said that despite efforts by many countries, United Nations agencies, civil society and other actors, in many places the human rights of migrants remained frequently violated, often in grave ways. The main report submitted to the Council included a thematic study on how to expand and diversify regularisation mechanisms and programmes to enhance the protection of the human rights of migrants. The report recognised the complexity of factors leading towards irregular migration, which was often a consequence of limited regular pathways. Regardless of the circumstances that led them to irregularity, the enjoyment of their human rights was negatively affected, including access to health care, education, essential services, adequate housing, labour rights and social protection.
In the thematic study, the Special Rapporteur examined how to address these situations of vulnerability by creating and strengthening regularisation mechanisms. The report offered a set of recommendations, including that States put an end to the criminalisation of irregular migrants and promote solidarity to change the narrative on migration and combat xenophobia, racism and discrimination.
Mr. González Morales talked about his official visits to Poland, Belarus and Bangladesh. Those three countries spoke as countries concerned.
In the ensuing discussion, some speakers grieved for the migrant lives lost during attempted border crossings across the world, including in the Mediterranean Sea last week. This was a stark reminder of the need to protect the rights of migrants. Some speakers called for an international monitoring mechanism to be established to support the rights of migrants. Many said States needed to address the root causes of irregular migration, ensure that human rights and international law were respected in migrant return processes, and promote the integration of migrants into society. Speakers urged States to review policies of pushing back migrants. Some speakers also called on States to implement the Global Compact for Migration, which provided a wholistic approach to governance of migration. Irregularity put migrants at increased risk of abuse.
Speaking in the interactive debate were European Union, Côte d’Ivoire on behalf of a group of African States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, United Nations Women, Portugal, Lithuania, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Armenia, United Nations Children’s Fund, Luxembourg, Sovereign Order of Malta, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Indonesia, El Salvador, Iraq, United States, Colombia, Maldives, Brazil, Morocco, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Cameroon, Namibia, India, Greece, Bangladesh, Malawi, China, Gambia and Switzerland.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-third regular session can be found here.
The Council will next meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. when it will continue its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and start an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
Report
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/HRC/53/31) on Reimagining justice: confronting contemporary challenges to the independence of judges and lawyers.
Presentation of Report
MARGARET SATTERTHWAITE, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that in her first report to the Human Rights Council, she had set out some of the most important contemporary challenges confronting the independence of judges and lawyers. The independence of judges and lawyers was a bedrock foundation on which the protection of all other human rights rested. A judge who feared dismissal or harassment by the Government would struggle to find that the State committed acts of torture, or that the arrest and harassment of those who protested against the Government was a violation of the right of peaceful assembly. Judges who were partial could not constitute a bulwark against discrimination. Moreover, the judiciary was one of the key institutions that safeguarded the rule of law. Independent judges guaranteed that the same laws were applied to everyone, and ensured that nobody was above the law. Protecting the independence of lawyers and judges was a vital means of shoring up rights-promoting systems, as well as ensuring that individual rights claims received a fair hearing.
States had an obligation to ensure lawyers were able to play their critical role in defending human rights. Lawyers increasingly faced threats, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and even death, often as a direct result of carrying out their duties. This violated the rights of individual lawyers, and undermined the rights of other individuals to a fair trial, and the broad range of human rights meant to be protected by the rule of law and a functioning judicial system.
Ms. Satterthwaite deplored the brutal killing of the very well-known human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in Eswatini, and called for an effective investigation into this killing, so those responsible could be brought to justice. She also addressed Member States with concerns about lawyers defending or attempting to defend the protestors detained after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini in Iran who had faced arrest, judicial harassment and interference with their work; a criminal investigation launched against the human rights lawyer Dang Dinh Manh in Viet Nam; and lawyers working on very sensitive cases involving capital punishment in Saudi Arabia and Singapore, with capital defence lawyer M Ravi in Singapore suspended for five years for his critical remarks about a capital punishment case. She called on the international community to do more to support Afghan lawyers, prosecutors and judges in their moment of greatest need.
There was a global wave of democratic decay and autocratisation, which posed serious risks to human rights. Member States needed to continue to protect and preserve civic space to ensure that protestors and political opponents were not improperly criminalised, and that they had access to all appropriate guarantees of due process. Ms. Satterthwaite had sent communications about allegations of reprisals against human rights organizations that provided legal assistance, such as the case of the Moscow Helsinki Group in the Russian Federation; and written to the Government of Belarus to express concern that individuals detained for reportedly politically-motivated cases did not have access to their lawyers. States also needed to ensure that they did not erode checks and limitations by independent courts on the powers of the government.
In February, Ms. Satterthwaite said she wrote to Israel regarding proposed legislative changes that would seriously undermine the independence of courts in that country. She had also written to Sri Lanka, where anti-terrorism legislation did not have effective judicial oversight, and lack of access to counsel could facilitate the misuse of this legislation; to China regarding the impact of the ordinance on the legal profession and the banning of foreign lawyers for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and to El Salvador to address the extension of the state of emergency and amendments to the Penal Code to address gang violence, and allegations of serious restrictions to due process guarantees for those detained.
She stressed that States also needed to ensure that they did not undermine the independence of individual judges. Allegations of criminal cases brought against judges and prosecutors who had worked on high-profile cases, such as corruption and grave human rights violations were of particular concern. She had shared concerns that the cases of Judge Miguel Angel Gálvez and Prosecutor Virginia Laparra in Guatemala were examples of a worrying pattern of attacks against justice operators; and that Judge Tarek Bitar in Lebanon had encountered obstacles in attempting to carry forward the investigation into the Beirut port blast. Allegations of more systematic incursions into the independence of the judiciary, such as those described in reports about Tunisia, were of extreme concern.
Ms. Satterthwaite expressed regret that her first country visit was postponed by the State. Her visit to Montenegro was confirmed for September, and Mongolia had also accepted her request to visit in November this year. Her visits to Uruguay and Chile had been accepted for 2024. She hoped to receive confirmation of dates for her visit to Zimbabwe soon. She assured all Member States that she was available for technical cooperation and for dialogue on bringing legislation and practices into line with human rights standards.
Discussion
In the ensuing dialogue, many speakers said an independent and impartial judiciary, an independent legal profession, an objective and impartial prosecution, and the integrity of the judicial system were fundamental for the protection of human rights and were one of the foundational building blocks of democratic societies. Speakers expressed their pleasure at the report’s strong emphasis on access to justice and that the document covered a wide variety of topics, reflecting both persistent, as well as emerging challenges and threats to the independence and integrity of the judiciary as well as acts of reprisals against the judiciary and human rights lawyers.
Human rights should be protected by the rule of law. As pointed out in the report, judicial independence was an issue of vital importance for the realisation of human rights, safeguarding against rising authoritarianism and ensuring justice.
Some speakers welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s plan to focus on challenges to judicial independence linked to disinformation, online harassment and threats, as well as artificial intelligence. Accessible and effective legal aid was an essential element of a fair, humane and efficient system of administration of justice that was based on the rule of law. An independent, impartial judiciary ensured that nobody was above the law or excluded from its judgements. The rise of reprisals against lawyers and other judicial practitioners was of concern to many speakers. It was evident that the global landscape of democratic governance, human rights, and the rule of law was currently experiencing a troubling decline. The independence of the judiciary was vital to bolster the achievement of human rights.
The independence of the judiciary was a key element for a democratic State that valued the exercise and rule of law, some speakers said. The Special Rapporteur’s topic for upcoming years was relevant and timely. Autocratisation as well as systemic inequalities and discrimination were among the priority challenges to judicial independence. Lawyers fulfilled a key and admirable role in this regard and others, which could, in many cases, be dangerous. Challenges like the risk of judicial capture, and threats on lawyers both online and offline, among others, were significant. The sharing of good practices allowed courts to combat disinformation, making processes more transparent and guaranteeing access to information for all, and encouraged dialogue between the population and the judiciary as a whole.
Justice was a critical dimension of the social contract; justice systems could, speakers said, resolve disputes, support inclusion and prevent discrimination, enforce human rights and ultimately help to rebuild trust and the social contract. Gender equality in justice was not only about having more women in the system. It was about equal representation as lawyers and judges for strengthening the justice system, providing better justice services for all, and improving the perception of the justice system by the society. However, women’s representation in justice remained relatively low across the world. Women faced a number of obstacles, including inequitable access to legal education, discriminatory recruitment processes, and stereotyped regulations which relegated them to lower positions due to their perceived maternal and reproductive roles.
Among questions raised were: what were the potentially harmful impacts that the combination of disinformation, online harassment and threats could have on access to justice; how could the Council help judicial practitioners to face the threats made to them; how could the independence of the judiciary be protected against international repressions and abuses of the system of international judicial cooperation; how could the independence of judges be guaranteed in light of external pressures that they may face; how to ensure that the judiciary left no one behind and protected the rights of all groups and national minorities, including sexual minorities; how to respond to the instrumentalisation of the law; and how could the Special Rapporteur extend support to States in their commitment to preserving judicial independence through technical cooperation.
Intermediary Remarks
MARGARET SATTERTHWAITE, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said her work was guided by human rights law and international standards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contained articles that were very relevant to her work, as did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She also drew on the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. In her next report to the General Assembly, she would examine legal empowerment as a strategy for people-centred justice. She would also examine autocratisation and its impact on the freedom of the judiciary in a future report.
Discussion
In continuing questions and comments, some speakers said access to justice and a fair trial was an illimitable and non-derogable right, and Governments should make access to justice an integral part of their services to the population. There was concern for the high level of persons living in conditions that fell outside of the benefit of the law, in places where legal practitioners violated legal rights because the person concerned was of African descent, a migrant or a woman. The right to a fair trial must be guaranteed, including access to funding for access to lawyers, including in the context of corruption. The independence of the judiciary was vital in promoting human rights. All judicial appointments made in a context of corruption were artificial, a speaker said.
Justice reform was an ongoing process that needed constant progress, and as such, speakers commended the identification, in the Special Rapporteur’s report, of current and future challenges on the independence of judges and lawyers. Some of the proposals, although only sketched, were worthy of further in-depth analysis, a speaker said. An independent, transparent judiciary was a bastion of human rights. No one was above the law. The independence of the judiciary was vital for the holding of fair trials, and this should be ensured in a holistic fashion. One speaker said that the global increase in policies that undermined and restricted the practice of law by independent legal professionals was alarming.
The Special Rapporteur’s vision for access to justice, including the autonomous legal practices by indigenous groups, was applauded by a speaker, who condemned those who targeted and limited legal professionals. The Special Rapporteur’s advice on how to best address the impact of the climate crisis on judicial investigations was also appreciated. Justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection should be the cardinal principle for every thriving democracy: it was essential for an independent and impartial judiciary that it was manned by persons of sterling quality and character, who were impartial and independent to dispense justice. Global understanding, therefore, was that the role of a judge in a democracy was meaningful only if the judge was independent and impartial.
Lawyers were increasingly targeted for performing their duties, with States often being the source of these threats. Legislation, including national security and counter-terror laws, was systematically misused to silence lawyers, preventing effective legal defence and access to justice for victims. The targeting of legal professionals was tantamount to an attack on democracy and on the rule of law, but unfortunately such attacks were still widespread across many countries. All States should respect their basic human rights commitments under national legislation and international treaties.
In further questions, speakers asked, among other things, whether the Special Rapporteur could shed light on effective approaches to best safeguard the role of an independent judiciary in the face of systematic discrimination and authoritarianism in some countries; a request for details on what more should States do to ensure a diverse and representative composition of the judiciary, as a requirement for a genuine defence of equality for all under the rule of law; and what were good practices for States to enhance access for legal professionals to vulnerable groups.
Concluding Remarks
MARGARET SATTERTHWAITE, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, said her goal was to implement her duties as rigorously as possible. The independence of the judiciary was vital to the broader aims of the Council, and she promoted that independence very seriously. States were required to guarantee that those who practiced law were able to do so free of harassment. States needed robust legal schemes in place for those who could not afford a lawyer.
The judiciary should reflect the society it served. Where the judiciary did not do this, it indicated a lack of independence and trust in the judiciary. Mass movements around the world were calling on the judiciary to do more to respond to racism and other discrimination issues. Diversity in judges enriched their jurisprudence. It was useful for the judiciary to have experience facing the issues they were ruling on. Efforts to increase diversity needed to extend to persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples, among other groups. Ms. Satterthwaite urged States to create trusting relationships between the judiciary and the people they served. People needed to be able to feel that they trusted judges and lawyers, and that they were working to promote human rights.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants
Reports
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (A/HRC/53/26) on How to expand and diversify regularisation mechanisms and programmes to enhance the protection of the human rights of migrants, as well as reports on his missions to Poland (A/HRC/53/26 Add1), to Belarus (A/HRC/53/26 Add2), and to Bangladesh (A/HRC/53/26 Add3), as well as the responses of Poland (A/HRC/53/26 Add4) and of Belarus (A/HRC/53/26 Add5)
Presentation of Reports
FELIPE GONZALES MORALES, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said that over the past six years as Special Rapporteur, and through his thematic reports to this Council and the General Assembly, he had tried to provide a comprehensive view of some of the most relevant aspects for the protection of the human rights of migrants which remained a challenge today. These related to return and reintegration; access to justice; gender perspective; freedom of association of migrants; ending migratory detention of children, pushbacks and human rights violations at international borders; the COVID-19 pandemic and migration; climate change and migration; and regularisation and labour rights of migrants. Despite efforts by many countries, United Nations agencies, civil society and other actors, in many places the human rights of migrants remained frequently violated, often in grave ways.
The main report submitted to the Council included a thematic study on how to expand and diversify regularisation mechanisms and programmes to enhance the protection of the human rights of migrants. The report recognised the complexity of factors leading towards irregular migration, which was often a consequence of limited regular pathways. Regardless of the circumstances that led them to irregularity, the enjoyment of their human rights was negatively affected, including access to health care, education, essential services, adequate housing, labour rights and social protection. In the thematic study, the Special Rapporteur examined how to address these situations of vulnerability by creating and strengthening regularisation mechanisms. The report offered a set of recommendations, including that States put an end to the criminalisation of irregular migrants and promote solidarity to change the narrative on migration and combat xenophobia, racism and discrimination.
With regard to country visits, the Special Rapporteur said he had conducted an official visit to Poland, from 12 to 15 July and 21 to 25 July 2022. He also visited Belarus from 16 to 20 July, to examine the situation of migrants at the border between the two countries. He commended the efforts and timely action of the Government of Poland in admitting, assisting and integrating Ukrainian refugees since the outbreak of the war. However, third-country nationals fleeing the same war could not benefit from the wide range of support and financial aid designated for Ukrainians, as the applicable legal framework and entitlements were not the same for non-Ukrainians. Pushback practices at the border had cost migrants’ lives. Deaths on both sides of the border had been reported since 2021. Belarus and Poland should take all reasonable precautionary steps to protect life and to prevent excessive use of force, and cooperate to save lives and conduct prompt, thorough and transparent investigations into each death and each allegation of violence.
The Special Rapporteur said he conducted an official visit to Bangladesh from 20 to 31 January 2023. Despite the significant work made by the Government to adopt legislative and policy measures to regulate labour migration, the Special Rapporteur was concerned by remaining gaps relating to unfair and unethical recruitment practices that led to the exploitation of aspiring migrant workers at the pre-departure stage. The high cost of migration continued to be problematic, and the vulnerability of many migrants to exploitation, trafficking and other human rights abuses needed to be effectively addressed. Reports of widespread human rights abuses in countries of destination continued, including abuses instigated within the kafalah system against domestic workers. The lack of investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses in countries of destination was very concerning. The Special Rapporteur urged countries of destination to conduct a continual, thorough monitoring of the conditions of migrants, particularly women in the domestic service sector.
Statements by Countries Concerned
Bangladesh, speaking as a country concerned, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his visit and report, which reflected progress made and challenges remaining to be addressed for the rights of migrants in Bangladesh. Bangladesh was championing the Global Compact for Migration. It had played an instrumental role in the first Global Forum on Migration and Development of 2022. Bangladeshi legislation promoted opportunities for overseas employment and protected the human rights of the migrants it hosted. The Government had issued identity cards to migrants to allow them to access State services and livelihoods. Bangladesh attached great importance to the development of migrant workers’ skills. The Government sought to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers. It was engaging in dialogue with host countries to ensure the rights of its workers’ overseas. Bangladesh had extended support for Rohingya forced to stay on its territory. It had provided Rohingya language education to Rohingya children. The Government was committed to promoting the rights of migrant workers and would carefully examine the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.
Belarus, speaking as a country concerned, said the trigger of the visit to Belarus was the exceptional politicisation by the European Union of the situation that had developed on its eastern border in the fall of 2021. Belarus was not the source and cause of this situation; its territory was only one of many routes for migrants and refugees to European Union countries. The European Union used Belarus for groundless accusations of allegedly instrumentalising migration. The territory of Belarus had been used on a large scale and purposefully for the transition to the European Union for the first time. The law enforcement agencies of Belarus had taken measures to curb the illegal movement of migrants. Two thousand people who tried to enter the European Union through Belarus in the fall of 2021 were stopped by the Polish authorities at the border with water cannons, dogs and rubber bullets. Belarus did everything in its power to avoid casualties among these people, providing them with temporary shelter, food and medical care.
From the very beginning of this emergency situation, Belarus had interacted with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, and allowed migrants to enter the border zone. Belarus was grateful to volunteers and the Red Cross, who coordinated the collection and distribution of humanitarian aid. A group of people at the border were resettled, including under the voluntary return programme. Poland and Lithuania were blatantly violating their obligations regarding the asylum procedure. Moreover, brute physical force was encouraged to push people out. Belarus would make every effort, within its resources and capabilities, to ensure the human rights of migrants and would continue to interact with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. It called on the European Union to listen to the mandate holder’s opinion and return to practical cooperation on the effective management of the joint border with Belarus.
Poland, speaking as a country concerned, said Poland attached great importance to the advancement of all human rights, including the human rights of migrants, and this dedication to the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants was proven last year, when millions of refugees crossed the Polish-Ukrainian border seeking safety and protection in Poland after the unprovoked and unjustified Russian aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Poland’s immediate assistance centred on receiving refugees, ensuring their safety and addressing their needs. Maintaining good cooperation with international human rights mechanisms and bodies, in particular with the Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures, was crucial for the protection and promotion of human rights.
The visit of the Special Rapporteur had focused on the situation following the unprovoked and unjustified Russian invasion against Ukraine as well on the situation at the border between Poland and Belarus. Many issues raised in the report required further clarification. Since the beginning of the migration crisis at the Polish-Belarusian border in 2021, illegal migration had been part of the hybrid threat used by the Belarusian regime and supported by Russia aimed at destabilising the situation at the border with the European Union as well as inside the European Union. Poland strongly condemned these practices and believed that people’s lives must not be subject to this kind of shameful activity. The situation at the border with Belarus remained unstable and had been getting worse since the beginning of this year. These cynical activities of the Belarusian regime directly preceded the unprovoked and unjustified Russian aggression on Ukraine. This situation required Poland to take adequate legal measures and develop additional resources to protect safety and ensure that all actions were in full compliance with the international commitments and human rights norms.
Discussion
In the ensuing dialogue, a number of speakers, among other things, grieved for the migrant lives lost during attempted border crossings across the world, including in the Mediterranean Sea last week. This was a stark reminder of the need to protect the rights of migrants. The report revealed that migrants continued to face barriers to access to housing, health, work, education and other fundamental rights, often due to their irregular status. Migrants faced torture and cruel, degrading treatment on State borders, and marginalisation, abuse and discrimination from host societies.
Respecting the human rights of migrants was essential. States should treat migrants and nationals equally. Some speakers called for an international monitoring mechanism to be established to support the rights of migrants. Many said States needed to address the root causes of irregular migration, ensure that human rights and international law were respected in migrant return processes, and promote the integration of migrants into society. There was a need for a constant exchange of information between countries regarding migrant policies. Some speakers called on States to implement the Global Compact for Migration, which provided a wholistic approach to the governance of migration. Global challenges required global solutions.
Irregularity put migrants at increased risk of abuse. Many speakers said that the regularisation of migrants in line with international human rights law was key for the protection of their human rights.
Some speakers expressed their dedication to combatting people trafficking. People smugglers preyed on the most vulnerable, exploiting them for financial gain. The international community needed to exert further efforts to combatting international smuggling gangs. There was also a need for improved global protection to prevent tragedies at sea. Restrictive migration legislation put disadvantaged groups, including women and girls, at increased risk of abuse. Additional support needed to be provided for victims of trafficking. Such victims needed access to housing, health services and work. States needed to shine a light on the experiences of victims to ensure that further abuses did not occur. The needs of child migrants, especially unaccompanied minors, also needed to be considered.
Migrant workers made valuable contributions to economic growth and sustainable development, a number of speakers said. Regular and well-managed migration made positive contributions to both the countries of destination and origin. Speakers expressed concern about the instrumentalisation of migration as a tradable good, condemning actions that put the lives of migrants at risk. Speakers urged States to review policies of pushing back migrants.
A number of speakers expressed their commitment to protecting the rights of migrants. Many reported on national measures they had taken to promote and protect those rights, including providing migrants with essential services, conducting awareness raising on migrants’ rights, regularising migrants and promoting their integration in society, conducting dialogue with other States on migration policy, developing efficient registration and processing systems for migrants, expanding legal pathways for migrants’ entry and extending the length of their residence permits, introducing legislation to promote safe workplaces for migrants, introducing measures to support the return and reintegration of nationals working abroad, and exerting efforts to save migrants’ lives at sea.
Questions were asked on means of responding to hate speech against migrants; on policies for promoting the regularisation of migrants; on best practices for supporting unaccompanied minors; on means of addressing the differing capacities of States to address the regularising of migrants; on suggestions for facilitating safe, orderly migration; and on good practices other than regularisation for promoting the rights of migrants.
Intermediary Remarks
FELIPE GONZALES MORALES, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said the tragic events in the Mediterranean Sea were related to specific programmes and practices put in place by States. States were responsible for carrying out search and rescue operations and civil society secondarily. This type of tragedy was related to practices of devolution, and he had referred in the reports to this divvying up of responsibility. This type of tragedy was connected to the measures undertaken by States which exacerbated the repression of mobility. In a way, these measures were being adopted to prevent trafficking in human beings, but ended up bolstering it instead. The independent mechanism currently under debate in the Human Rights Council to look into the fate of those who were migrating and who had disappeared was essential, and needed the participation of civil society.
On comments and questions on the report on regularisation, there was a difference between temporary and permanent measures. Permanent measures could prevent people from falling back into an irregular situation, still more when this was connected to the responsibility of citizenship. With regard to migrant children, they needed to be given preference when it came to regularisation of their situation, as they were the most vulnerable.
