The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families today opened its thirty-eighth session, which is being held from 13 to 31 May, during which it will consider reports from the Republic of the Congo, Senegal and Türkiye.
The Committee adopted its agenda and programme of work and heard from civil society organizations on the situation of migrant workers in Türkiye. Due to the lack of time, it will meet with civil society representatives from the Republic of the Congo and Senegal in another meeting.
One returning Committee Expert, Prasad Kariyawasam (Sri Lanka), a former Chair and member of the Committee since its inception until 2021, made his solemn declaration.
Andrea Ori, Chief, Groups in Focus Branch, Human Rights Treaties Branch, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Representative of the Secretary-General, opening the session, expressed concern that the narrative around irregular migration was dominated by a security paradigm that sought to implement harsh border control measures and criminalise irregular migrants and people who attempted to cross borders, contributing to a rise in intolerance and xenophobia.
Mr. Ori noted that none of the 27 European Union Member States had signed or ratified the Convention. The European Union was a significant destination for migrants, he said, and ratification by its Member States would strongly endorse this core human rights instrument. Such a move could also encourage wider ratification in other regions around the world, he said.
He also expressed concern about the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on the human rights of migrants. Climate change exacerbated migrants’ vulnerability, as they had few options and frequently found themselves migrating in conditions that violated their human dignity. Mr. Ori encouraged the treaty bodies to continue to provide guidance to States on how to meet their obligations regarding mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
On a positive note, Mr. Ori welcomed the Committee’s decision to elaborate with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination a joint general comment on States parties’ obligations for addressing xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants. Xenophobia had been rising in many societies, impacting migrants, families and communities in general. The aim of the general comment was to establish a set of guidelines that addressed all aspects necessary to combat and prevent xenophobia.
In closing, Mr. Ori wished the Committee a successful session.
Next, the Committee held a dialogue on migrant workers in Türkiye with the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye, the State’s national human rights institute, and the non-governmental organization “Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation”.
The topics raised in the dialogue included abuse of migrant women in the workplace and in detention centres in Türkiye; migrants’ access to information, support shelters and other services; and measures to prevent discrimination of Turkish migrants overseas.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s . Meeting summary releases can be found . The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the .
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. today, 3 March, to begin its review of the second periodic report of Türkiye ().
Opening Statement
ANDREA ORI, Chief, Groups in Focus Branch, Human Rights Treaties Branch, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Representative of the Secretary-General, opening the thirty-eighth session, congratulated the seven members of the Committee who were elected or re-elected for a new term by the eleventh meeting of States parties, held in New York on 27 June 2023, to replace those whose terms were due to expire on 31 December 2023. He welcomed the election of Prasad Kariyawasam (Sri Lanka), a former Chair and member of the Committee since its inception until 2021. Representation of Asia in the Committee was a most welcome development. Mr. Ori also commended the work done by the outgoing Chair, Edgar Corzo Sosa, whose term had come to an end.
During the thirty-eighth session, the Committee would consider the initial report of the Republic of the Congo, the second periodic report of Türkiye, and the fourth periodic report of Senegal. The Committee would also adopt lists of issues in relation to the combined second to fourth periodic report of Egypt and for the second periodic report of Honduras, as well as a list of issues prior to reporting for the second periodic report of Ghana. The Committee would also adopt a follow-up letter on the implementation of its concluding observations on Azerbaijan.
Mr. Ori said there was a need to mitigate situations of vulnerability in migration to ensure that the return of migrants was conducted in line with respect for human rights, and to strive for the detention of migrants to only be used as a last resort, while seeking non-custodial measures. The Committee had on many occasions expressed concerns that the narrative around irregular migration was dominated by a security paradigm that sought to address irregular migration through harsh border control measures and criminalisation of irregular migrants and people who attempted to cross borders, contributing to a rise in intolerance and xenophobia.
Unfortunately, none of the 27 European Union Member States had signed or ratified the Convention. Convincing European Union States to ratify it was crucial. The European Union was a significant destination for migrants, and ratification by its Member States would strongly endorse this core human rights instrument. Such a move could also encourage wider ratification in other regions around the world.
Mr. Ori welcomed the Committee’s decision to elaborate with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination a joint general comment on “States parties’ obligations on public policies for addressing and eradicating xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants and groups of persons affected by racial discrimination”. The aim of this general comment was to establish a set of guidelines that addressed all aspects necessary to combat and prevent xenophobia. Xenophobia had been rising in many societies, impacting migrants, families and communities in general. Through narratives and representations on migrants and migration, xenophobia led to human rights violations.
Mr. Ori also welcomed that the Committee was concerned by the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on the human rights of migrants. Climate change could force 216 million people across six world regions to move within their countries by 2050. Climate change exacerbated migrants’ vulnerability, as they had few options and frequently found themselves migrating in conditions that violated their human dignity and integrity. It was of utmost importance that States addressed climate change, environmental degradation and natural catastrophes as drivers of migration, ensuring they did not impair the human rights of migrants and their families. States needed to also provide complementarity protection and temporary stay arrangements for migrant workers displaced by climate change. Mr. Ori encouraged the treaty bodies to continue to monitor the effects of climate change on the rights holders protected by their respective treaties and provide guidance to States on how to meet their obligations under these instruments regarding mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
Since the last session, progress had been made in the process of strengthening the treaty bodies. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ efforts to secure a General Assembly resolution with a robust budget in December 2024 continued, with outreach to Member States in Geneva and New York. At the informal meeting of Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of the treaty bodies in Madrid in February this year, discussions focused on the mandate and modalities of the coordination mechanism and other areas of simplification and alignment of the treaty bodies’ working methods. The Office had also updated its on the treaty body strengthening process and published two new documents: an executive summary of States’ preferences on the options contained in the Office’s working paper on the treaty body strengthening process, and a working paper on an implementation plan for the outcomes of the thirty-fourth meeting of Chairpersons of the treaty bodies.
Mr. Ori said that the Office shared the Committee’s concerns about the current financial crisis of the United Nations, and its consequences for the work of the human rights treaty bodies. With the strong support of the High Commissioner, it had done its utmost to ensure the organisation of the sessions of the treaty bodies, despite the heavy impact of the liquidity crisis on staff resources and non-post costs. It was able to secure sufficient funding for all committees to hold their second sessions this year and for the thirty-sixth annual meeting of chairpersons to take place in New York in this crucial year for treaty body reform. However, it could not secure funding for the pre-sessional working groups for the second sessions of the treaty bodies. Mr. Ori expressed hope that the third sessions could also be held this year, but this would depend on the evolution of the liquidity situation.
The liquidity crisis was unpredictable and required intensive management efforts. However, the Office was making every effort to minimise its impact on the treaty bodies. The letter that the Presidents and Vice-Presidents sent to the President of the General Assembly after their informal meeting in Madrid stressed that if treaty body sessions and visits aimed at preventing torture and other human rights violations were suspended, it would cause concrete and irreversible harm. This represented very welcome advocacy work.
Mr. Ori concluded by appealing to all States that had not yet ratified the Convention to do so, to promote and protect the human rights of migrants living on their territory as well as those of their citizens living abroad. Mr. Ori wished the Committee every success in its work.
Statements on Türkiye
Statement by the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Human Rights Institution
Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye said it had the mandate of protecting and promoting human rights. It conducted awareness-raising and informative activities in the community, organising workshops, summits, symposiums, and similar events. Additionally, it conducted numerous thematic report studies on migrants. The institution served as the national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture framework for the purpose of preventing torture and ill treatment. Visits were conducted to facilities where individuals deprived of their liberty were held. These included return centres, transit zones, shelters for victims of human trafficking, and children’s homes where migrant children were held.
The institution also received complaints of discrimination and monitored these cases. Unlike other equality bodies, it had the authority to make administrative sanction decisions. In addition to these tasks, the institution had been designated as the national rapporteur on combatting human trafficking within the framework of the relations between the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings and Türkiye. In the field of combatting human trafficking, it provided support to various projects within the framework of Council of Europe cooperation and conducted many joint training activities. Furthermore, the institution published its first national report on combatting human trafficking last year.
Promoting human rights was a cumulative process. Western civilizations had contradicted their own values, especially in migration crises. Many Western countries had shown a selective approach in accepting migrants and refugees fleeing the conflict in Ukraine, displaying a racist perspective. Migration crises could not be eliminated by erecting barbed wire fences, but by respecting each other’s territorial integrity and adhering to international agreements.
As a result of the systematic and comprehensive attacks and actions carried out by Israel against Palestinians, in violation of international human rights law, thousands of people had lost their lives and thousands of people had been injured. This situation, which had been ongoing since the Nakba, had reached an unbearable level. Millions of Palestinians had been forcibly displaced and continued to be displaced. The international community could not ignore Israel’s oppression by closing its eyes and ears, which was adding new dimensions to the existing migrant crisis in the region every day. The institute invited all actors in the international community to play a more effective role in combatting the ongoing massacre in the region.
Statement by a Non-Governmental Organization
Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation said that since Türkiye’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention in 2021, migrant women had been subjected to increasing levels of violence. There was a lack of access to work permits and daycare services for migrant women. They were deterred by authorities from searching for other work after experiencing violence and discrimination in the workplace. Most Government services for migrant women did not provide interpreters. Migrant women who experienced violence also had difficulties in accessing information.
Undocumented migrant women could not access most services, and feared to access State services for fear of deportation. There was limited shelter support for victims of violence. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons also had difficulties in accessing support services after being subjected to violence. There were cases where law enforcement officers illegally and arbitrarily held migrant women at removal centres for up to six months. The speaker invited the Committee to consider these observations and hold the Turkish State accountable.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said Türkiye was an important country under the Convention, as the bridge between Asia and Europe. There was a very large group of people of Turkish origin in Germany and other parts of Europe. How was the Turkish Government providing facilities to prevent discrimination of these workers, and what was lacking in the Government’s response? Were the facilities provided for migrant workers within Türkiye sufficient? How did the Government handle irregular migrants?
Another Committee Expert asked if there was an obligation for migrant workers to report migratory status to access social services. Were some migrant women who were victims of violence taken to detention centres and deported? What happened to their complaints of violence in these cases? Was abuse of women in detention centres investigated by authorities? Could the national human rights institute enter detention centres freely to conduct inspections? What measures were in place to prevent children from being detained in adult detention centres with their families?
One Committee Expert asked what the procedures were for determining whether victims of gender-based violence had access to shelters. What were the main challenges for non-governmental organizations in communicating their findings to authorities? How did non-governmental organizations monitor the rights of Turkish nationals abroad?
A Committee Expert asked for statistics on the number of migrant workers in Türkiye disaggregated by country of origin and migration status, and the problems they faced.
Responses by Civil Society
Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye said it had visited 30 detention centres in the last year and had published reports on each visit. It sent recommendations to relevant authorities based on these reports. Authorities had a time limit for implementing these recommendations and needed to provide evidence of implementation. Twenty-five follow-up visits had also been conducted to assess implementation and reports on follow-up visits were produced. The institute could conduct ad-hoc visits and did not need permission to conduct visits.
Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation said all migrants needed to be registered and documented under Turkish law, but there were cases where people fell through the cracks. Some migrant women who had been subjected to violence had been reported to authorities simply for not holding identity papers. Women who were released from detention centres had reported that they were subjected to torture and ill treatment and did not have access to fact-tracked processes for legalising their stays in Türkiye. Only women with legal identification could access shelters for victims of violence. Most shelters belonged to Government authorities; there was only one independent shelter, which was operated by the Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation.
