Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers Commend Uruguay on its Migratory Policy, Ask Questions on Voting Rights of Uruguayans Living Abroad and Visa Requirements for Certain Nationalities

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Uruguay, with Committee Experts commending Uruguay on its migratory policy, while asking questions about the voting rights of Uruguayans living abroad, and visa requirements for certain nationalities.

A Committee Expert commended Uruguay for its migratory policy, which was based on the promotion of regular routes, access to documentation, and the policy for regularisation. It was also commendable that residency cards were free of charge. These were positive elements.

Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if more information could be provided regarding the rights of Uruguayans living abroad to vote? The right to vote was recognised in international treaties; what was the reality regarding this issue in Uruguay right now? Another Expert asked why it was not possible for those abroad to vote? Was this a choice? What could justify this?

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas said over the years, Uruguay had decided to require a visa for certain nationalities, including the Haitian, Cuban and Dominican populations. Had the impact of requirements for those visas been assessed? Had the visas worked as a way of preventing human trafficking? Sometimes these measures in other contexts had worked to the opposite effect.

The delegation said Uruguay had held referendums, with the idea not to accept the vote of Uruguayans abroad. Uruguayans abroad could vote; they just had to come in person, as stated in the Constitution. No one was prohibiting Uruguayans abroad from voting, they just had to appear in person to vote. The consular vote did not exist.

Regarding the visa issue for Cubans and Haitians, the delegation said this was a problem which the State wanted to address. There had been a suggestion to exempt people from visas, which would be possible under a reciprocal agreement from Cuba, however, Cuba had refused this. What was possible was the granting of an e-visa; this strategy was underway and was awaiting approval. Particularly in cases of Dominicans, Uruguay had been able to cut the number of people who had been trafficked.

Raúl Lozano Bonet, Minister of Housing and Territorial Planning of Uruguay and head of delegation, said Uruguay had created norms, plans and actions to ensure migrants in the country had the same rights as nationals. Migrants in Uruguay had immediate access to healthcare, education and work, among other rights. In compliance with the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Uruguay also provided its migrant population with rapid documentation that enabled them to exercise their rights. Between 2006 and 2008, the State had consolidated two laws, the migration law 18.250 and the refugee law 18.076, relating to migration and refugees, as a comprehensive approach. These laws saw the birth of the National Migration Board, as an advisory body and coordinator of migration policies, and the Refugee Commission as the body responsible for determining refugee status. The first national integration plan for migrants, asylum seekers and refugees was being implemented this year.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Ceriani Cernadas expressed his appreciation for the report and the dialogue throughout the day, which had been extremely constructive. Many dialogues with States were focused on the optics of migrants as a threat. However, in this case, the discussion had centred around society and inclusion and the challenges in this regard. The issue of the right to vote needed to be addressed.

Mr. Lozano Bonet thanked the Committee for the enriching dialogue. Uruguay was a country of immigrants. Migration had shifted from hailing from Europe and Africa to now coming predominantly from neighbouring countries, including Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba. Uruguay respected the laws in place and the Constitution, including that citizens had to come to the country to vote.

The delegation of Uruguay was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Interior; the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; the Ministry of Public Health; the Ministry of Housing and Territorial Planning; the Ministry of Social Development; the Supreme Court of Justice; the Institute for Children and Adolescents of Uruguay; the Social Security Bank; and the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The webcast of Committee meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Committee’s thirty-seventh session can be found here.

The Committee will next meet at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 November to review the second periodic report of Kyrgyzstan (CMW/C/KGZ/2).

The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Uruguay (CMW/C/URY/2).

Presentation of Report

RAÚL LOZANO BONET, Minister of Housing and Territorial Planning of Uruguay and head of delegation, said Uruguay had created norms, plans and actions to ensure migrants in the country had the same rights as nationals. Migrants in Uruguay had immediate access to healthcare, education and work, among other rights. In compliance with the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Uruguay also provided its migrant population with rapid documentation that enabled them to exercise their rights. During the COVID 19 pandemic, Uruguay allowed the entry of vulnerable populations, asylum seekers and persons seeking family reunifications.

Between 2006 and 2008, the State had consolidated two laws, the migration law 18.250 and the refugee law 18.076, relating to migration and refugees, as a comprehensive approach. These laws saw the birth of the National Migration Board, as an advisory body and coordinator of migration policies, and the Refugee Commission as the body responsible for determining refugee status. The first national integration plan for migrants, asylum seekers and refugees was being implemented this year. The plan was based on eight pillars: access to documentation and regularisation, employment, education, health, housing, violations, discrimination, racism and xenophobia and highly qualified migration, and had been drawn up by State actors and civil society.

There was also the support programme for the socio-urban integration of the migrant population, which had financing from the Inter-American Development Bank, exclusively intended for the migrant population in vulnerable situations, linking the migrant population with its recipient community. This pilot programme aimed to prevent the formation or expansion of squatter settlements in Montevideo. Less than three per cent of the total number of housing projects implemented so far corresponded to migrants, which was important, considering that the total number of migrants in Uruguay was three per cent of the population. A centre had been established in Montevideo to ensure the integration of the migrant population. Uruguay had made progress in the area of migration but knew it was necessary to continue making strides forward.

Questions by Committee Experts

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the national integration plan which was being implemented. How had civil society participated in its preparation? Who were the different stakeholders involved? What measures had been taken to bolster the Refugee Commission? In 2019 a draft law had been submitted to establish sanctions against discriminatory acts; had there been any recent steps in this regard? Where did the initiative linked to the punishment of hate crimes stand? Could more information be provided regarding the rights of Uruguayans living abroad to vote? Information had been received about red tape regarding resident permits; what measures were being adopted to facilitate and improve access to resident permits?

Over the years, Uruguay had decided to require a visa for certain nationalities, including the Haitian, Cuban and Dominican populations. Had the impact of requirements for those visas been assessed? Had the visas worked as a way of preventing human trafficking? Sometimes these measures in other contexts had worked to the opposite effect.

Significant progress had been made in the labour market, but challenges remained. What was being done to ensure migrant workers could be included in the formal labour market? Migration law 18.250 guaranteed access to health care on an equal footing. What happened to individuals who did not have a photo identification? Could they still access health care? What was access to mental health care services like for the migrant population? Was there a requirement for women to have lived in the country for a year to be able to have an abortion? How did the State deal with the juxtaposition on the law for abortion?

PABLO CÉSAR GARCIA SANEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what type of support Uruguayans abroad received from their consulates? How many consulates did Uruguay have abroad and did they have knowledge of the Convention? Were there agreements with Uruguay and other countries in the region to facilitate regular work?

EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, appreciated that Uruguay had a high-level delegation appearing before the Committee. The SIMORE software system had not been online for over two years. Had Uruguay been able to use SIMORE or was something else being used to meet those needs? According to the report, there were no specific facilities in Uruguay which only housed foreign nationals. Any detention of migrants should not be related to a prison system. Migration and detention should be different. What was done in these centres? How was it ensured that migrants were not held in conditions of detention like criminals? How had Uruguay managed to cover all migration issues after acceding to the Convention and the International Global Compact? How did Uruguay view the juxtaposition of these two instruments? Was there convergence between them?

How were the activities of the Parliamentary Commission on Penitentiaries, the national preventative mechanism for torture and the national human rights institute coordinated? How was the State able to bring about greater protection in preventing torture? The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had recommended that the national human rights institute of Uruguay should have a legal mandate enabling it to investigate cases of discrimination, particularly in the private sector. Over eight per cent of Uruguay’s population was made up of Afro-descendants. Could more information be provided on such matters?

A Committee Expert commended the delegation for the migratory policy, which was based on the promotion of regular routes, access to documentation, and the policy for regularisation. It was also commendable that residency cards were free of charge. These were positive elements. What were the sanctions that the State party put forward for infractions that were not considered to be criminal? What was the role of the Ministry of Social Affairs in allowing migrants access to social services, including housing? There had been a drop in the granting of residency cards. Why was this? Were there awareness raising programmes to help migrants submit their files? Was there any focus on the regularisation of women migrants and child migrants? How many visits to places of detention had been undertaken by the national preventative mechanism?

A Committee Expert asked about the types of challenges Uruguay encountered when enforcing the Convention? What new capacities did the State need to be able to implement the provisions of the Convention?

Another Expert asked if there was a mechanism which brought together all the stakeholders for the protection of children? What legal principles were being used in the drafting of the training programme? Were migrant children taken into account in the education policy?

An Expert said there was a tendency to think Uruguay was a White country, but this was not the case. A report from the World Bank had focused on discrimination. In Uruguay’s soccer team there were not a lot of Black individuals. There tended to be more dropouts from education among this population. What was the reality there?

One Expert asked how Uruguay provided the right to participate in elections in the country for Uruguayans living abroad? How many Uruguayans were living abroad and how many of them participated in Uruguayan elections?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said Uruguay had an open door to migration and had many favourable norms and plans in this regard. Uruguay had a National Migration Board, comprised of the President, Foreign Minister, and other State actors, as well as civil society, who participated actively. This Board had within its remit the first national plan for reintegration. A document had been drafted on discrimination, and numerous pillars of the plan were being implemented through working groups. Seminars were being held in conjunction with the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization, with the private sector and civil society. There was no administrative crime or prison for migrants. An online portal was operational for migrants to enable them to access information.

Uruguay had held referendums, with the idea not to accept the vote of Uruguayans abroad. Any Uruguayan could return to the country and vote but could not do so from abroad. The SIMORE software was on standby as it was being updated. Uruguay had substituted the possibility of uploading the information for reports over emails, and periodic tables. The Criminal Code set forth the prohibition of discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sexual identity, and punished hate crimes and discrimination, including discrimination through the internet and social media. Since July this year, Uruguay had been developing a draft law which would broaden the cases covered by discrimination. Should a person enter the country irregularly, within 60 days their situation would be regularised. There was no detention of individuals who had entered illegally, as was the case in other countries.

Regarding the collaboration of the Parliamentary Commission on Penitentiaries, the national preventative mechanism for torture and the national human rights institute, there was a meeting earlier this year to ensure better cooperation, to deepen the joint work, and to coordinate action on the matter of adults in prison. Monthly meetings were held on methodologies and work was being done towards a national registry on torture and ill-treatment, with a special focus on the trans population. Uruguay requested support from the Committee for training. The judicial body had held training on the Convention, but support from the Committee was always welcome.

Children with their passports or travel documents had healthcare support from the moment they arrived in Uruguay, whether they were with family or being cared for by the State. Access to funds and medication was provided. When an individual did not have any possibility of accessing care, the State always ensured that the services would be provided in some way. Regarding the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, this law dated back to 2012. It was requested that the individual had residency in the country of at least one year. All migrants had access to mental health services, which was part of comprehensive healthcare. Migrants should have access to psychological support and support from psychiatric professionals. Uruguay had always stood out in that it offered universal access to health care, and all people received this care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, work was held with the Commission on Refugees to ensure that all refugees who requested access into Uruguay received a response within two hours.

There had been an increase in requests for residency in Uruguay. This was due to the rapid response system, which generated greater agility in the procedure. Those who were in a vulnerable situation were provided with resident permits free of charge. Uruguay had around 42 embassies, and each embassy had a consular section. In addition to the embassies in the capital of the State, there was a consular network which essentially doubled the number of embassies, located in areas where many Uruguayans were living abroad, including in Argentina, Canada and Australia. Uruguay was looking at opening a consular office in Antigua, but this had not yet been successful.

Under an agreement, the Inter-American Development Bank provided 5 million United States dollars and the State provided 1 million United States dollars, which led to agreements between public organizations, including the establishment of a meeting centre for migrants in Montevideo, where the majority of migrants resided. Another component of this agreement was that subsidies were initially provided by the Inter-American Development Bank, and would eventually be provided by the Ministry of Housing. To date, around 300 subsidies had been granted, with each subsidy totalling around 500 United States dollars. Seventy-five per cent of subsidies dispersed to date had been to Venezuelans. Situations of greater vulnerability, particularly single female heads of households, were prioritised. A technical team was being created to provided support for migrants.

A team had been created to coordinate actions for children and adolescents who were migrants. A unit had been established to protect children from violence. Workshops had been held in the border departments on human mobility, especially regarding children and adolescents. A tri-part agreement had been signed to protect against the sexual exploitation of children in public and private enterprises. In 2022, Uruguay adopted a protocol to provide care for undocumented and unaccompanied children and adolescents at the border. Currently, the institute was dealing with 919 adolescents who were migrants. Following this dialogue, there was an opportunity to analyse the resources dedicated to children and adolescents to ensure they were sufficient.

Uruguay currently had signed agreements with all countries in Latin America and North America and European countries. A law had been issued on social security, which allowed for more flexibility in regard to disability benefits. In the case of minors, there was no time of residency needed to ensure they could have access to disability benefits.

To date, Uruguay had processed one hundred per cent of the requests for validation of qualifications, with 70 per cent done so favourably. Uruguay had conducted three accreditation visits and was assessing four careers. There was also a reciprocal agreement for careers, and work was being carried out with Argentina in this regard. Regarding the visa issue for Cubans and Haitians, this was a problem which the State wanted to address. Different proposals had been brought forward, including to open an office under the International Organization for Migration to process the number of visas being applied for by Cubans in the consulate. However, this was not possible, due to the requirement of being present in-person for the visa appointment. Subsequently, there had been a suggestion to exempt people from visas, which would be possible under a reciprocal agreement from Cuba, however, Cuba had refused this. What was possible was the granting of an e-visa; this strategy was underway and was awaiting approval.

A pilot programme had been developed which provided support to migrants through three-month rentals. The different programmes and services in the Ministry of Social Development were for everyone and did not distinguish based on the country of origin of the individual. Offices were situated throughout the entire country, acting as true guidance centres for migrant flows. Territorial offices were also located along the border in Brail. There were specific housing options for families, including the “trampoline house”.

Uruguay had become an attractive country for migrants, given the political and economic issues occurring in the region, and Uruguay’s strong economic stability and migratory policy which focused on human rights. Work was being carried out with the International Organization for Migration to provide food vouchers to families who had recently entered the country. Guidance was provided to individuals on how to obtain residency and what documents they needed. In practice, one challenge migrants faced was obtaining original documentation from their country of origin, which was necessary for obtaining new documents. In some cases, there were agreements with consular offices which waived costs in the face of economic vulnerability.

Questions by Committee Experts

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said many migrants found challenges when it came to access to housing, particularly when they were newly arrived. How was Uruguay addressing this type of case, to ensure support for access to housing? What measures were in place to ensure that families were not left out in the street? What measures had been taken to push back on cases of xenophobia affecting migrants in schools? What happened if documentation had not managed to be regularised after a year? Could more information be provided on the timeframe for disability pensions? How did Uruguay implement the border protocol, taking into account the best interests of the child, particularly when a child did not have the required documentation? Migrants could obtain legal citizenships but were not nationals of Uruguay; how did this work? The right to vote was recognised in international treaties; what was the reality regarding this issue in Uruguay right now? What was the impact of visas aimed at reducing trafficking?

PABLO CÉSAR GARCIA SANEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Brazil was a neighbouring country for Uruguay that had not yet ratified the Convention. Might Uruguay be able to address this issue with Brazil, so they understood the importance of ratifying the Convention?

EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, asked when the national action plan for integration would enter into force? Was a passport all that was needed for a migrant to have access to healthcare? Mental health was a specialised issue and was not simple; could more data on migrants and mental health care be provided? Regarding trafficking, telephone hotlines were essential. Without a hotline, how were victims of trafficking provided with counsel? Could the right to nationality for migrants be clarified? How was the Government in touch with the diaspora living abroad? Was the Commission on Refugees able to provide urgent humanitarian support? Were there measures to strengthen its support? What measures had the State taken to address remittances? This was an important issue as the country benefitted from remittances of workers abroad. What mechanisms were in place to ensure the smooth operation of this? What family reunification mechanisms did Uruguay have to help children find their parents?

A Committee Expert said Uruguay had made efforts when it came to legislation, policies and institutions, including the Institute for the Protection of Children, which should be welcomed. The existing mechanisms in place to grant housing to migrants in vulnerable situations and efforts to protect health were noteworthy. Could more statistical data comparable over certain periods of time be provided? What was the share of migrant labour in the economy of the country? Had Uruguay ratified the International Labour Office convention on agricultural labour?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the Migration Unit was established in 2007 and had been very busy from 2020 onwards, since the pandemic. In 2020, a guide was adopted for institutional actions to prevent the trafficking and exploitation of persons in Uruguay. During the health emergency, all labour services were available to all citizens, including victims of trafficking. A document had been created for migrants to provide information on the Common Southern Market (Mercosur). Discussions had been carried out on labour rights, particularly for women who were victims of labour trafficking. In 2023, awareness raising days on labour trafficking were carried out in different parts of the country, directed at public officials. The International Labour Office convention on agricultural workers had been ratified by Uruguay in 1973. This year, there had been procedures carried out in the agricultural sector, the tobacco sector and the forestry sector. When workers claimed their rights had been violated, they were able to file a complaint with the General Labour Inspectorate. Since 2021, it was possible to complain online, as well as in person. The Labour Inspectorate addressed 100 per cent of the complaints received and responded to each complaint within 24 hours.

Over the past few years, there had been an expansion of the services of the Labour Inspectorate. In 2023, two trainings were carried out for migrant workers by the Migration Unit, in coordination with civil society. Migrants from different nationalities had participated, including Venezuelans. The informal sector employment rate of migrants was 23 per cent in 2022, which was almost the same as the employment rate percentage of nationals at 22 per cent. It was important to send a clear message to companies on the importance of integrating migrants into employment, and subsequently into society.

Preliminary data showed that Uruguayans born abroad made up around 3 per cent of the population. The National Integration Plan was being implemented, and some actions had already been rolled out. Brochures, leaflets and awareness raising workshops were being planned for 2024. A legal migrant and a national had the exact same rights, apart from the possibility to become President. Draft bills were before parliament which were based on the issue of travel documents.

There had recently been four cases of statelessness in Uruguay and none of them had to do with the differences between citizenship and nationality. Uruguay would not grant nationality unless they were the children or grandchildren of Uruguayans. There was never any distinction drawn between migrants and nationals when it came to entitlements. Priority was always given to coverage for social security for all migrant workers, and it was even possible for them to sign into the system with foreign identification documents. There were no obstacles to the remittances going to or from Uruguay. Traditionally, there were more remittances coming in then going out, but in recent times, the opposite had also occurred. The only requirements were the normal anti-money laundering requirements that were in place for all citizens. There was a possibility of using a passport from another country if one did not have Uruguayan identification, to access health care.

The Southern Common Market (Mercosur) agreement on child migrants had been adopted. In September this year, there would be additional protocols introduced for unaccompanied minors. In situations where individuals were vulnerable, cases were brought before the family courts. If necessary, normal child services were called in to support undocumented minors. In Uruguay, there were projects for addressing street children in two relevant bodies, which covered 100 per cent of cases. There were no street children in Uruguay. When a possible case was detected, both bodies responded to provide support urgently and to find a shelter for the child. Ten per cent of the budget of the National Institute for Children and Adolescents was dedicated to mental health. The Institute had received funds for opening seven mental health centres across different parts of the country, with the primary goal being to prevent suicide attempts.

Uruguay had no knowledge of a draft law on the expulsion of migrants. Migrants were expelled in some cases; for instance, foreigners who had committed a drug-related crime would be expelled from the country once they had served their time. Food support and cleaning vouchers were provided to vulnerable migrants by the State. Support was provided to migrant families, including housing, psychological support, access to social workers, and access to health care. Access to health care was ensured even if an individual did not have the proper refugee status. The cost of identification was waived for those seeking refugee status. Anyone requesting refugee status from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community could change their name in any regional office. All data was available and could be sent to the Committee.

Permits from the Common Southern Market (Mercosur) represented a significant challenge, resulting in 31 new staff members being hired. A plan was underway for those who required visas to regularise their situation in the country. This would cover people who were already working in Uruguay. Regarding visas for some nationalities, cases of trafficking had fallen. Particularly in cases of Dominicans, Uruguay had been able to cut the number of people who had been trafficking. A phone line was in operation for guidance and advice on trafficking.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said it was pleasing to note that Uruguay had ratified the conventions on domestic work and on combatting harassment in the workplace. Did Uruguay envisage amending its labour legislation to incorporate the provisions of these two significant conventions into domestic legislation? How many labour inspectors were there in Uruguay? What was their territorial coverage? The statistics provided by the Ministry of Labour were impressive. What did the Labour Inspectorate do in the informal sector, bearing in mind that migrants were typically working in the informal sector?

Another Expert asked about the juvenile justice system for migrant children. Could information be provided on the rehabilitation programme regarding migrant children in conflict with the law?

One Committee Expert said the dialogue had given the Committee a much better understanding of the country. Regarding the dichotomy between nationality and citizenship, were groups broken down into “nationals” and “citizens”?

An Expert said children of migrant workers in irregular institutions had access to public institutions. Did these children have the right to access higher public education institutions? What were the initiatives being rolled out by the State party to address the lack of information on deportations of migrants in an irregular situation? How long would it take for a migrant worker in an irregular situation to have their situation regularised? In that waiting period, what did that migrant worker have the right to? Did they have temporary papers to allow them to access the same services as national workers?

Another Committee Expert said Uruguay had made huge efforts, particularly when it came to the implementation of the labour law. What happened to irregular migrants who were waiting for their regular status? What happened if their dossier was not satisfactory and they could not meet requirements? Why was it not possible for those abroad to vote? Was this a choice? What could justify this?

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the time period for asylum requests; how long after requests was a response provided? Regarding the refugee situation of those of Cuban origin, what was the reality of this situation? What happened to migrants residing in Uruguay who were seeking permanent residency but hailed from a country without consular representation?

EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, asked what happened to trafficking victims once they were identified? Were there shelters for victims of trafficking? What other measures did the State take for victims?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said there was often a higher rate of employment among recently arrived migrants, compared to those who had been in the country longer. Migrants were generally welcome in Uruguay. Migrant detainees serving sentences participated in all the projects and activities which other detainees participated in. There were two types of citizenship: natural and legal. Legal citizenship was held by foreigners who came to the country to live. There was no dichotomy. Anyone in Uruguay could exercise their religion as they saw fit and express their culture without any issue. There was no impediment for anyone to exercise their cultural customs. Uruguayans abroad could vote; they just had to come in person, as stated in the Constitution. No one was prohibiting Uruguayans abroad from voting, they just had to appear in person to vote. The consular vote did not exist.

Typically, within a year, a migrant child would receive their Uruguayan documentation. No child would be prohibited from their schooling for not having the relevant documents. If someone had documentation in place, they might receive residency within a month. Generally speaking, in less than six months, all types of residency permits would be granted. The national directorate of migration aimed to regulate people who were already in Uruguay. If a child who did not receive Uruguayan documentation within one year, this meant there was an issue with their documents in the country of origin. Advice would be given on how to process the document from the consulate of the country of origin. There had never been a case of someone kicked out of school because their documents were not in order. There were some delays in dealing with refugee submissions.

The Census was not carried out in 2021 due to the pandemic; the preliminary results had only been received yesterday. Exact data was not yet available, which was why figures from 2011 had been provided. Guidance from the Committee on issues of labour mediation and the link between employment and migrant workers would be very welcome. Uruguay was not a country which deported large numbers of people. If someone came without the necessary documentation, they would be invited to regularise their situation. Within the region Uruguay was a trail blazer when it came to aligning the rights of migrants on an equal basis with nationals.

Concluding Remarks

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, expressed his appreciation for the report and the dialogue throughout the day, which had been extremely constructive. The Committee would continue to support Uruguay to ensure the rights of migrants in society. Many dialogues with States were focused on the optics of migrants as a threat. However, in this case, the discussion had centred around society and inclusion and the challenges in this regard. The issue of the right to vote needed to be addressed. Mr. Ceriani Cernadas thanked the delegation and wished them a safe trip home.

PABLO CÉSAR GARCIA SANEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for their presence in Geneva. In general, Uruguay had made progress; there were challenges, as with any country, but the Committee would continue to support Uruguay.

EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, said the dialogue had been positive and constructive. If there was a conversation or additional chat which needed to happen, the Committee was ready and willing to support the State party. It was important to increase the level of protection of those in migration. The participation of the delegation and their high level of professionalism was highly appreciated.

RAÚL LOZANO BONET, Minister of Housing and Territorial Planning of Uruguay and head of delegation, thanked the Committee for the enriching dialogue. Uruguay was a country of immigrants. Migration had shifted from hailing from Europe and Africa to now coming predominantly from neighbouring countries, including Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba. Uruguay did not have an indigenous population; the whole country was made up of immigrants. Uruguay respected the laws in place and the Constitution, including that citizens had to come to the country to vote.