In Dialogue with Paraguay, Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers Commend Paraguay on its Business Programme for Returning Paraguayans, Raise Issues Concerning Assistance for Returnees, and Training to Assist Victims of Trafficking

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 Paraguay on measures taken to implement the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, with Committee Experts commending Paraguay’s business programme for returning Paraguayans, and asking about assistance provided for returnees, and training given to those who assist victims of trafficking.

The Committee applauded the business programme for repatriated Paraguayans and understood the need to strengthen it. More information was requested about the conditions of those returning to Paraguay. Was there an assistance policy for Paraguayans abroad who returned to Paraguay? The Committee noted that complaints were received via telephone regarding trafficking. It was highlighted that the person receiving the call must be sufficiently trained to properly handle the situation, as trafficking victims were in a vulnerable situation. Were there specialised staff trained to handle these calls? If not, the Committee said that this needed to be addressed as not just any public official was trained to handle these issues.

Responding to questions, the delegation said that Paraguay provided support for returnees, facilitating their permanent settlement. The “Welcome Home” programme gave such people a repatriation certificate, which could be used to obtain property, access Paraguayan nationality for children, and import vehicles and other belongings tax free. Social services provided protection and repatriation subsidies to such persons. There was also a subsidy on travel back to Paraguay for extremely vulnerable groups overseas. A business programme had also been established that assisted repatriates with obtaining work in the formal sector and establishing businesses. The delegation spoke about training for those dealing with trafficking victims, saying that the centre which dealt with complaints on trafficking had six officers who had been trained, with the system recording all calls. A psychologist was responsible for coordinating the response to calls about trafficking.

Introducing the State’s report, Edgar Taboada Insfrán, Deputy Minister of Justice of Paraguay and head of the delegation, said Paraguay’s Constitutional foundations recognised human dignity, and placed vulnerable individuals and groups at the core of its policies. Paraguay had a long migratory tradition. Throughout its history there had been many immigrants who had contributed to the development of the country, as well as a large number of Paraguayans who had emigrated for various reasons. The 2015 Migration Policy gave Paraguay a legal instrument that incorporated the principles of the Constitution, international law and human rights. This legislation sought to guarantee the human right to move freely and orderly and ensure the highest possible quality of life. The situation of Paraguayan emigrants was a priority issue within the State's foreign policy. The State recognised communities of nationals residing abroad as integral parts of society and as bearers of national culture. Multiple efforts had been made to mitigate the effects of the pandemic and ensure the enjoyment of human rights in Paraguayan territory, as well as of nationals abroad.

In closing remarks Pablo Garcia, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur of Paraguay, said that the dialogue had been very fruitful and many of the concerns raised were met with answers.

Mohammed Charef, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur of Paraguay, said he was pleased with the outcome of the two days of dialogue, which was rich with information. A great deal was learned from each other for the interests of migrants in the country. There was a great deal of work to be done, and with assistance, the laws would be created and implemented.

Edgar Corzo Sosa, Committee Chair, said Paraguay had made great efforts and although more work was required, the will was there to come to an agreement and find solutions. Mr. Sosa concluded by saying the dialogue had been constructive and had set the bar for how such dialogues should be held.

In his concluding remarks, Taboada Insfrán, Deputy Minister of Justice of Paraguay and head of the delegation, reiterated his gratitude to the Committee for the opportunity to hold the constructive dialogue. Mr. Insfrán said Paraguay hoped to make a valuable contribution in fulfilling the country’s efforts which arose from the Convention.

The delegation of Paraguay was comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security; Secretary of Development for Conational Returnees and Refugees; Public Prosecutor’s Office; Director General of Migration; Ministry of External Relations; and the Permanent Mission of Paraguay to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue the concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Paraguay at the end of its thirty-fourth session, which concludes on 8 April. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 8 April at 5:30 p.m. to conclude its thirty-fourth session.

Report

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

Presentation of Report

EDGAR TABOADA INSFRÁN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Paraguay and head of the delegation, said it was a great honour and responsibility for Paraguay to hold this constructive dialogue with the Committee. The Committee and the delegation shared the goal of building better, fairer and more equitable societies.

Paraguay’s Constitutional foundations recognised human dignity to ensure freedom, equality and justice, and placed vulnerable individuals and groups at the core of its policies. The National Constitution did not allow discrimination, recognising that all inhabitants were equal in dignity and rights. It also prohibited torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including slavery and servitude. It guaranteed the right to decent work for all inhabitants of the territory.

Paraguay had a long migratory tradition. Throughout its history there had been a large number of immigrants who had contributed to the development of the country, as well as a large number of Paraguayans who had emigrated for various reasons. Human mobility served to support labour capacities, the transfer of scientific technologies and knowledge, the exchange of languages and customs, and the expansion of culture. However, nefarious practices such as the illicit trafficking of migrants, human trafficking and other various types of transnational crimes had also been identified.

The 2015 Migration Policy gave Paraguay a legal instrument that incorporated the principles of the Constitution, international law and human rights. This legislation sought to guarantee the human right to move freely and orderly and ensure the highest possible quality of life. The Migration Policy was governed by the principles of equality, social equity, non-discrimination, gender equity, and intergenerational equity. All inhabitants had the right to formal employment, decent wages, social security, as well as regularisation procedures and free opportunities for technical and vocational training.

The situation of Paraguayan emigrants was a priority issue within the State's foreign policy. The State recognised communities of nationals residing abroad as integral parts of society and as bearers of national culture. It promoted their grouping and cohesion as vehicles of integration with the domestic communities and with the States that hosted them. Consular offices provided support on social, legal, and migratory matters, as well as support with documentation for migrant workers. These offices also ensured the rights of nationals deprived of liberty. In States where Paraguay did not have representation, including cities such as Accra, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing, assistance was provided through the support of third countries within the framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

The Secretariat of Development for Returnees and National Refugees provided comprehensive assistance to nationals and their families regarding integration. It defined repatriation policies and strategies, and planned and executed actions to alleviate the obstacles that arose from their resettlement.

The Superior Court of Electoral Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were working together to continue guaranteeing the vote of Paraguayans abroad in the elections in December of this year and in the general elections of 2023.

The COVID-19 pandemic had threatened to deepen pre-existing conditions of inequality and vulnerability, and affected migrant workers and their families in particular. Multiple efforts had been made to mitigate its effects and ensure the enjoyment of human rights in Paraguayan territory, as well as of nationals abroad. Efforts had been redoubled in order to provide assistance and guidance to nationals and foreigners. More than 17,000 people coming from emergency situations in other countries were repatriated in 2020.

The State worked to protect the rights of unaccompanied children and adolescents, combatting trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation. It had helped to protect 203 victims, including women and unaccompanied minors, and provide them with access to social programmes to help to improve their quality of life. Paraguay continued to guarantee access to education for all its inhabitants in spite of sanitary measures through the use of digital tools, television and radio.

Paraguay recognised the right to health care for the entire population. Efforts were made to protect life, health and all fundamental rights, strengthen the pandemic response, and mitigate its impact on society and the economy, particularly on migrant workers.

The observations and recommendations of the Committee would be a valuable contribution to strengthen efforts to comply with the Convention and to constructing a Paraguay where no person was left behind.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said that a new Bill for migration legislation had been presented in 2017, but it had not yet been passed. Why was this? The Committee Expert suggested that it include the spirit of the Convention.

Was there an assistance policy for Paraguayans abroad who returned to the State? Where did most Paraguayans live and work overseas? Did the State ensure the protection that those workers needed? Did it provide appropriate protections for foreign workers in Paraguay?

Was there a programme that assisted with the provision of State services to migrants in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Another Committee Expert commended the State’s determination to comply with the work of the Committee and the Convention.

The Expert asked why there were not enough valuable statistics on migrants and their profiles, particularly data on migrant women and children. What data did the State have, and what was it doing to improve statistics?

How did the law on the national human rights institute ensure conformance with the Paris Principles? How did the State ensure its independence and funding?

Another Expert said that there were several positive aspects of the policies that Paraguay had enacted, including its acceptance of migrants from Venezuela and its ratification of several international conventions. The Expert also commended the public defenders in the State that were working to defend migrants. The State had also established the SIMORE PLUS online platform for claims and recommendations regarding human rights, and had held dissemination workshops aimed at civil society regarding this service, but the Expert called on the State to establish deeper connections with civil society rather than simply offer dissemination workshops.

Did the State party intend to ratify any other International Labour Organization Conventions, such as 149 on nursing personnel, 181 on private employment agencies, and 190 on migration harassment? The Expert noted that the State party did not plan to ratify certain International Labour Organization Conventions because it had ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and asked the State party to explain this logic. The Expert called on the State party to ratify these Conventions.

What data did the State have on discrimination of workers? The Expert called on the State party to establish a law on discrimination.

The Expert also addressed migration detention, saying that migrants were subject to “administrative delays” waiting for decisions on the validity of their migration. How long did this delay last, and when was it imposed? Were the people subject to this delay held in prisons, and if so, were they separated from other prisoners? Were these persons’ rights respected during this period?

Another Committee Expert asked what measures would be adopted to incorporate human rights treaties in the text of the new Migration Bill. How did the State party interpret the concept of reciprocity? Reciprocity did not apply in human rights areas, so why was it referred to in the Bill? Migrants who had committed crimes against humanity were expelled. Was this always an appropriate punishment? To obtain a residency, a person needed to be free of communicable diseases. Did this mean that migrants with a sexually transmitted disease were refused residency?

Were Paraguayans abroad able to obtain dual citizenship without having to abandon their Paraguayan citizenship? Why were more election centres not established abroad to allow Paraguayan migrants to vote? Did Paraguayan migrants receive consular assistance abroad when charged with a crime? The Expert also touched on an issue where Paraguayan migrants were murdered, and asked about the proceedings of investigations.

Another Committee Expert asked about International Labour Organization Convention 189, the Domestic Workers Convention. The Expert said that the Convention guaranteed the freedom of association, the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. What was the State doing to guarantee that the rights mentioned in the Convention were protected?

Was there data on the movement of labour, and what were the legal remedies if there was administrative detention?

Another Committee Expert asked what progress had been made since the last review in the implementation of the Convention?

Responses from the Delegation

The delegation of Paraguay said that in 2016, the amendment to the migration law had been submitted for review. Amendments aimed to strengthen respect for human rights, and had been adopted by five commissions within the Congress.

National days for regularisation were held for migrants who were irregularly residing within the State. On these days, the State sent teams to regularise migrants with the support of the National Directorate for Migration.

Expulsions were performed from an administrative point of view. People residing illegally were notified of their situation, and requested to regularise their status within the State. Delays occurred when there was a decision to expel, and the offender was given a chance to consult with consular authorities. In one case, an expulsion decision for a perpetrator of a minor crime was overturned.

The word “reciprocity” was badly used within the draft migration legislation. The term “equal treatment” should have been used.

There were over 871,000 Paraguayans living abroad according to United Nations figures, but the State estimated that it had over 1.3 million migrants living abroad. There were over one million in Argentina, and large numbers in Spain, Brazil and the United States. Young Paraguayans worked as care workers and in textile industries in those countries, and many men worked in the construction industry. There were over 3,360 Paraguayans incarcerated abroad. This figure had fallen, as many detainees had been expelled during the pandemic. The State provided the inmates with consular support when it was requested. Consulates were supported through a social fund, and these funds were distributed to support prisoners; to cover migrants’ medical and housing costs; and to aid victims of trafficking and other vulnerable groups.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry organised support days in consulates in foreign countries, providing support for obtaining necessary official documentation such as identification and criminal records.

There were two dual nationality agreements with Spain and Italy. Parents could register their children born overseas with the State, and could apply for citizenship for these children once they had returned to the State. If minors needed to travel during the application process, they were able to do so on a temporary passport.

Paraguay provided support for returnees, facilitating their permanent settlement. The “Welcome Home” programme gave such people a repatriation certificate, which could be used to obtain property, access Paraguayan nationality for children, and import vehicles and other belongings tax free. Social services provided protection and repatriation subsidies to such persons. There was also a subsidy on travel back to Paraguay for extremely vulnerable groups overseas. Children born abroad could opt for Paraguayan nationality, and the State sponsored costs of proceedings. A programme had been established that assisted repatriates with obtaining work in the formal sector and establishing businesses. There was a register of people to whom services were provided. For women, the typical migrant was 35 to 49 years of age, single, healthy, the head of the household, and a member of the textile industry. Typically, such women left the country for economic reasons. A Paraguayan national could not lose their nationality without intentionally revoking it, even if they had acquired another nationality.

A programme conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice sought to achieve the digital registration of Paraguayan voters abroad. A law determined that all Paraguayans living abroad were required to vote.

The SIMORE platform did require patience, but the State was working to improve its usability. Since 2017, a module of access for civil society had been included, and civil society representatives could make suggestions within the platform.

There were protocols and policies for aiding women and unaccompanied child migrants arriving in the State.

Paraguay continued to address the mandates of the various treaty bodies. A consensus had not been obtained on a law on discrimination. However, a law amended the Labour Code to ensure that there was no discrimination based on gender, age or ethnicity.

Venezuelan migrants were not exempt from fees for registration for residency. The provision that migrants should not have a communicable disease to obtain residency was being reviewed.

An “Assistance for Residents” office was being created with the support of the International Organization for Migration. This office was tasked with supporting migrants and ensuring that they benefited from health and other public services.

Questions from Committee Experts

A Committee Expert asked if there was a mechanism for providing information to migrants within Paraguay about their rights. Was there a register of migrants working in Paraguay? Which sectors did they work in?

A Committee Expert commended that Paraguay had created legal protections for migrants. What was the current situation regarding discrimination of migrants?

What was being done to stimulate financial transfers from expatriates into the State? What was being done to integrate expatriates into the Regional Plan?

What were consulates doing to protect female migrants, who were particularly vulnerable? The Expert called for more statistics regarding women.

Another Expert asked why the typical female migrant was both a head of household and single. The Expert also noted that temporary passports were provided to minors with the expectation that they would return for good in the future. This created a risk of statelessness, the Expert said. The system was precarious for Paraguayan people who had children abroad. What had been done to reform the law on naturalisation?

The human rights of migrants needed to be defended by the national human rights institution, but its rating was not an “A” rating. What needed to be done to strengthen this institution? The Expert suggested that people working to defend the rights of migrants should work for the Ombudsman’s office rather than the State.

The Expert also noted that there were some internally displaced persons, and asked what had been done to support these persons.

Once a person requested refugee status, did they have access to the labour market?

Pushbacks were permitted to countries of origin or third countries. The Expert called on the State to respect the principle of non-refoulement and international standards.

The Expert also asked for three examples of best practices regarding support for migrant workers.

Another Committee Expert expressed hope that anti-discrimination laws would be adopted soon. Was there legislation on gender equality? How did the State protect women’s rights?

Were there bilateral agreements with Argentina and Brazil regarding migration?

Were migrant workers able to form trade unions, or were there limits? What protections were available for migrants belonging to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex plus communities and migrants with disabilities?

Had an action plan against trafficking been established, and what institutions were responsible for preventing trafficking?

Another Committee Expert asked how many Venezuelans had taken refuge in Paraguay?

Was the Convention cited in courts? How many times had it been successfully invoked? What institutions of the State disseminated knowledge about the Convention, and was there a policy regarding its dissemination? The Expert noted that the 1.3 million Paraguayans living abroad represented a fifth of the State’s population. Were there training programmes to prepare people to emigrate and obtain social services?

Another Committee Expert asked the delegation to elaborate regarding the steps taken to amend the draft bill on migration and ensure that the Convention was appropriately reflected. The Expert also noted that there was a separate category of permanent residency for “investors”, but not for families. Why was this?

What initiatives had the State party carried out to protect its nationals abroad who were victims of xenophobia? What was the policy of the State in this regard?

Often families were led by single women, and these women often struggled to obtain appropriate paperwork for their children. How did the State support single mothers to obtain permits for their children in such cases?

What was the State party doing to ratify article 77 of the Convention and accept individual communications?

What measures were in place to ensure the social security entitlements of emigrants and immigrants?

Another Committee Expert said that having days to regularise migrants was a good practice. What fate befell migrants who were not successful on such days? Were they likely to be deported?

What measures were in place to protect female migrants from violence and sexual exploitation? Could the State party provide more data regarding violence, ill-treatment and sexual exploitation of women? If not, what was preventing the State from obtaining this data?

Had migrant women received support to set up microbusinesses? Was there ongoing support to ensure the sustainability of such businesses?

The Expert called on the State party to look after the best interests of children who were left behind when parents emigrated. The Expert welcomed the State’s pledge to collect more data on such children.

What happened when child victims of trafficking could not be returned to their families? What was being done to protect their rights?

Another Committee Expert asked how the Committee could help the State party implement the Convention. The Expert also welcomed policies encouraging the return of the diaspora. How did policies enable migrants to set up businesses and establish livelihoods in Paraguay?

A Committee Expert asked about domestic migrant workers and children. What plan of action had been set up to protect domestic workers’ right to set up trade unions, and protect themselves from abuse? What programmes had been set up to combat the exploitation of migrant children in Paraguayan territory? Was there a labour inspection service, and did this service have the sufficient means to carry out its services effectively and independently?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation, responding to questions about who provided information to migrants nationally, said that before, communication had been through email or social media, but since February, a ‘contact centre’ had been created which allowed omnichannel communication for questions, claims and even complaints; it was now the main means of communication with migrants. There was also a new website. Anyone who asked for asylum at the border was granted entry and issued a refugee application. Expulsions at the border only occurred when people did not have up to date documentation required for their entry into the country.

Temporary residency was proposed before permanent residency, as many people chose to migrate to another country after staying two years in Paraguay. The delegation said that the Committee could help Paraguay by recommending that the migration law be amended. This was important as the law was out of step with what the migration policy stipulated. In 2016, a resolution was passed on migration which automatically granted victims of trafficking residency, without cost.

The delegation said the Association of Paraguayans Abroad was comprised of Paraguayans, who were in constant communication with the consulates in the country where they had settled. These people generally disseminated services provided via the consulates, so that a greater number of Paraguayans could join the campaigns and receive comprehensive support. A directorate had been created within the Foreign Affairs Ministry in 2009 to provide advice to migrants before they travelled. The delegation spoke about several cases, including researching a company in the United States for a Paraguayan national who had accepted a contract there. Consulates predominantly dealt with Paraguayans abroad, and many of them had a legal advisor, including in Spain and in Argentina, allowing nationals abroad to receive legal advice.

An emergency passport procedure was in place designed for children who had one Paraguayan parent and came to the country with their parents but were not yet considered Paraguayan nationals. Paraguayans living abroad needed to be able to begin the process of becoming naturalised, without needing to return home to complete paperwork. The delegation asked for the Committee’s advice on regulating a law around this situation.

Remittances from migrants represented a quarter of the country’s income. Policies were needed to help Paraguayans living abroad to send their remittances back safely. The delegation had heard that a company run by Paraguayans assisted with sending money back to Paraguay, for a charge of a few euros, which ensured the money would reach the right place.

Discrimination had been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and some progress in gender equality had been inverted as a result. Women continued to be poorly represented in the job market and still carried most of the burden of unpaid work. The pandemic had provided a unique opportunity for recovery plans which were gender sensitive and would reach women and girls. Despite the difficulties in this area, Paraguay needed to continue successful initiatives, including Women and Towns which embodied comprehensive care measures. However, shelters still needed to be created for victims of domestic violence in the country, as this problem was on the rise. The delegation spoke about the services of the civil services, which included going overseas to distribute national identification and police records and assisting with repatriation. A centre existed in Buenos Aries, which allowed Paraguayans living in Buenos Aries to visit any time, to obtain their documents and police records.

The delegation spoke about the link between women heads of households and them being single, saying this was a cultural matter. It was deep seated in the Paraguayan culture that the man was the head of the household, and as soon as there was no man, the woman became the head of the household. Many women were raising their children alone, and therefore were registered as single on their civil documents. The delegation said there should be a campaign to bring about that shift in concept.

There were four invitations per year for businessmen and businesswomen who were repatriated, as it was recognised that these people were behind the general population, especially in the border regions. These businesses were overseen for one year and help was given to ensure the businesses were sustainable. The Repatriated Businessmen and Businesswomen Programme allowed repatriates who had set up businesses upon their return, to receive payments for certain business expenses. The knowledge and innovative skills they brought back to the country was truly appreciated. An example was provided about a repatriate who had learnt the skill of drying fruit, which she then sold to bars and restaurants. The goal was to have 120 businessmen and businesswomen per year and increase this number annually, however, a bigger budget was required to assist more people with this programme. It would be useful if the Committee could take this into account while making recommendations.

The delegation said that persons seeking refugee status could work in Paraguay. A national plan for combatting human trafficking in Paraguay had been developed. There was also a national programme to assist victims of trafficking. A commission was in place on the prevention of forced labour, which aimed to articulate policies to prevent and eradicate forced labour, through providing comprehensive care services to victims who had been rescued, and to prevent its occurrence in the future. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice had held the third instalment on the high-level course on human rights, with the aim of improving civil servants’ knowledge of human rights. One chapter of that course covered the rights of migrants. A support programme was in place for the rights of migrants. Several institutions had published the text of the Convention on their website, to broadcast the rights of migrant workers and their families to the entire population. The national action plan on the rights of persons with disabilities, did not specifically have a perspective on migrant workers with disabilities, meaning this was a challenge to be tackled as a public policy this year.

The delegation said that assistance was given to parents whose children needed authorisation for a travel permit, or for a consular passport. The parent that remained in Paraguay was required to come and authorise a document, showing that they were also in agreement with their child being issued a travel document. At the consular offices, each parent would know what the other was doing and there would be agreement on travel for the child. The delegation said that in 2021, awareness raising campaigns were held online regarding collective bargaining.

To improve the Ombudsman’s office operations, a new ombudsman had been appointed. There was still a challenge on meeting the Paris Principles on selection, appointment, and removal from office for the Ombudsman’s office. The delegation said that it would be useful for the Committee to advise on questions to be included in a survey, to allow Paraguay to gather better data and information and be able to make better decisions. The office of the Public Defender had created a specialised group to assist refugees and migrants. Through this group, the Ministry of Public Defence had carried out several support schemes, including supporting aliens who lived in Paraguay and those who had returned from other countries following the closures of borders due to the pandemic. Advice and representation were provided in a number of court cases to aliens across a range of issues. COVID vaccinations had been given to aliens who had been living the country for a significant period of time, without requiring Paraguayan identification papers.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert asked what was being done to ensure a migrant worker in Paraguay could have access to file a complaint, without their migration situation being jeopardised? What was the State doing to counter the stigmatisation of Venezuelans or any other migrants and counter the false ideas that migrants were taking away jobs from nationals?

Another Committee Expert said that a lot remained to be done together. There was now an association for Paraguayans of Spanish origin in Paraguay. Was more going to be done to allow people to explore their history?

A Committee Expert said that complaints had been received via telephone regarding trafficking. The person receiving the call must be sufficiently trained to properly handle the situation, as trafficking victims were in vulnerable situations. Were there specialised staff trained to handle these calls? If not, this needed to be addressed as not any public official was trained to handle those issues. Were there specific laws criminalising trafficking? Was there an action plan around trafficking, and what was its outcome? Were asylum seekers allowed to join the tax system? A refugee who was asked to register as a taxpayer might have misgivings about joining. Was this just a general system? Could the delegation elaborate on this topic? Were there any programmes or laws in place to combat people smuggling? Was this criminalised by law?

A Committee Expert said the requests for help were well noted and the Committee would follow up on them. If there was a way to help with the drafting of the amendments of the law the delegation had mentioned, that would be useful to discuss. A lot of research had been carried out on remittances, and the Committee could work with the delegation to find what would best work in the case of Paraguay for migrants to send money back to their families. It would be useful to hear about the problems that the migrants encountered when sending funds back to Paraguay. Was it high fees, or other constraints? The Committee Expert applauded the business programme for returning persons and understood the need to strengthen that programme.

One Committee Expert asked questions on nationality. Were there any initiatives to promote the agreement with Argentina, as 90 per cent of Paraguayans abroad went to Argentina? It was noted that children who were born in countries such as Spain or Italy could fall in the abyss of statelessness. What was done in cases when parents did not want to, or could not, return to Paraguay to complete paperwork, as required? If Paraguayan migrants who were irregular went to the justice system, the migration office was informed of their situation and helped for their situation to be regulated. What was done if the migrant in question was scared to file a complaint for fear of the consequences?

Why did all consulates not provide the required documentation? A number of formalities could be undertaken in consulates, so why could this service also not be provided? In the case of statelessness in children, what happened when both parents were not in communication? How did this work in the authorisation of both parents for several processes? Was this really in the best interest of the child? What about in the case of kidnapping? Could the delegation elaborate on the initiative to prevent forced migration of indigenous communities due to environmental impacts?

A Committee Expert asked about the statement made by the head of the delegation, who said that many people wanted to remain in Paraguay, but after two years they wanted to leave. Why was this the case? Was it problems related to the residents of Paraguay?

A Committee Expert noted that according to the delegation, consulates provided documents to nationals, including birth certificates, death certificates and help with legal trials abroad. Could corroboration be provided as it would seem this was not practiced in all offices?

A Committee Expert drew comparison between Paraguayans abroad, and support given to third party nationals living within Paraguay, asking what was the balance? Was support given to nationals of a third country sending remittances from Paraguay to another country?

Responses by the Delegation

Responding to the question on xenophobia against Venezuelans in Paraguay, the delegation said that Paraguay had issued a public statement welcoming all Venezuelans to come to Paraguay as refugees. The Government was in continuous communication with a group of Venezuelans and in cases, had granted Venezuelans refugee status without required documents. This meant there was no xenophobia against Venezuelans. The centre which dealt with complaints on trafficking had six officers who had been trained, with the system recording all calls. A psychologist was responsible for coordinating the response to calls about trafficking. The delegation said that the situation of coordination between a mother and father over their children’s documentation was a matter of law. A case was referenced about a German couple, where the child was taken away from both, but only one party had the birth certificate, and the German Embassy had been required to intervene to counteract the problem. Permission from both should not be required – one should be enough.

Regarding temporary residency, this permit was initially two years but was extendable. All aliens who applied were given a six-month residency allowing them to work in the country, following which they could apply for the second temporary residency or a permanent residency. This meant it was not people staying for two years then leaving, but rather students would often apply for the temporary residency and then returned home to work. The delegation said that those who did not contact the centre for migration were planning to stay in the country unlawfully.

The Ministry for Women’s Affairs focused on the cases of female migrants. A plan had been developed to deal with the legal components of the protection of women. Paraguayan women and aliens who had been violated could access specialised services, which helped women to escape the cycle of violence. In the case of remittances, the delegation said it cost a lot to send money back to Paraguay. This money was not often invested in what they wanted. In Spain, a company called We are Paraguay spent the money where the migrant wanted it to be spent. The cost was the main issue. The delegation said that in terms of data gathering, there were many Paraguayans’ living in irregular situations, which accounted for the gaps in data on Paraguayans living abroad. The delegation was open to advice from the Committee on how to best collate the data. Paraguay was not planning to sign any dual-nationality agreement with Argentina.

Regarding the permits and authorisation when the parents were not present, the delegation said that cases were received daily, wherein parents were not present. These parents were searched through the national police. If time went on, a certificate was issued for a disappeared parent.

The delegation spoke about how the Committee could help with the recommendations. Paraguay was caring more for repatriated persons through a secretariat established for this group. It would be helpful if the Committee could recommend that the Government increase the budget for the secretariat. A nationality unit had been established to deal with the issues of nationality, and the issues regarding documents being signed by both parents. What was in the Constitution could not be changed, which said that the application could only be done for people who were physically in the country.

There was a sense that Paraguay was focused on migrants abroad, however, there were many programmes in place to support migrants in Paraguay. Aliens and nationals in Paraguay were entitled to the same access to public services provided by the State. The delegation said a programme was in place, which provided access to the justice system for those who needed it, including indigenous communities.

Concluding Statements

PABLO GARCIA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur of Paraguay, said that the dialogue had been very fruitful and many of the concerns raised were met with answers. Mr. Garcia said that Paraguay had presented various programmes for those abroad and domestically, and a broad range of questions had been covered by the delegation.

MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur of Paraguay, said he was pleased with the outcome of the two days of dialogue, which was rich with information. A great deal was learned from each other for the interests of migrants in Paraguay. Efficient tools were necessary to implement public policy. The Committee would like to know what was being done within the country to support scientific research, which drew attention to subtle matters. Mr. Charef said that there was a great deal of work to be done, and with assistance, the laws would be created and implemented.

EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Chair, said there was opportunity to consider an open dialogue before the drafting or approving of a law in Paraguay. It was noted that there was a gap in certain laws, with Mr. Sosa offering the Committee’s assistance to address these gaps. Efforts could be focused on pending legislation, to have those laws approved. This would be wise to keep in mind for the next review. Paraguay had made great efforts and although more work was required, the will was there to come to an agreement and find solutions. Mr. Sosa concluded by saying that the dialogue had been constructive and had set the bar for how such dialogues should be held.

EDGAR TABOADA INSFRÁN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Paraguay and head of the delegation, reiterated his gratitude to the Committee for the opportunity to hold the constructive dialogue. The openness of the Committee members was noted, in trying to jointly address areas which were inconclusive. Mr. Insfrán said Paraguay hoped to make a valuable contribution in fulfilling the country’s efforts which arose from the Convention.