保护所有移徙工人权利委员会召开第二十五届会议（部分翻译）

日内瓦（2016年8月29日）——保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利委员会今天上午召开第二十五届会议，会议听取了一名人权事务高级专员办事处代表、委员会各位成员以及民间社会关于洪都拉斯和斯里兰卡移徙工人处境的发言，其报告将于本周进行审议。委员会还听取了墨西哥和厄瓜多尔非政府组织的发言，其报告前议题清单将在会议期间获得通过。

委员会本周还将审议尼日尔和尼加拉瓜的报告，没有民间社会代表谈及上述国家。

人权事务高级专员办事处人权理事会和条约机制司人权条约处处长易卜拉欣•萨拉马（Ibrahim Salama）在开场发言中表示，联合国秘书长在关于解决难民和移徙者大规模移徙问题的报告中呼吁制定新的综合框架。将于9月19日在纽约召开的难民和移徙者大规模移徙问题高级别会议将试图达成新的全球共识，萨拉马先生表示，他补充道，虽然对于成果文件缺乏必要的愿景且未能产生保护移徙者和难民的新框架存在担忧，但它的确包含了大量有原则的意见，包括充分保护所有难民和移徙者的人权，无论其状态，制定对大规模移徙的对策，展现对国际人权法和其他标准的充分尊重。

委员会专家强调，9月19日将产生对人权的新进程和新承诺，将与《保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利国际公约》一起根据基于人权的方针制定人口流动问题的综合方针。

在就厄瓜多尔局势问题对委员会作简报时，一个民间社会组织表示，在公共生活各方面的军事化和镇压外加有罪不罚问题导致了极为严重的暴力问题，这是越来越多的流离失所问题的根源。据估计，国内有17.4万境内流离失所者，许多人在国内无法获得安全的生活，被迫逃亡国外。委员会应询问洪都拉斯为撤回武装力量、改善洪都拉斯人迁移所需领事服务质量以及建立投诉机制以控告未履行职责的工作人员所采取的措施。

斯里兰卡的民间社会组织呼吁委员会关注需要在法律和政策框架中使用性别中立和适当的术语；缺乏斯里兰卡境内外来工人的任何信息，无论其处于常规或非常规状态；用于传播的相关文本与意见的僧伽罗语和泰米尔语翻译有限；以及国外移徙工人的投票权问题。鉴于留守儿童和家人问题以及在大多数目的地国的移徙者虐待和剥削问题，应重点关注创建得体的在家工作机会。

斯里兰卡的国家人权机构——人权委员会通过视频会议向委员会作了简报，普遍定期审议平台（Platforma EPU）/打击有罪不罚问题联盟（Coalicion contra la Impunidad）（厄瓜多尔）和全球移徙政策联盟（Global Migration Policy Associates）（斯里兰卡）参与了讨论。

委员会也在通过关于墨西哥和厄瓜多尔报告的报告前议题清单的背景下，听取了墨西哥移徙论坛（Foro Migraciones）以及厄瓜多尔移民和难民联合会（Coalicion por las Migraciones y el Refugio）的发言，其将在委员会第二十六届会议上接受审议。

委员会的公开会议将在此进行网播：http://webtv.un.org/

委员会将于今天下午3点举行下一次公开会议，开始审议洪都拉斯的首份报告（CMW/C/HND/1）。

Opening Statement

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanism Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, updated the Committee on the developments in four main areas and said, concerning the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, that chairs of treaty bodies had provided substantive inputs to the 2016 High-Level Political Forum showcasing the contributions of the treaty bodies to the Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets. They highlighted the important role of the treaty bodies in ensuring that no one was left behind through monitoring the implementation of the respective Conventions and through identifying gaps, areas requiring urgent attention, risks and challenges, and the impact of austerity measures, humanitarian crises, natural disasters and other emerging issues. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had updated the Human Rights Council during its thirty-second session in June 2016, and had lamented that hate was becoming mainstreamed and walls were returning. He had paid tribute to States which had welcomed large numbers of migrants and refugees, criticized many others who had not done their part to address this migration crisis, and called upon Europe to deal with the crisis in a manner that respected the rights of the people. The only sustainable way to reclose today’s movements of people was to improve human rights in the country of origin, and create a well-functioning migration governance system with fair and effective determination of individual protection needs. The High Commissioner had deplored the wide-spread anti-migrant rhetoric fostering a climate of xenophobia.

Turning to the High Level Meeting on Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants to be held in New York on 19 September, Mr. Salama said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was calling for three key points to be considered: the primacy of human rights, the need to address the large movements of people through a human rights protection lens, and an urgent need for comprehensive human rights-based migration and asylum governance measures. In order to fill the gap in the understanding of the standards of protection to which migrants moving in large numbers were entitled, the Office was developing a set of principles and practical guidance based on existing laws and standards, with particular emphasis on migrants in vulnerable situations who would not benefit from refugee protection. The United Nations Secretary-General in his report In Safety and Dignity: Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants, called for a new comprehensive framework, and made recommendations on a number of issues of concern such as the causes of such movements, protecting those who were compelled to undertake such journeys, and preventing discrimination and xenophobia. The co-facilitators of the High Level Meeting had issued the zero draft of the outcome document which sought to set out a new global consensus on addressing large movements and called for ensuring that all provisions of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that bore on refugees and migrants were fully implemented. Although there were concerns that the outcome document lacked the necessary vision and fell short of creating a new framework for the protection of migrants and refugees, it did include a number of principled comments, including to fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of their status, and to devise responses to large movements that would demonstrate full respect for international human rights law and other standards. The adoption of the declaration on 19 September should be seen as the beginning of a process which included the negotiation of the global compacts which were to be adopted in 2018 and follow-up during the 2019 High Level Dialogue.

Comments by the Members of the Committee

Committee Experts stressed that on 19 September, a new process and a new commitment to human rights would be made, which, together with the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, would allow a holistic approach to human mobility from a human rights-based approach. The Committee needed support in giving the Convention its proper place.

Experts expressed concern about the limited understanding of the term “vulnerable migrants”, which was often reduced to unaccompanied migrant children, but the Committee needed to stress other categories of vulnerable people on the move, including women. Also, more attention must be given to the issue of detention of migrant children, which was not in the best interest of the child. It was not enough for States to only ratify the Convention; all States should be reminded that they needed to do more to influence the current situation of large movements of migrants, and highlight and multiply the good practices that already existed.

Adoption of the Agenda

The Committee then adopted its agenda for its twenty-fifth session contained in document CMW/C/25/1.

Statement by a Non-governmental Organization on Honduras

Platforma EPU/Coalicion contra la Impunidad raised the Committee’s attention about a great deal of militarization and repression in all spheres of public life which, coupled with impunity, caused high levels of violence in Honduras, which was the root cause of the increasing displacement of people. It was estimated that there were 174,000 internally displaced persons in the country; many did not find safety within the country and were forced to flee abroad. In 2015 there were 15,000 asylum requests made by Hondurans abroad. For many Hondurans who left home seeking protection and better life, migration was a violent process, and many sought the services of consulates abroad. The Committee should inquire about measures taken by Honduras during the last trimester of 2016 to withdraw its armed forces; about specific measures taken to improve the quality of consular services available to Hondurans on the move; and about complaint mechanisms available to denounce consular staff who did not fulfil their duties. The Fund for support to returning migrants was not yet operational, and there was an urgent need to provide psychosocial support to migrants who returned to Honduras.

Statements by Civil Society Organizations on Sri Lanka

Global Migration Policy Associates called the attention of the Committee on the need to use gender neutral and appropriate terminology in the Sri Lankan laws and policy framework, as well as on the lack of any information provided on foreign workers inside Sri Lanka, whether in regular or irregular status. The Committee should urge Sri Lanka and its Ministry of Foreign Employment to address the limited access to the translation into Sinhala and Tamil of relevant texts and comments for dissemination purposes, and take the initiative to upload relevant texts in all three languages on the websites for general dissemination. The creation of decent work opportunities at home should receive priority given the problem of children and families left behind, and migrant abuse and exploitation in most destination countries.

Human Rights Commission, speaking via video conference, said that the Commission had been reconstituted as a national human rights institution in October 2015, and regretted the fact that the time was short for it to submit its report to the Committee. The Commission’s mandate was very wide: it could receive complaints, undertake investigations, and make recommendations on remedies in accordance with the domestic and international laws and standards. It could also advise the Government on the ratification of international treaties and engage in their promotion and dissemination. The Commission had set up a number of Committees which would focus on human rights violations of groups recognized as vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized; migrants and migrant workers were recognized as one such group, and the Committee would review legislation, policy and practice, with the view to advise the Government on the necessary changes. Although Sri Lanka was predominantly a sending State, it was also increasingly receiving migrants, particularly from India.

Statement by Non-governmental Organization on Mexico

Foro Migraciones stressed the particular vulnerabilities of women in the migration process, both as migrants or as those left behind to take care of families. It was important to take measures to support the return and repatriation of migrants, in particular to define what safe and secure migration meant. The Committee should not only speak about vulnerable migrants, but should also speak about conditions of vulnerabilities in relation to migration, for example the setting up of police checkpoints on migratory routes. Addressing those issues was within clear responsibility of the Mexican State. The Committee should assess measures taken by Mexico to ensure that children and women were not detained, and to ensure access to health and education to migrants, including returning migrants and migrants in transit.

Statement by Non-governmental Organization on Ecuador

Coalicion por las Migraciones y el Refugio, via video conference, noted the unprecedented migration crisis in Latin America, and urged the Committee to not only address the dynamics in a specific country, but to take note of the regional context. Key issues in Ecuador included old and outdated legislation which made it very difficult to implement the provisions of the Convention and was even in conflict with the Constitutional provision of human mobility; the difficult access to information for civil society organizations, including on the statistics concerning migrants, and in particular the number of migrants expelled since 2010; and the mechanisms in place through which the Convention was applied to different groups of migrants, for example those from the region, or those from African countries, and how each group could regularize their stay in the country. The Committee should also ask Ecuador about deportation procedures and mass deportations that were still taking place, and about measures taken to address the increasing xenophobia and xenophobic acts particularly against Haitians and Cubans. Ecuador was a country of transit, and yet Ecuador criminalized migrants who were victims of trafficking; Experts should inquire about the actions taken to fight trafficking in persons.

Discussion

Committee Experts asked for a confirmation that 90 per cent of returned migrants to Honduras re-emigrated again, and whether this figure had changed over time. What were the gaps in the Migration Act, and what were the issues that the Committee should raise with the State party?

Responding, a representative of Platforma EPU/Coalicion contra la Impunidad said that this was an informal figure gained from families; several years ago, the figure might have been lower, but for the past year it was a rather accurate estimate, largely due to widespread violence in the country which made people seek safety elsewhere. The biggest gap in the Migration Act was the lack of provisions concerning support for returning migrants with disabilities; over the past several years, more than 4,000 migrants with various forms of disability had returned. Further, the Act did not contain provisions on reintegration into the labour market, while the implementing legislation for the Solidarity Fund for support to returning migrants had not been enacted.

On Mexico, Committee Experts concurred that laws were well drafted but needed to be better disseminated to responsible units. The Committee needed information on such cases, as well as on what was being done on the ground to address the situation of hundreds of thousands of migrants who were crossing to the United States.

_________________

For use of the information media; not an official record