Committee on Migrant Workers examines Algeria's report

Committee on Rights of Migrant Workers

11 April 2018

Committee Elects New Bureau, with Ahmadou Tall as the Chairperson

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 Algeria on its implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Introducing the report, Lazhar Soualem, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, underlined that the principle of non-discrimination was applicable to all foreigners on Algerian soil and national legislation drew no distinction between foreign and domestic workers.  The rights of foreign workers were guaranteed, namely the right to regular remuneration, residence permit, social security benefits, healthcare, vacation, transfer of part of the salary abroad, trade union rights, and protection from arbitrary arrest and detention, among others.  The recent unprecedented migratory influx was due to Algeria’s long border with seven countries and its proximity to Europe, as well as the Libyan crisis.  A real market of transnational crime had come into being on the southern borders of Algeria, involving trafficking in persons, prostitution, drug trafficking and trafficking of arms from Libya, Mr. Soualem explained.  Algeria could neither tolerate nor accept the current situation and it would use all legal means to counter it.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts voiced concern about the information that State officials had drawn a comparison between migrants and criminals, and that they compared the actions of human rights defenders with acts destabilizing the country.  They said that type of discourse put human rights defenders and migrants in danger.  Experts furthermore observed some gaps between the Algerian legal regime and the Convention, noting that only those workers with a residence permit were protected by the Convention in Algeria.  They inquired about the participation of civil society in the drafting of the State party’s report, the implementation of the Committee’s previous recommendations, the level of protection offered to undocumented migrants, statistical data on migrants, expulsion orders, abandoned property, family reunification, detention of migrants, protection and education of unaccompanied migrant children, regional cooperation in managing migratory flows, Algerian migrant workers, female domestic workers, classification of migrant workers, restitution of the property of the Moroccans expelled from Algeria in 1975, and resources dedicated to dealing with migratory flows.

In concluding remarks, Ahmed Hassan El-Borai, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Algeria, commended the delegation for having held a more receptive and relaxed dialogue with the Committee on the second day of discussion.  At the same time, he noted that the Constitution of Algeria was problematic because it was not entirely compatible with the Convention.

Ahmadou Tall, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur for Algeria, commended the high quality of the discussion with Algeria, and recognized the complexity of the problems facing Algeria, such as, for example, women and children from Niger begging in the streets of Algeria.  Nevertheless, the security policy could not be allowed to run counter to the human rights obligations of States.  

For his part, Mr. Soualem reiterated that Algeria could not stand alone in fighting migratory flows, which were due to the past pillage and looting of Africa.  Multinational corporations had made a lot of money from Africa, but were not giving anything in return.  There was a real lack of solidarity.

Maria Landazuri de Mora, Committee Vice-Chairperson, thanked the delegation for its participation in the dialogue and she encouraged the State party to take all necessary measures to implement the Committee’s recommendations.  She also agreed that there was a global responsibility for the situation of migrants in Algeria.

The delegation of Algeria consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

In a closed meeting on Tuesday, 10 April, the Committee elected its new bureau, with Ahmadou Tall as Chairperson.  The Vice-Chairpersons are Jasminka Dzumhur, Maria Landazuri de Mora and Can Ünver.  Ms.  Khedidja Ladjel was elected as Rapporteur.

The Committee will next meet in public today at 3 p.m. to consider the initial report of Guyana (CMW/C/GUY/1).

Report

The second periodic report of Algeria can be read here: CMW/C/DZA/2.

Presentation of the Report

LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, said that the periodic report had been drafted by an interdisciplinary working group and that it meant to reflect a faithful overview of the accomplishments in the field of migrant workers.  Algerian society had enshrined democracy and pluralism in an irreversible manner, and ratified international treaties had primacy over national laws.  The pluralism in Algeria was reflected in the fact that there were 71 political parties, more than 100,000 non-governmental organizations, and 65 trade unions.  The media sector was enriched by numerous television channels and print media reflecting various opinions.  Since its previous review in 2010, Algeria had ratified the Maputo Protocol on the rights of women, and it had presented numerous reports to United Nations treaty bodies.  The principle of non-discrimination was applicable to all foreigners on Algerian soil and the national legislation drew no distinction between foreign and domestic workers.  The rights of foreign workers were guaranteed, namely the right to regular remuneration, residence permit, social security benefits, healthcare, vacation, transfer of part of the salary abroad, trade union rights, and protection from arbitrary arrest and detention, among others.  Migrants, notably those from sub-Saharan Africa, were able to access free of charge healthcare.  That generous policy was also extended to education.  Children of migrants were also protected from being exploited through activities such as begging on the streets.  Algeria had always been an open and hospital country to persecuted persons.  That policy had never been governed by a political or diplomatic agenda; it was due to the hospitality of the Algerian people.

The recent unprecedented migratory influx was due to Algeria’s long border with seven countries and its proximity to Europe.  The Libyan crisis and cyclical crises in the Sahel had accelerated the migratory crisis in recent years.  A real market of transnational crime had come into being on the southern borders of Algeria, involving trafficking in persons, prostitution, drug trafficking and trafficking of arms from Libya.  Terrorist groups present in the Sahel region had become reinforced following their debacle in Syria and Iraq, and were drawing an immense profit from the current migration crisis.  In that situation, Algeria was entitled to dismantle those terrorist and smuggling groups.  It could neither tolerate nor accept the current situation and it would use all legal means to counter it.  No society could survive the failure of the rule of law, which was why Algeria had signed numerous bilateral agreements with other countries.  The Algerian State had shown tolerance regarding the extended stay of many migrants, particularly those from sub-Saharan Africa, without any international assistance.  Since independence, Algeria had educated more than 100,000 leaders from African countries, written off the debt of 14 African countries, and had constructed free of charge schools, roads, infrastructure and telecommunication facilities.  Algeria preferred the voluntary return of irregular migrants to their countries of origin.  In the past five years, and in cooperation with United Nations agencies, Algeria had identified more than 27,000 persons, namely women and children at risk of trafficking.  Repatriation had been conducted in cooperation with countries of origin and in full transparency.  Contrary to what had been reported, no migrant had died during the course of repatriation activities, Mr. Soualem concluded.

Questions by Country Rapporteurs

AHMED HASSAN EL-BORAI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Algeria, noted some gaps between the Algerian legal regime and the Convention.  Namely, the Algerian Constitution gave the Convention a hierarchical status higher than that of national laws.  All migrants, including irregular migrants, should be protected by the Convention, whereas only those workers with a residence permit were protected by the Convention in Algeria.

There was a big gap between the official data on migrants in the country and the figures received by the Committee from alternative channels.

Were workers notified prior to collective expulsions?  Under what circumstances had they been detained prior to expulsion and where had they been detained?

Mr. El-Borai also inquired about equal wages and the right to healthcare, education and social benefits for migrant workers, as well as about the implementation of the Committee’s previous recommendation with respect to abandoned property and family reunification.

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur for Algeria, stressed that the Committee had not received the required information from the State party.  There was no factual information about the events that had unfolded since the previous review of Algeria, nor information about the actual implementation of the Convention in the country.

Mr. Tall reminded that the Committee had received information about State officials drawing a comparison between migrants and criminals, and comparing the actions of human rights defenders with acts destabilizing the country.  That type of discourse had put human rights defenders in danger.  Their activities should not be considered criminal or terrorist acts, Mr. Tall emphasized.  He underlined that undocumented migrants needed better protection, and when irregular migration was compared with criminal activity, undocumented migrants were placed in great danger.

In what manner had the State report been drafted?  Had civil society been able to offer their contribution?  What was the status of the Committee’s previous recommendations?  How many of those recommendations had been concretely implemented?  What recommendations had been more difficult, or even impossible, to implement?

Article 67 of the Algerian Constitution stipulated that all regular migrants would enjoy legal protection, which was at odds with the Committee’s interpretation of migrant protection.  Was there a chance for the State party to modify that article?  What was the status of infractions against irregular migrants?

Collective expulsions were handled with a great deal of brutality.  What was the delegation’s reaction to that assertion?  Agreements signed with Mali and Niger about the repatriation of migrants had been used as a pretext to repatriate migrants from any other country.  Had judges been involved in this matter and had they contested those illegal procedures?

Could migrant workers benefit from legal assistance?  Did they enjoy consular protection?  What measures had been envisioned to appeal the renewable 30-day detention for migrants?

Mr. Tall reminded of the repression of human rights defenders of migrants, and of migrants hesitating to seek medical care for fear of being expelled from the country.   He stressed that civil society provided important information to the Committee and that non-governmental organizations should be treated as equal partners in the dialogue with States parties.    

Questions by Other Committee Experts

One Expert reminded that the Convention protected all migrants, both regular and irregular.  As for the statistics on migrant workers in Algeria, he noted that the category of sub-Saharan migrants had not been mentioned in the State party’s report, whereas it had been mentioned in the delegation’s introductory remarks.  How had bilateral agreements between Algeria and other countries been implemented?

Did the Convention prevail over national laws?  Had any judges handed down sentences referring to the Convention?  What was the link between refoulement, return and combatting trafficking in persons?  How was voluntary return implemented in practice?  Were migrants detained while awaiting expulsion or return?

What was the role of regional cooperation in managing migratory flows?  What was the status of cooperation with countries of origin?  Irregular migrants should not be called “clandestine migrants.”  Was the Algerian national human rights institution involved in drafting migration laws?

How did Algerian laws provide for the rights of Algerian workers abroad?  Were there trained workers to take care of female Algerian workers abroad?  What were the main destination countries for Algerian migrant workers and what was their number?  What was the number of bilateral agreements between Algeria and destination countries for Algerian migrant workers?

Did border authorities have the necessary training to deal with female transit migrants?  Were there efforts to eradicate child labour?  Were migrant workers able to enjoy the pension and social benefits to which they had contributed once they left the country?

It seemed that there were several layers of administrative treatment of migrant workers, and that it was different from migrant workers from France, or migrant workers from Tunisia.  How were migrant workers classified by the State administration?  What were the criteria for classifying migrant workers as regular or irregular?

How many non-governmental organizations had taken part in the drafting of the State party’s report?  How did the State party ensure that anti-terrorism measures were not used to violate the human rights of migrants?

What measures had been taken to ensure that migrants were guaranteed a case-by-case evaluation in order to avoid collective expulsion? The detention of migrants should be an exceptional measure and it should be as short as possible.  How did the State party ensure that migrants’ rights were not violated when detention was applied?  What safeguards were in place to ensure that migrants who were victims of crimes could report them to police authorities?

What type of resources were dedicated to ensuring that Algeria complied with the Convention and for dealing with the migration crisis on its southern borders?

Replies by the Delegation

LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, noted that he could not accept that the Committee spoke of raids and deportations in Algeria; that was something that the country had experienced during the colonial period.  He noted that Algeria was doing its best to draw legislative provisions from international conventions.  The Algerian Constitution stipulated that foreign nationals legally established in the country had their rights safeguarded, such as freedom of association.

The absence of laws resulted in arbitrariness and people could be at the mercy of unscrupulous employers.  The delegation had never said that migration was a factor of insecurity.  On the contrary, criminal activity and transnational crime created insecurity, Mr. Soualem clarified. The fact that Algeria went into the sub-Saharan region so deeply meant that what was currently happening in Libya was having serious consequences for Algeria.  There was no development without security.  Algeria did not have a diplomatic agenda and it wanted to show solidarity with its neighbours.  But in the current context, Algeria could not sort out the migration crisis.  Despite the difficult economic situation, Algeria was nevertheless demonstrating solidarity vis-à-vis its neighbours.

Answering the Experts’ questions about statistics on irregular migrant workers, Mr. Soualem noted that the Government could not provide data on invisible migrants.  Those people did not carry identity papers with them and the authorities could not prove their nationality.  There were no detention centres for migrants, but rather administrative centres, which were open.  Biometric data was taken from individuals to establish their nationality, in consultation with consular authorities of their countries of origin.  That process was fully transparent.  The majority of irregular migrants were women and children.  Since crossing the desert was so perilous, there was no doubt that those women and children had received support from criminal networks, Mr. Soualem noted.  Those were documented facts and not theory.

Ministries were tasked to respond to the Committee’s recommendations and to report about the main changes since the previous report.  The national human rights institution and civil society had been involved in the drafting of the State party’s report.  There was no distinction among migrant workers according to their country of origin, but Algeria did apply the principle of reciprocity in accordance with bilateral agreements.  There were eight different constituents for Algerians abroad to elect their representatives, Mr. Soualem explained.

The delegation clarified the distinction between irregular and regular migrants, and foreign workers in irregular situation.  As for the infractions against migrant workers, the proceedings were mainly linked with infringement with respect to work permits and work conditions.  Employers were responsible for employing someone without a work permit.
With respect to child labour, the legal age of work was 16.  The International Labour Organization had never contacted Algeria about that issue.

Algerian legislation made no distinction between providing legal assistance to nationals and to foreigners, even if they were in irregular situation.  Some victims of trafficking from sub-Saharan Africa had been able to benefit from legal aid.  Persons in irregular situation were able to report crimes committed against them and to appear before the courts.  There were mechanisms in place to denounce serious offences, make complaints, and benefit from legal assistance.  As for appealing the decision of expulsion, any individual who was the object of such a decision could appeal to the competent authority.

Algeria had to monitor its extensive borders in the south all alone.  It was dealing with a new situation – the displacement of populations due to drought and food insecurity.  The United Nations had declared it a real catastrophe in seven countries, including Mali, and it was affecting 50 million people.  The international community should mobilize all necessary resources to deal with that humanitarian situation.  The migratory circuits had been infested by armed criminal groups that profited from migrant trafficking.  Algeria was not responsible for the migration crisis in the Sahel region.  It had experienced rather drastic security realities and had thus reached agreements on readmission with a number of European countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Algeria could not resolve the migration crisis alone.  Countries of origin should work with the international community to create self-sufficiency and avoid migration.  Millions of people would be fleeing to the north due to climate change.  Migrants were treated on an individual basis, noted LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria.  The Government was adapting its migration laws in line with the situation.  Mr. Soualem warned that the Algerian situation was far more complex than its representation in some media outlets.  Migrants were in a grey zone, which was why the Global Compact on Migration would focus on making recommendations for the protection of their rights.

Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur for Algeria, observed that human rights treaties were different from other international treaties – the rights holders were not States, but individuals.  The principle of reciprocity, therefore, could only be applied with great difficulty.

As for the centres in which migrants could be held in renewable 30-day detention, Mr. Tall noted that if the person could not freely leave those centres, they should be called “detention centres.”  Were migrant women and children brought in front of independent courts?  The lack of vigilance could lead to double victimization of migrants, Mr. Tall warned.  States had to deploy great efforts to safeguard the rights of migrants.

AHMED HASSAN EL-BORAI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Algeria, inquired about any example of expulsion orders being overturned.  Was the legal provision on irregular stay that could lead to five years in prison still in place?        

Replies by the Delegation

LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, explained that bilateral agreements offered higher measures of protection for migrants than international conventions.  Out of some 170,000 migrant workers in Algeria, 40,500 had been able to pursue family reunion.  As for the xenophobic comments attributed to State officials, those had been taken out of context.  Those comments should not be selectively cherry picked for the purposes of dubious propaganda.

With respect to the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations, employers had to provide migrant workers and their families with decent housing units.  Migrants could always apply for social housing.  Cuban medical teams had had access to such housing units, for example.  Migrant workers could unionize and even be part of the leadership of those unions.

The “distancing” of Moroccan citizens in 1975 had been decided after the massive expulsion of Algerian citizens from Morocco in 1973 and the confiscation of their property and land.  Algerian citizens had been heavily affected by the Moroccan nationalization process.  Algeria and Morocco had tried to resolve the pending problems and had put together joint commissions.  The most recent attempt had taken place in June 2003.  Algeria rejected unilateral measures taken by Morocco in that respect, Mr. Soualem explained and expressed hope that the two countries would be able to find a solution.

Mr. Soualem noted that despite what could be read in the press, Algeria had made an effort to repatriate migrants in an orderly and humane manner.  It had identified all those migrants and provided them with financial and humanitarian kits.  However, Algeria could not be responsible for what was happening beyond its borders.  Under Algerian law, education was free of charge and compulsory.  That applied to Algerian and foreign citizens alike.  The only thing that the Algerian authorities could do when migrant parents did not send their children to school was to explain the situation to the countries of origin and repatriate them.  In that way Algeria saved them from falling in the hands of criminal networks.

The delegation explained that the waiting centres for migrants were not detention centres.  Migrants were brought there under administrative measures and no arrest warrant was issued for them.  They faced no restrictions and they could receive the support of an attorney, or consular support.  The individual subjected to the measure of expulsion could hire a lawyer.  The criminal jurisdiction had not handed down any prison sentences for irregular stay.

Trafficking in persons was an infraction that was relatively new for Algeria.  Since 2013 eight trafficking cases had been registered, involving migrants that had been victims of trafficking networks.  The crime of contraband was far more common on the southern borders of Algeria.  A multi-sectoral national commission had been established to prevent trafficking in persons.  The Government had issued a decree to establish shelters for victims of trafficking.          

Turning to repatriation, the delegation said that the wave of migrants from sub-Saharan countries reminded of what Europe had experienced in the Second World War.  Algeria was alone in grappling with the migration crisis, whereas the Marshall Plan had been established to help people in Europe after the Second World War.  Algeria was not responsible for the distress in Africa.  The Government had already invested some $ 20 million to provide care for sub-Saharan migrants.  For example, it had vaccinated persons from Mali against measles and malaria, and it had sent medical doctors and medicines.  Public hospitals in southern Algeria and on its western borders were open to all migrants, without any discrimination.

Migrants in great humanitarian distress were welcomed in open centres in Algeria, where they could find shelter, food and care.  What the media reported about those open centres was very often not true.  Migrants in Algeria did not die of hunger and were not mistreated.  More than 10,000 migrants had died in the Mediterranean Sea, and yet Algeria was castigated.  In Algeria it was dishonourable to brag about humane deeds.  The Government had 600 airconditioned buses to repatriate migrants in dignity; they were not abandoned in the desert.  Migrants from Mali and Niger went back with enough money and food.  Despite all of the resources that Algeria had mobilized, it seemed that it was not enough.  The international community should establish a Marshall Plan for Africa.  It was time to end the pillaging of Africa and then there would be fewer migrants.

Second Round of Questions by Committee Experts

AHMED HASSAN EL-BORAI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Algeria, commended the willingness of the delegation to enter into dialogue and to look at issues objectively.  Turning to detention in what was described as “administrative centres,” Mr. El-Borai reminded that those centres remained detention centres because people there did not have the freedom to leave.  There should be some legal framework to govern the conditions of deprivation of liberty in those centres.

Was there legislation that protected female domestic workers?  They often worked in private home and were, thus, particularly vulnerable to discrimination, Mr. El-Borai noted.

Furthermore, residence permit renewal was not in line with the Convention.  Would the State party again look at its legislation in that respect?  Likewise, article 67 of the Algerian Constitution, which protected the rights of foreigners legally set up on the Algerian territory, was not fully in line with the Convention.

What were the practical measures taken by the State party to ensure the right to education and citizenship to migrants, asked Mr. El-Borai?

Observing that the delegation had placed a lot of emphasis on bilateral agreements and reciprocity in the enjoyment of rights of migrant workers, one Expert said that the Convention did not highlight the principle of reciprocity.  The same Expert noted that the statistics provided by the State party did not cover sub-Saharan migrants.

Experts encouraged the continued negotiations between Morocco and Algeria in order to settle the property claims issue.  Did the Government of Algeria intend to settle the issue of property of expelled Moroccan citizens?

What were the statistics available on unaccompanied migrant children?  How many Algerians had been in the readmission process and from which countries had they returned?  How much did corruption affect migration procedures?  What department was responsible for migrant workers’ rights?

What was the situation of persons in administrative centres?  Did they have the possibility of judicial review?  What happened after the renewal of the second 30-day period in administrative centres?  Did organizations, such as the Red Cross, have regular access to administrative centres?

Who were the partners with which Algeria worked on the ground in order to protect migrants?  What kind of facilities did Algeria provide to them?  What kind of resources were available to ensure the rights of both irregular and regular migrants?  

Replies by the Delegation

LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, recalled that Algeria was a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrined habeas corpus as non-derogable law, which applied to migrants.  The choice of the phrase of “legally settled migrants” was a national choice.  The rule of law applied to everyone, but in some cases there could be bilateral agreements that produced advantages for people.

As for citizenship, everyone born in Algeria was registered within 72 hours.  The registration was mandatory for everyone, both nationals and foreigners.  Foreign children born in Algeria received the nationality of their fathers, whereas those with unknown fathers received Algerian nationality.  The practice of hiring domestic workers was a colonial one and it was not a practice of Algerian people, Mr. Soualem explained.

The primary partners of Algeria in dealing with migration were countries of origin and destination, Mr. Soualem said.  Algeria had signed readmission agreements because some of its citizens did not comply with the law.  Other partners included the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, and the Algerian Red Crescent, Mr. Soualem said.

Mr. Soualem added that it was not moral to say how much money and resources the Algerian Government had spent on helping migrants and refugees.  It was a question of human dignity.

Mr. Soualem explained that migrant children were placed in schools in Algeria with or without proof of their previous level of education. 

The delegation stressed that migrants were not placed in detention centres.  They were waiting or retention centres with individuals who had not been deprived of their liberty.  They mostly received people from Niger who were normally not even held for 30 days as prescribed by the law.  Algeria did not immediately repatriate those who were in distress.  Migrants had the possibility to benefit from legal aid.  Those awaiting the administrative expulsion order could appeal that decision.  One of the primary guarantees for migrants was that when they were in holding centres they had the right to receive a visit from their country’s consular service.

As for unaccompanied migrant children, Algeria treated them as a vulnerable population according to its national laws.  Most of them were smuggled and exploited as street beggars.  Turning to the mechanisms for the prevention of corruption, the delegation reminded that Algeria was a signatory of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

There was an urgent need to find additional resources to address the migratory flows at Algeria’s borders, the delegation noted.  The State budget covered the cost of food, clothes, medical care, care for women and children, pregnant women, and treatment of chronic illnesses among migrants.
 
Concluding Remarks

AHMED HASSAN EL-BORAI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Algeria, commended the delegation for having held a more receptive and relaxed dialogue with the Committee during the second day of discussion.  It was a common task of the State party and of the Committee to protect the rights of migrant workers.  The text of the Convention had to be applied.  The Committee looked at the legislative arsenal and practice in the State party.  Mr. El-Borai noted that the Constitution of Algeria was problematic because it was not entirely compatible with the Convention.  Namely, it only protected legally residing migrants in the country.  Algeria’s legislation needed to be amended or revised.  Mr. El-Borai asked Algeria and Morocco to recognize the human dimension of the problem of confiscated property from Moroccan and Algerian citizens.

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur for Algeria, commended the high quality of the discussion with Algeria, noting that the Committee had a clearer picture of what was going on in the country.  Many sub-Saharan people were going through Algeria on the way to Europe.  Mr. Tall recognized the complexity of the problems facing Algeria, such as, for example, women and children from Niger begging in the street of Algeria.  Nevertheless, the security policy could not be allowed to run counter to the human rights obligations of States.  What kind of mechanisms were available for remittances, and what information was provided to migrant workers about those possibilities?  

LAZHAR SOUALEM, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, clarified that reading the Constitution of Algeria had to go beyond reading separate articles.  It should be read in its entirety.  Mr. Soualem reiterated that Algeria could not stand alone in fighting migratory flows, which were due to past pillage and looting of Africa.  Multinational corporations had made a lot of money from Africa, but were not giving anything in return.  There was a real lack of solidarity.  Algeria did provide human support to migrant workers, but it needed further help, above all, projects that were supported by local communities rather than programmes imposed from above.

MARIA LANDAZURI DE MORA, Committee Vice-Chairperson, thanked the delegation for its participation in the dialogue and encouraged the State party to take all necessary measures to implement the Committee’s recommendations.  She also agreed that there was a global responsibility for the situation of migrants in Algeria.
 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record
Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr