COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS HEARS RESPONSE OF COLOMBIA

Committee on Rights of Migrant Workers
22 April 2009



The Committee on Migrant Workers this afternoon heard the response of Colombia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Concluding its responses to a series of questions raised by Committee members on 21 April in the afternoon, the delegation, which was led by Fernando Alzate, Director for Consular Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, with regard to centres for illegal migrants, noted that a 2004 decree established that it was only possible to hold foreigners who had committed illegal activities in Colombia or abroad. In accordance with that decree, migrants who simply did not have visas were freed. When there was a consular office of the migrant involved they asked for help. A person could be held provisionally for up to 36 hours at the premises of the Administrative Department of Security before they had to be brought before a judge or released. They were also working with the municipality of Bogotá to establish a centre for migrants, both Colombians and foreigners, which would provide help for those in financial difficulties or otherwise in vulnerable situations. An information centre for migrants was also being developed in the El Dorado Airport.

In terms of health services, the delegation said that although reality sometimes lagged behind theory, migrants and their families had rights on an equal footing with citizens. That was true both in domestic law and by extension through international instruments. There was no discrimination against migrant workers. Colombia carried out health activities for the whole population, including preventive actions, and there was a compulsory health plan for all workers.

Ana Elizabeth Medina, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, in preliminary concluding observations, recognized progress, including the setting up of a National Immigration Commission, the migration component in the national development plan for 2006, and the ongoing process to develop a comprehensive migratory policy that dealt with both immigration and emigration. There were also subjects of concern, including the need to draw up a permanent training programme for migration, judicial and law enforcement officials based on the Convention, and the need to bring national practice with regard to expulsion and deportation in line with the Convention's provisions and to make it more consistent.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Colombia towards the end of the session on Friday, 1 May 2009.

As one of the 41 States parties to the Migrant Workers Convention, Colombia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to protect migrant workers and their families.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 23 April, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CMW/C/BIH/1).


Response of Colombia

Continuing to respond to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on 21 April, the delegation of Colombia, on the question of coordination, said that the Administrative Department of Security was the migration authority in Colombia and was present at all levels – local, national and regional. The Foreign Ministry coordinated general policy with that Department at the central level to develop the norms in force. The Government had also been developing an integrated migratory structure, whereas previously there had only been sectoral approaches.

In terms of the implementation of migration programmes and policies, with regard to the regularization of persons in Colombia, the Administrative Department of Security received the register of persons who had applied for that process directly in the cities and the regions, without it being necessary to travel to Bogotá. This year, the Ministry had, in conjunction with the National Penitentiary Institute, formulated a protocol to identify foreigners incarcerated in Colombia so that the consular authorities or embassies could be contacted in their countries of origin.

In terms of dissemination of the Convention, this had been done through a number of workshops and seminars, the delegation said, among them, a number of seminars on prevention of trafficking in people in 2008, one of them with the Government of Brazil. There were two other seminars held with regard to the "coffee axis" and migration. Other seminars and workshops had been carried out with civil society on the theme of migration and had highlighted the provisions of the Convention, and the Ministry for Social Protection had carried out training on the Convention in the 32 territorial directorates and the two special offices of the Ministry at the national level.

Regarding migrant children, there were no studies or data at the national level, but the Risaralda regional branch of the Colombian Family Welfare Institute had carried out two studies on migration and its effects on children, the delegation said. Those studies, confined to the municipality of Dosquebradas, concerned threats to the rights of children, one or both of whose parents were abroad and the psychosocial impact on those children.

Concerning centres for illegal migrants, the delegation said that a 2004 decree established that it was only possible to hold foreigners who had committed illegal activities in Colombia or abroad. In accordance with that decree, migrants who simply did not have visas were freed. When there was a consular office of the migrant involved, they asked for help. A person could be held provisionally for up to 36 hours at the premises of the Administrative Department of Security before they had to be brought before a judge or released.

They were also working with the municipality of Bogotá to establish a centre for migrants, both Colombians and foreigners, which would provide help for those in financial difficulties or otherwise in vulnerable situations. An information centre for migrants was also being developed in the El Dorado Airport.

In terms of health services, although reality sometimes lagged behind theory, migrants and their families had rights on an equal footing with citizens, the delegation said. That was true both in domestic law and by extension through international instruments. There was no discrimination against migrant workers. Colombia carried out health activities for the whole population, including preventive actions, and there was a compulsory health plan for all workers.

Turning to the brain drain, the State could not stand in the way of those who wished to leave, the delegation pointed out. But the Colombian Science, Research and Technology Department had put into place a programme since the 1990 to foster Colombian research and to try and put Colombian researchers in touch with their colleagues abroad.

As to how the rights of Colombians were protected abroad, that was mainly through Colombian consulates and embassies. Where there were no representatives nearby, they tried to resolve each situation on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to irregular migration, the competent authorities had organized awareness campaigns through the media with posters in border regions and airports. To combat trafficking, the International Organization for Migration in conjunction with the Anti-Trafficking Unit had carried out public awareness campaigns in the mass media to warn people about the risks involved, the delegation said. Seminars had also been held in the border areas.

Addressing concerns that there were no specific figures on returned Colombian minors or those who were separated from their parents, the delegation said that children were not allowed to travel unaccompanied or else had to obtain certificates from the visa authority. To monitor that situation, the Family Welfare Office had been working on checking the veracity of those certificates.

As for transit immigration, they had recently seen a greater number of Asians, particularly Chinese, as well as Africans transiting through Colombia en route to the United States, the delegation said. Colombia had been talking to Panama and other Central American Countries to deal with the situation. In cases of suspected trafficking they immediately launched an investigation, contacted the relevant embassies, and solicited the help of International Organization for Migration. Colombia was the largest donor to the International Organization for Migration in the Latin American region, the delegation underscored, and they really relied on their help.

On Colombia's reservations to the Convention, the delegation noted that Colombia had a reservation with regard to the seizure of assets of migrant workers. It explained that Colombia would keep that reservation, explaining that, just as it would for Colombian citizens, the State reserved the right to confiscate property, with just compensation to be paid to the owners, where it was in the public interest, such as seizing land to build an airport.

In terms of the impact of organized crime, in particular drug cartels, on migration, the delegation said that Colombia had a policy of combating illegal drug groups. Moreover, there had been no correlation seen between the narcotics trade and migration, as the areas where the drug trade was flourishing did not correspond with the areas that had the highest rates of emigration.

A number of protections were provided in the context of agreements among the Andean Community, including the Andean Labour Migration Instrument to provide more effective regional integration, and a 2003 decision which provided not only for freedom of movement but also for observance of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families. A social security scheme had been set up to ensure that the rights of Andean workers were protected. Colombia had also signed agreements with Chile and Spain in the labour sphere.

Regarding terrorism and the impact on migratory flows, the delegation said that there had been no impact whatsoever as the migration trends had remained steady since 1998.

There were very few migrant workers in the country, so there was no particular agency set up to ensure their particular interests, the delegation said. They had not had any complaints from foreign workers, either.

Further Questions by Committee Experts

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, the Chairperson of the Committee, observed that it appeared that Colombia's reservations to the Convention were based on a misreading of its provisions. Given the explanations provided today by the delegation, there was no reason for Colombia to maintain those reservations.

ANA ELIZABETH MEDINA, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, in some further questions, said she was still worried about the laws with regard to expulsions. She felt that too much leeway was given to the judges in expulsion decisions, and that the rules should be more narrowly drawn.

The situation of children of immigrants born in Colombia, who could only be registered but did not receive Colombian citizenship, was also a matter of concern. If those children were to leave and were not recognized by the countries of origin of their parents, they could be left stateless, Ms. Medina said.

A further concern was the fate of the irregular immigrants who were ordered deported but who were simply let go because of a lack of resources to return them to their countries of origin.

In the report it said that there were something like 90,000 foreigners present in Colombia. But the electoral records showed that there were only just over 5,000 foreigners registered to vote. Ms. Medina asked for an explanation about that very large discrepancy.

Regarding aggressive anti-trafficking campaigns being carried out in schools and elsewhere, was there a way of monitoring the results of those campaigns, Ms. Medina asked? Had there been any results?

An Expert also asked for more details on Colombia's labour agreement with Spain.

Response by Delegation

FERNANDO ALZATE, Director for Consular Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, apologized for his earlier absence owing to a number of simultaneous major conferences going on in Geneva, including the Durban Review Conference. What was at question here was building a State policy on migration and this dialogue had certainly helped them to do that.

With regard to the register of foreigners on the electoral role, Mr. Alzate noted that the law allowing foreigners to vote in municipal elections was fairly new – it only dated back to 2006 and had only been fully implemented since October 2007. They had only a small number of foreigners living in the country, 90,000, but this was at least a good start.

As for dual citizenship, Mr. Alzate reported that Colombians had been able to hold dual citizenship since the promulgation of the new Constitution in 1991.

The agreement with Spain regulated conditions for Colombians going to work in Spain for short periods, Mr. Alzate explained. The agreement had allowed for a certain amount of flexibility in recent years. The Government was also working on an agreement with Spain regarding reciprocal provisions for pension contributions. At the Latin American Summit in Santiago de Chile in 2007, it had decided that all Latin American countries, along with Chile and Spain, would become part of a reciprocal social security agreement.

Regarding whether migrants in an irregular situation had the right to join labour unions, Mr. Alzate wished to point out first that there were a very small number of migrant workers working in the country. Among those workers, 97 or 98 per cent were in a regular situation. So the situation had never really presented itself. However, according to the law, there was nothing to prevent such a worker from joining a labour union.

Another member of the delegation, continuing to respond to questions just put, noted that expulsion or deportation could only be authorized by the Administrative Department of Security. Appeals could be made to those decisions. However, when it came to expulsions for penal matters – i.e. the prison sentence that was added to the offence – no appeal was possible, for example, if someone was expelled for breaching national security or offending the public order. There was a high decree of discretion in expulsion decisions, the delegation agreed, as there was in other countries.

On the issue of children born in Colombia of foreign parents, in the exceptional case where the child was not eligible for citizenship in the parents' country of origin, there was no solution in place at the moment. There were also difficulties with regard to children of a Colombian parent born abroad if the Colombian parent did not have a residence in Colombia. For such children an interim solution had been to issue a travel document in lieu of a passport. Meanwhile, in December 2008 the Convention against Statelessness had been presented to the Parliament for consideration and it was hoped that in a year or so other solutions would be found.

As regarded trafficking in persons and the impact of the awareness campaigns, the police had a register of such cases and they were trying to put together some numbers to understand the scope of the phenomenon. At present it was not really possible to compare statistics from one year to the next, but they were working on this.


Regarding a question on pension benefits for irregular migrants, the delegation reported that perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of Colombian migrants abroad were in an irregular or illegal situation. Therefore they did not pay into a pension scheme. What they could hope to do would be to return to Colombia and continue to work, and they would be able to attain some pension benefits. They had a minimum of a 20 years payment into a pension scheme to obtain benefits.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

ANA ELIZABETH MEDINA, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, in preliminary concluding observations, thanked the delegation for their replies to questions. She recognized progress in the area of migration made by Colombia, including the setting up of a National Immigration Commission, the migration component in the national development plan for 2006, and the ongoing process to develop a comprehensive migratory policy that dealt with both immigration and emigration. Colombia's new visa policies were opening up Colombia to the world, which was also a positive step. The programme which fostered regularization of the situation of migrant workers was also to be praised.

In the report there were also a number of subjects of concern that would be included in the Committee's concluding observations, Ms. Medina said, including the need to draw up a permanent training programme based on the Convention. Colombia had a number of training programmes in the human rights area, but for the migratory and police authorities, as well as prosecutors, there should be a permanent training system on the provisions of the Convention. To address concerns about regulations regarding expulsions, it would also be a good idea to draw up a study on the provisions of the Convention and national regulations regarding expulsion and deportation so that national practice could be made more consistent.

Another area for future consideration would be to provide a focus on women migrants, Ms. Medina said. Data on migrant children and on children separated from their families was also needed.

Finally, Ms. Medina highlighted that the Committee was satisfied with work being done on the subject of Colombians abroad, including the health and housing fairs, and Colombia was encouraged to continue that good work.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record