|
...continued
Mechanisms
for the Protection of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers
67.
So far nothing more than modest international efforts have been
made to confront the growing problem of the violation of the human
rights of millions of migrant workers around the world. There are a
number of international agreements and treaties, such as the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
[48]
which extend general protection to all individuals and
thus to migrant workers. Likewise, various articles of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and of the American
Convention on Human Rights provide general protection for the rights
of migrants.
[49]
In a more specific manner, ILO conventions 97 (revised) of
1949 and 143 of 1975 safeguard migrant workers and members of their
families, but very few countries have ratified them (41 and 18
respectively).
[50]
A number of initiatives have been launched within the UN
system. The General Assembly passed the International Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of
Their Families in 1990. In 1997 the General Assembly established a
special group of experts, composed of five respected researchers and
headed by Jorge Bustamante, to study the human rights situation of
migrant workers.
[51]
Two years later the UN Commission on Human Rights
appointed Gabriela Rodriguez Pizarro to be Special Rapporteur on the
Human Rights of Migrant Workers.
[52]
More recently and within the framework of the United
Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, some states
have signed the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants Workers by
Land, Sea and Air.
[53]
68.
The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of
all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families aims to extend
mechanisms of protection to these people. It targets problems such as
exploitation and discrimination in the workplace, and smuggling of
persons, and it tries to establish clear guidelines on the social
services to which migrant workers are entitled. It is regrettable that
ten years after being approved, it has still not entered into force
due to its having been ratified by only 16 countries (Azerbaijan,
Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Mexico,
Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Uganda and
Uruguay). It has been signed by another ten (Bangladesh, Chile,
Comoros, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Paraguay, Sao Tomé and Principe,
Sierra Leone, Tajikistan and Turkey).
[54]
69.
The Convention has lost a degree of legitimacy due to the low
level of ratification and the fact that no developed country has
signed it, not even the most progressive countries in the area of
international human rights legislation such as Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, Holland and Finland. Many countries have withheld signature
because they think that the convention is too generous, especially
when granting social benefits to all foreigners, properly documented
or not. Many states refuse to ratify the instrument because they fear
that it would restrict their capacity to regulate migratory flows in
accordance with their own needs and interests, and also because they
expect that it would generate great concern among their own citizens,
especially at a time when the number of migrants is growing and the
world economy is showing signs of weakness.
[55]
70.
This lack of support means that migrant workers and members of
their families find themselves defenseless. In her latest report,
Gabriela Rodriguez Pizarro underscores the problem when she warns that
there is a major gap in international human rights jurisprudence in
regard to migrant workers. The Special Rapporteur points out that “The
virtually universal system of protection for refugees means that
violations of their civil and political rights can be recognized and
remedied, especially when they pose such a risk to persons’ lives
and security that they are forced to flee their country.
However, there is no such recognition of violations of
economic, social and cultural rights, which can also be serious enough
to force people to flee their places of origin.
Consequently, there is no recognition of the need to protect in
any way people who do not want, or are unable, to return to situations
in which the lack of fundamental economic, social and cultural rights
makes it extremely difficult or impossible to survive.”
[56]
71.
We have mentioned that some countries have established working
groups to exchange ideas and examine ways to approach the question of
migrant workers. The fifteen members of the European Union, who took
steps toward harmonizing immigration policies with the signing of the
Dublin Convention on Asylum (1997) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1999),
have discussed ways to ensure that migrants are treated in accordance
with the standards set out in the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Council of Europe has passed resolutions and declarations that set
standards and principles for the treatment of migrant workers.
[57]
Unfortunately, such initiatives are not common.
72.
This section has presented a general overview of the framework
in which the human rights of migrant workers and members of their
families are violated. We have stressed that migration is a complex
process with multiple political, social and economic repercussions,
and that a diverse cast of actors, including States and the migrants
themselves, are involved. Violation of the human rights of migrant
workers is at times due to the deliberate intention of States to limit
immigration. Migrant workers and their families live in a situation of
structural vulnerability that makes them susceptible to multiple forms
of abuse. Lastly, it was pointed out that there is a gap in
international human rights jurisprudence that raises concerns for the
protection of migrant workers. The lack of instruments guaranteeing
their rights is due in large part to a reluctance on the part of
states to sign agreements that could limit their capacity to control
immigration and might oblige them to grant a number of rights and
benefits to foreigners.
V.
DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM AGAINST MIGRANT WORKERS
IN THE AMERICAS
73.
Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, recently
stated that large-scale migration has led to an alarming increase of
racist and xenophobic incidents.
[58]
Migrant workers and their families are one of the groups
most affected by this trend. Whatever their legal status, they are
commonly the target of acts of discrimination and expressions of
racism and/or xenophobia.
[59]
A very significant number of countries have been the scene
of extremely dismaying xenophobic incidents in recent years. In
Germany, France, Austria and Italy, for example, groups of the extreme
right have violently attacked African, Turkish, Eastern European and
Latino migrant workers. In Libya, local inhabitants organized violent pogroms
aimed at guest workers from Ghana, Nigeria and Chad. Migrant workers
from Bangladesh and Indonesia have been bloodily beaten in Malaysia.
In South Africa, migrant workers from Angola, Mozambique and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, among others, have been murdered or
lynched by local inhabitants.
74.
The fact that xenophobia manifests itself in
less-than-spectacular fashion in most countries of the world does not
make it any less alarming. Foreign-born workers commonly encounter
discrimination when looking for a job and their access to housing,
social services and the legal system is often severely restricted.
Moreover, they must put up with open hostility on the part of local
people. In its most benign form, such hostility is expressed through
jokes or insults, but at its most harmful level, it becomes social
stigmatization. Migrants are often unfairly associated with all kinds
of criminal activities or are labeled as lazy good-for-nothings trying
to take advantage of the services offered by the receiving state.
75.
Moreover, migrant workers and members of their families are
often harassed and mistreated by authorities. In many countries the
police regularly check migrant workers to see if their papers are in
order. They also commonly carry out raids in areas where foreigners
get together or live, often with no apparent motive. Foreigners are
arrested for no reason, and even insulted and/or beaten by the
authorities. Even worse, all too often women migrant workers report
being raped by police. Another side is seen when police fail to
intervene when locals mistreat or attack foreign workers and refuse to
investigate complaints.
[60]
Lastly, many countries have passed laws against foreign
workers and maintain discriminatory practices, including bias in
granting visas and blatantly discriminatory rules on employment.
[61]
76.
Like migration, racism, xenophobia and other forms of
discrimination are complex social phenomena. Thus an explanation,
however brief, is in order regarding their nature and how they affect
public policy toward migrants. According to Article 1 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
[62]
racial discrimination “shall mean any distinction,
exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or
national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of
nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an
equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the po
ideology based on the idea that human beings should be separated into
distinct racial groups and that these groups can be ranked on a
hierarchy of intelligence, ability, morality and so on. Xenophobia
refers to an irrational and obsessive hatred of people foreign or
perceived as foreign.
[63]
77.
Expressions of intolerance such as racism and xenophobia often
go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, the belief of a particular group
that its culture is superior to or more valuable than others.
Ethnocentrism is commonly intertwined with racism, which reinforces
the impression of supremacy of these cultures or peoples.
Ethnocentrism derived from and exacerbated by religious beliefs,
national unification movements, linguistic differences and historical
developments, among other factors, and then disseminated by the
educational system, has led to ethnocentric behavior becoming rooted
in nearly all countries of the world, although to varying degrees.
[64]
78.
As we said in the preceding section, political elements play an
important role in government policy on migration. One of the major
considerations is the receptivity of the local people to foreigners.
[65]
In regard to discrimination and xenophobia, studies show
that in heterogeneous countries with a tradition of immigration
(Canada, United States, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand and Argentina),
people tend to be more open to the presence of immigrants. The
intermingling of diverse cultures helps to demythologize the idea that
immigration somehow has “harmful effects”. But in more racially,
religiously and culturally homogeneous countries without a tradition
of immigration (Germany, Italy), scarce contact with foreigners makes
the local people more suspicious and intolerant.
[66]
79.
Xenophobia, racism and discrimination against foreigners may
not have received as much attention in the Americas as in other parts
of the world, but that doesn’t mean that incidents are not common.
The problem subsists without much attention being given to it, which
reflects the absence of any sincere examination and open discussion of
the matter in most countries of the region. The United States presents
something of a paradox. Racial discrimination against citizens has
been the subject of a long debate, yet xenophobia has received little
or no attention. The question has been even more clearly ignored in
the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Regional Meeting
of Experts for Latin America and the Caribbean on Economic, Social and
Legal Measures to Combat Racism with Special Reference to Vulnerable
Groups reached the conclusion that in most of Latin America and the
Caribbean, the existence of racial discrimination and xenophobia is
denied or said to be minor in scope by both government and the
societies at large. The meeting's conclusions also pointed out that
there is racial discrimination and intolerance aimed at groups such as
indigenous peoples, African-Americans and Mestizos, against
minorities such as Jews and gypsies, and against vulnerable groups
such as women, children, the handicapped, youth and the elderly.
[67]
80.
This same forum stressed that in Latin America and the
Caribbean, migrant workers and members of their families
“in general suffer from structural discrimination that in its
multiple forms either excludes them or limits their job opportunities
and their access to state institutions under equal conditions.
Moreover, racial prejudice and discrimination often comes into play in
interpersonal relationships.”
[68]
81.
In the Americas, discrimination, racism, xenophobia and other
forms of intolerance have their roots in the racial and cultural
preconceptions that the European conquerors brought with them and
fostered during centuries of colonization. Intolerance and racial
discrimination were reinforced during the era of national independence
in the early 1800s, when new authorities simply continued the old
policies of exclusion, stigmatization and subjection of indigenous
peoples and African-Americans.
[69]
82.
Where racial and religious intolerance and prejudice is deeply
engrained, such as in Latin America, the Caribbean and certain parts
of the United States, it is not surprising to see incidents of
intolerance, discrimination and xenophobia aimed at migrant workers.
It is, however, difficult to gauge the scope and gravity of the
problem, as there are no reliable studies and statistical data. The
only information available, fragmentary at best, has come from
complaints lodged by human rights groups and media and government
reports.
83.
Several countries in our hemisphere have been accused of
xenophobia directed against migrant workers and members of their
families. Numerous NGOs, the press and many Central American
governments, including Guatemala and Honduras, have claimed that
foreign workers in Mexico suffer from discrimination and xenophobia on
the part of both the public at large and, above all, the authorities.
Similarly, NGOs and the Government of Bolivia have pointed to
xenophobia against Peruvian and Bolivians in Argentina.
[70]
For decades there have been formal complaints filed
regarding mistreatment of Colombian immigrants and migrant workers in
Venezuela. In Chile, human rights organizations and the press have
reported on incidents that have mainly affected Peruvian immigrants.
The governments of several Central American countries and Mexico,
human rights NGOs and the media have pointed to xenophobic attacks and
racial discrimination against Central Americans and Mexicans in the
United States. In its response to the questionnaire sent out by this
office, the US government readily recognizes that such incidents have
occurred and expresses its willingness to take appropriate measures.
Along similar lines, the Government of Costa Rica in its response
admits that there have been outbreaks of xenophobia against Nicaraguan
workers. Perhaps one of the most serious cases is in regard to the
Dominican Republic, where it would seem that Haitians (and Dominicans
of African-American descent) suffer systematic discrimination. In its
annual report for 2000, Amnesty International denounces a number of
abuses against Haitians that contravene international standards,
including police round-ups, mistreatment and collective deportations.
[71]
84.
migrant workers from the Americas. One example can be found in
Japan, where Brazilian workers of Japanese descent are often harassed.
Similarly, many South Americans, Caribbeans and Central Americans have
faced open discrimination in Europe. Most recently the situation of
some 150,000 Ecuadorians in Spain has been highlighted and attention
brought to bear on complaints of mistreatment at the hands of both
individuals and Spanish authorities.
85.
Although there is an alarming legal gap regarding the rights of
migrant workers and members of their families, the same is not true
with regard to protection against intolerance, racism and xenophobia.
Except for Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Honduras, Paraguay and St. Kitts
and Nevis, all OAS member states have signed and ratified the
International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. Moreover, as previously mentioned in this report, some
countries of the Americas, such as Bolivia, Mexico, Chile, Guatemala
and Paraguay, have either signed or ratified the 1990 International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families.
86.
This means that a large number of the countries of the Americas
have taken on international commitments in this area. This office
calls on all nations that have signed such agreements to take
appropriate measures to assure that migrant workers and members of
their families do not suffer violations of their basic rights due to
acts of discrimination, racism or xenophobia. We recognize the efforts
made by a large number of the governments of this hemisphere to
contribute to the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance convened by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in Durban (South Africa) for
September of this year. In our opinion, the conference presents an
excellent opportunity for governments and civil society to sit down
together and discuss ways to confront a matter of great concern.
87.
This section of the report has pointed out that there has been
a major increase in acts of discrimination, racism and xenophobia
directed at migrant workers. The thinking behind such attacks
originated from certain deeply rooted preconceptions that are to be
found in all cultures. Although not much attention has been drawn to
such matters in the Americas, the situation nonetheless gives rise to
concern. Many reports denounce xenophobia in countries where migrants
have settled or through which they transit. Such outbreaks of
intolerance threaten to exacerbate the structural vulnerability
already facing migrant workers and their families. We have stressed
that although most American states have taken on international
commitments in this area, acts of discrimination, racism and
intolerance still occur in a large number of countries without
governments taking appropriate measures to curb them.
88.
The Special Rapporteurship has observed that migrant workers
everywhere face diverse administrative or judicial procedures, either
to settle disputes over wages, housing, health care or other benefits,
or to settle some matters related to their status as migrants. In some
cases they must appear in criminal proceedings, either as defendants,
victims or witnesses. Procedural practices and regulations vary
throughout the Americas, which underscores the need to adopt minimum
uniform standards.
89.
As a starting point we should recall that international human
rights law establishes minimum norms for due process applicable to any
situation in which an individual’s human rights are at stake.
Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and the
equivalent articles in other international instruments set out that
States Parties have the obligation to respect and ensure the rights
covered in the text. Article 2 of the American Convention, moreover,
obliges states to adopt the measures necessary to give effect to those
rights. Taken together these two articles mean that any state whose
judicial organization and procedures do not include mechanisms to
protect such rights, must create them and ensure that they are
accessible to all persons under their jurisdiction. If such mechanisms
do exist but are not effective, the state is obliged to reform them
and make them truly effective guarantees of the rights in question.
90.
Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights
are those traditionally cited in relation to the developing doctrine
concerning judicial guarantees and protection. These two articles
cover any situation in which it becomes necessary to determine the
content and scope of the rights of a person under the jurisdiction of
a state party, be it in a criminal, administrative, tax, labor,
family, contractual or any other kind of matter. These rules establish
a baseline of due process to which all immigrants, whatever their
situation, have a right.
91.
Certainly international instruments go into greater detail when
it comes to criminal law. In addition to Article 8, with its
specification of various rights associated with the guarantee of a
fair trial, other articles come into play, including Article 4 (right
to life and conditions in which the death penalty can be properly
imposed), Article 5 (prohibition of torture
and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment), Article 6
(forced labor as a punishment), Article 7 (conditions for preventive
detention) and Article 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws).
Moreover, the right to prompt recourse covered by Article 25 of
the Convention also applies in criminal cases. These guarantees are
now in force in all our countries, either through the convention
having been incorporated into domestic law or because national
constitutions or legislation provide for them. If their implementation
is deficient in any country, both nationals and immigrants are
affected.
92.
In the criminal sphere, the Rapporteurship suggests that there
be discussion on measures needed to ensure the right of all
immigrants, whatever their status, to a fair trial, with special
attention given to the vulnerability of a person facing criminal
proceedings in a foreign country. First of all, it is of the essence
that a person understands the charges against him and the full range
of procedural rights available to him. To this end, translation and
explanation of all legal concepts in the language of the defendant is
essential and should be financed by the state.
93.
Next we would suggest that domestic law provide for mechanisms
to assure prompt access to a person’s consulate and to facilitate
any assistance that his consular officers may be able to provide. In
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
[72]
which has been ratified by many countries of the Americas,
this is clearly stated as a duty of states. There is widespread
agreement that this rule is now part of customary international law.
Moreover, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights recognizes that this rule confers rights upon foreign
nationals subject to prosecution and that non-compliance annuls the
outcome of the criminal proceedings precisely because due process has
not been respected.
94.
The conditions facing migrant workers and members of their
families when detained also merit attention. We will not go into
detail here as the next section of the report treats this matter more
fully. Nonetheless, we would like to stress that states have the
obligation to ensure that detained aliens, especially those detained
for administrative reasons, not be exposed to any conditions or
treatment that would violate their basic rights or endanger their
physical integrity or lives.
95.
In any non-criminal proceedings against a migrant worker, a
certain quantum of due
process must also be respected. Certainly this does not imply that the
same guarantees deemed indispensable for criminal proceedings must be
necessarily ensured, for example, when determining what sanctions to
apply for a transit infraction. However, whenever effective enjoyment
of a right or a legitimate interest is at stake, the authorities
should decide the case only after the interested party has been duly
heard. This quantum of due
process depends on what outcomes is expected of the proceedings. In
criminal law, the accused party can suffer loss of freedom (and in
some cases and countries, even of life) and therefore maximum
guarantees are needed to prevent any miscarriage of justice. As the
importance of the values at state diminishes, the content of due
process may also decline to a degree compatible with the general
principle and the celerity and efficacy of decisions. The principle of
due process, with this degree of flexibility, applies not only to
court decisions, but also to decisions made by administrative bodies.
It is outside the scope of this report to cite all the procedural
guarantees to be applied in all judicial or administrative contexts.
Accordingly we will simply repeat the principle that a minimum of due
process is necessary even in administrative law, as established by the
European Commission on Human Rights in Hortolomei v. Austria.
[73]
96.
On the other hand, it is necessary to analyze in more detail
the question of due process in cases on the status of immigrants and
to measures to exclude, deport or expel them as implemented by
American states as part of migration policy. Such discussion is needed
because practices and regulatory trends vary greatly in the region.
Although we do not think it necessary to push for uniform regulations
and procedures, we do believe that a dialogue on minimum norms
established by international law is needed.
97.
To begin we reiterate that international human rights law does
not limit a state’s sovereignty to define its migration policy and
to control its borders, including control of the flow of persons over
them. The only legal limits in this area refer to the following:
1.
A state cannot impede its own citizens from exiting, entering
or remaining in its territory. In this regard, the practice of
requiring citizens to obtain an exit visa, separate from the
requirement that they obtain a passport (or in the case of minors,
that they have due authorization from their parents), constitutes a
violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence enshrined
in Article 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Close study
of de facto deportation of a
country’s own nationals is needed, especially in the case of minors
deported or expelled along with alien parents. This is a problem that
has been examined from the perspective of domestic law in several of
our countries, but to the best of our knowledge, has not been treated
in the jurisprudence of any international human rights body. Here we
simply wish to state the problem without offering any preformed
opinion of how it should be solved. We do, however, think it
appropriate to recommend an in-depth study of the matter.
2.
No state can return a foreigner to a country when there are
well-founded reasons to believe that he will be persecuted on account
of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion {Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees (1951) and its Additional Protocol (1967)}. This rule, known
as non-refoulement, has
entered into customary international law and is considered a norm of jus cogens. It also has equivalents in the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Article 3) and the Inter-American Convention Against
Torture (Article 13). Both these treaties prohibit the return of a
person to a territory where he would be in danger of being tortured.
In the Americas and elsewhere, the principle of non-refoulement
has gradually been broadened to cover persons fleeing from
situations of widespread political violence or civil war {Declaration
of Cartagena (1984), Declaration of San José (1994)}. Obviously, the
rights of refugees and of asylum seekers do not lie within the mandate
of this Rapportteurship, although the relationship is undeniable. We
refer to them here simply because the principles mentioned above have
a corollary that is directly related to due process in exclusion or
deportation procedures–at the very least a state is obliged to give
the person or persons in question a reasonable opportunity to prove
that they are refugees or to file a petition for asylum. In this
regard, the Rapporteurship is concerned by overly-restrictive
practices during interdiction on the high seas and by recent
legislation in some receiving countries that would severely limit the
opportunity people have to request asylum.
3.
In migration policy, states cannot discriminate for
reasons of race, color, sex or gender or sexual preference, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
economic status, birth, or any other social condition {American
Convention on Human Rights, Article 1(1)}. This principle of equality
and non-discrimination is also enshrined in Article 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 24
of the American Convention. Sexual preference is included as a
category as it is encompassed by the very concept of sex, according to
the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Toonen v. Australia).
[74]
The principle is extended to the enjoyment and exercise of
all the rights enshrined in international instruments and to all
social benefits provided by a state {International Covenant of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 2(2)}. The
Rapporteurship considers that there is no reason not to apply the
principle of non-discrimination to migration policy. Nonetheless, it
is clear that in the field of migration policy it is permissible to
distinguish between citizens and foreigners and between regular and
irregular immigrants.
4.
An alien lawfully in a country may be expelled or deported from
it only pursuant to a decision made in accordance with law {Article
22(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights}. This means that
states must enact legislation conferring powers for deportation and
that all decisions must be made according to the regulations in place
and not arbitrarily. Moreover, the meaning of “law” in Article 22
is not limited to acts of the legislative branch in a formal sense. In
the material sense the context of such acts must be in full accordance
with the constitution and the rule of law, including conformity with
all obligations acquired by international treaties.
5.
Lastly, international instruments contain a clear prohibition
directly applicable to the matter at hand, namely the collective
expulsion of aliens {Article 22(9) of the American Convention on Human
Rights}. Although the term itself is not defined, it seems to us that
there is no magic number separating individual from collective
expulsions. We believe that expulsion becomes collective when the
decision to expel is not based on individual cases but on group
considerations, even if the group in question is not large. It would
go against common sense to think that a state could sidestep the
prohibition on collectively expelling a large number of persons in a
single act by simply expelling a few dozen people at a time until the
same large number has been reached relatively quickly. The conclusion
is that states must judge each case of expulsion or deportation
individually.
98.
Beyond these norms of positive law, migration policy is
circumscribed by general respect for human rights, and in that
context, by guarantees of due process. Returning to our analysis of a quantum
of guarantees and its relationship with the value or right at play
in any single case, we would like to say that in procedures on
exclusion or expulsion, the stakes of migrant workers and their
families are indeed high. They may not be equal to personal liberty
and the danger of losing it for a number of years, which is what is
commonly at stake in criminal proceedings. Thus we will not maintain
that for exclusion or expulsion cases all the guarantees required for
a fair trial in the criminal sphere must be in place. Nevertheless, a
decision on the legal status of a migrant worker does affect his
chances of making a living, working under decent conditions, feeding
his family and providing an education for his children. It will also
affect his right to raise a family and the special protection extended
to minors within a family. In some cases, personal liberty may be
affected for the duration of the proceedings. Consequently, the value
at issue in such proceedings is similar to liberty, or at least closer
to liberty than would be the case in other administrative or judicial
proceedings. Thus, at the very least, minimum threshold of complete of
due process guarantees should be provided.
99.
In examining practices in the Americas, we have found the
absence of clear norms providing such guarantees in many cases.
Moreover, there are great differences from country to country. This
leads us to suggest that it is time for discussion on the minimum
norms of due process to be applied in cases on status, exclusion and
expulsion. The time is not ripe for proposing instruments in this
area, precisely because a rigorous debate involving governments, civil
society groups, academia and international bodies for the protection
of human rights should take place first. But we would like to announce
that we are ready to contribute to the development of such an
instrument when the time comes. For now, with the intention of opening
the debate, we offer the following considerations.
A.
An accountable and impartial adjudicator. Decisions in
the area of migration cannot be left to non-specialized administrative
or police officials. Public officials responsible for such decisions
must be accountable before the law, to superiors and to any horizontal
control bodies charged with reviewing decisions. The process of
appointing an adjudicator and the status of the office within the
administrative structure of the state must guarantee impartiality and
protection against any possible pressure or influence. We are not
saying that only judges should make such decisions. In our opinion,
conferring the power on administrative officials is compatible with
international human rights law. Nonetheless, the requirements of
impartiality and accountability mentioned above must be met.
B.
The right to be heard. A migrant worker must have and be
able to effectively exercise the right to be heard, to have his say
and defend his right not to be expelled. The right to a hearing should
include the right to be informed of evidence to be used against him
and the opportunity to counter it, and to produce and present relevant
evidence in his own favor, with a reasonable amount of time granted to
do so.
C.
Information, translation and interpretation. An
immigrant, whatever his legal status, must be able to understand the
proceedings he is involved in and all the procedural rights he is
entitled to. Thus, translation and interpretation in his language must
be made available as necessary.
D.
Legal Counsel. A person facing possible expulsion must
have the opportunity of being represented by an attorney of his
choosing or other qualified persons. It may be that the state cannot
be asked to provide a lawyer free of charge as in criminal proceedings
but free representation should at least be offered to indigents.
Further, the information referred to in the preceding paragraph should
include some form of specialized advice or the rights that assist the
immigrant.
E.
Judicial Review. As has been mentioned, the decisions
under consideration can legitimately be administrative in nature.
However, judicial review must always be provided for, either through
appeal in administrative law or by recourse to amparo
or habeas corpus. This does not mean that every administrative decision
on deportation must be examined judicially de novo, but we do believe that judges should maintain at least
baseline oversight of the legality and reasonableness of
administrative law decisions in order to comply with the guarantees
provided for in Article 1(1) of the Convention and the right to prompt
and effective recourse set out in Article 25.
F.
Access to Consular Officials. We have already said that
timely access to consular officials must be ensured, above all for
detainees. Such access should be made available in accordance with the
terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
G.
Appropriate Detention Conditions. Persons in detention
must be treated humanely and in a way that does not endanger health or
life. Rules governing detention should meet the minimum levels set out
in international instruments such as the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
[75]
and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment for
Prisoners,
[76]
among others.
100.
In summary, this section has presented a brief overview of the
guarantees of due process that safeguard the rights of migrant workers
involved in judicial proceedings in countries of destination or
transit. It indicates that in the Americas, migrant workers face a
variety of judicial and administrative procedures under both civil and
criminal law. It emphasizes that states must provide the guarantees
necessary to ensure that all administrative and judicial proceedings
are fair. To this end, certain rules of due process have been
suggested that, joined to the international obligations already in
force, would contribute enormously to assuring that decisions on
deportation are made with juridical certainty and security and to
establishing minimum standards for legislation and legal proceedings
throughout the hemisphere. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the
rules suggested here are not the only possibilities available and that
other principles could be brought into play. We offer them simply as a
starting point for discussion.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
[48]
United Nations,
General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
[49]
American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Bogotá, Colombia,
1948. American Convention on Human Rights, San José, Costs Rica,
1969.
[50]
ILO, Convention
on Migrant Workers (revised), 1949. ILO Convention on Migrant
Workers (complementary provisions), 1975.
[51]
United Nations,
Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1995/15.
[52]
United Nations,
Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1999/44.
[53]
United Nations,
Commission on Human Rights, document A/55/383 of 2000.
[54]
To enter into
force, the Convention must be ratified by twenty countries.
[55]
An interesting
examination of the shortcomings and strong points of the Convention
is offered by Bosniak, Linda S., “Human Rights, State Sovereignty
and the Protection of Undocumented Migrants under the International
Migrant Workers Convention.” International
Migration Review 25 (4), 1990, pp. 737-771.
[56]
United Nations,
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrant
Workers, E/CN.4/2000/82, paragraph 31.
[57]
Cohen, Andrew.
“Mental Bloc: European immigration.” WorldLink (Nov/Dec), 2000, pp. 18-19.
[58]
Speech given
during the opening session of a seminar of experts on resources for
victims of acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related forms of intolerance held in Geneva, 6-18 February 2000.
[59]
United Nations,
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrant
Workers, E/CN.4/2000/82.
[60]
Human Rights
Watch. World Report. Special
Issues and Campaigns: Racial Discrimination and Related Intolerance.
2001. Human Rights Watch Website: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/special/racism.html#migrants;
United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights
of Migrant Workers, E/CN.4/2000/82, paragraph 13.
[61]
United Nations,
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrant
Workers, E/CN.4/2000/82, paragraph 54.
[62]
United Nations,
General Assembly Resolution 2106 (XX), 1965.
[63]
International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 20th Edition, Volume
12, p. 81. Online Dictionary of Social Sciences, http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict
[64]
Tilley, John.
“Cultural Relativism.” Human
Rights Quarterly 22 (2), pp. 527 & 540; Levine, Robert and
Campbell, Donald T. Ethnocentrism.
Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1971, pp. 7-21; Hjerm, Mikael. “National
Identities, National Pride and Xenophobia: A Comparison of Four
Western Countries.” Acta
Sociólogica 41 (4), 1998, p. 335.
[65]
Weiner, op.
cit., pp. 83-89.
[66]
Teitelbaum. op.
cit., p. 29; Weiner, op. cit., pp. 140-44.; Zolbeg (1981), op. cit.,
pp. 6-25; Zolberg
(1999), op. cit., pp. 276-80.
[67]
The Regional
Meeting of Experts for Latin America and the Caribbean on Economic,
Social and Legal Measures to Combat Racism with Special Reference to
Vulnerable Groups. Conclusions and Recommendations, pp. 2-3.
[68]
Ibid., p.3.
[69]
Gall, Olivia. “The
Historical Structure of Racism in Chiapas.” Social
Identities 4(2), 1998, pp. 237-39; Castellanos Guerrero, A. “Asimilación y Diferenciación de los Indios en México,” Estudios
Sociológicos 34, 1994, p. 4; The Regional Meeting of Experts
for Latin America and the Caribbean on Economic, Social and Legal
Measures to Combat Racism with Special Reference to Vulnerable
Groups. Conclusions and Recommendations, p. 2.
[70]
Report
submitted to the Office of the Special Rapporteur by the Center of
Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL), 14 July 2000.
[71]
Amnesty
International. Annual Report on Human Rights. AI Website: http://www.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/americas
2000.
[72]
Signed in
Vienna on 24 April 1963.
[73]
European
Commission on Human Rights, Hortolomei v. Austria, April 1998, p.
38.
[74]
Communication
488/1992. International Human
Rights Report 1997.
[75]
United Nations,
General Assembly Resolution 39/46, 1984.
[76]
United Nations,
Economic and Social Commission Resolution (XXIV), 1957. |