GENEVA - UN experts* today expressed deep concern regarding the recently adopted Chișinău Declaration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe introducing policy directions on migration and expulsion that seek to narrow the scope and application of the European Convention on Human Rights on migrants.
"Migration governance must remain grounded in human rights. Border management cannot come at the expense of the prohibition of torture, ill-treatment and other serious harms, effective remedies, and non-discrimination," the experts said.
Recent political initiatives that purport to rebalance the European Convention on Human Rights in migration matters risk normalising human rights violations and promoting restrictive interpretations of States' obligations. "We are disappointed that the Declaration materialises concerns we previously raised, including the prioritisation of coercive migration control, restrictions on access to asylum, expanded detention and returns, the weakening of due process, and other actions that could lead to death, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance or persecution of migrants," the experts said.
The Declaration emphasises subsidiarity and a potentially excessive margin of appreciation for States, suggesting national authorities are "better placed" to assess migration and refugee related issues, which undermines the supervisory function of the European Court of Human Rights. "This renewed emphasis should not become a proxy to justify measures that violate States' obligations under the Convention and undermine independent oversight by the European Court of Human Rights," the experts said.
Beyond the emphasis on border control, expulsion, and public security, the Declaration promotes "new approaches," including extraterritorial asylum processing, return hubs and cooperation with transit countries that are not safe for migrants. The experts stressed that these externalisation measures raise serious concerns about compatibility with international human rights law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement.
Although the Declaration recalls the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, it offers elements for interpretation by calling for maintaining a "high" threshold and avoiding "unnecessary constraints" on removal decisions.
"We wish to recall that these 'constraints' are there to ensure that the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is indeed absolute in practice," the experts said.
They also noted that references to diplomatic assurances - which may not be effective in practice - and limited consideration of socio-economic and health factors risk further undermining the preventive nature of non-refoulement obligations.
Children, survivors of torture, persons with disabilities, older persons, persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, victims and survivors of contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and other gender-diverse (LGBT) persons and human rights defenders, particularly those supporting migrant rights, are disproportionately affected by enforcement-driven approaches. Women and girls face distinct risks, such as gender-based violence including sexual violence, trafficking, forced marriage, limited access to reproductive and sexual health services, and harm in detention or return contexts. "Without gender-responsive safeguards and proper assessments, many of these risks may go undetected, leading to serious violations, including refoulement," the experts said.
"At a time of complex migration challenges, the credibility of the human rights system and the rule of law depends on strict adherence to core principles," the experts said. "Only by respecting the rights of every person, without discrimination, can States uphold their commitments under the Convention."
