Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers Commend Türkiye for Work Done for Syrian and other Migrants, Ask about Hate Speech against Migrants and the Protection of Migrant Children
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 Türkiye, with Committee Experts commending the State on work done for Syrian and other migrants in Türkiye, and asking about hate speech against migrants in elections and the protection of migrant children.
Azad Taghi-Zada, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee understood the pressure Türkiye was under when it came to migrants from countries, including Syria and Iraq. The State had done a great job organising the protection of these people’s rights and providing them with minimal social protection. Another Expert said the Government should be commended for the work done for Syrian migrants and refugees in Türkiye.
Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said information had been received about xenophobia and hate speech, which took place during the elections in 2023. What had been done to stamp this out? Had this led to violence against the country’s migrant populations?
A Committee Expert asked how the State party had bolstered the protection of migrant children? Could more statistical data on unaccompanied minors who were left behind in the country be provided? What types of legal aid had the State provided for migrant children and women? What support measures were in place for migrant children in conflict with the law?
Responding to questions, the delegation said Türkiye had witnessed migrants becoming a topic in domestic politics in countries around the world. Social media disseminated misinformation about migrants. Türkiye was a welcoming country and tried to address this misinformation by creating more awareness about the positive contributions of migrants.
The delegation said an unaccompanied child was a child who arrived in Türkiye without an adult who was legally responsible for them. Procedures for unaccompanied minors were carried out in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treating unaccompanied children was more complex than treating an adult migrant and required inter-governmental action. Specialised child home building complexes were special centres which provided care and protection for children.
Serdar Özkan, Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, presenting the report, said Türkiye was one of the countries with the largest refugee populations in the world, with 4.6 million foreigners living in Türkiye, including 3.2 million Syrians under temporary protection. Almost 7 million Turkish citizens lived abroad. This year marked the twentieth year since Türkiye had ratified the Convention. It had been eight years since the evaluation of the initial report in 2016, and since then, several domestic legal and institutional framework developments had occurred. Since the early 1960s, labour force agreements had been concluded between Türkiye and other countries for the employment of the Turkish workforce. To date, 13 labour force agreements had been signed with 12 countries. Social security agreements had also been implemented, which aimed to protect the social security rights of citizens and employees. To date, there were 35 social security agreements, nine of which entered into force after the initial report.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Ceriani Cernadas thanked the delegation for all the information and the constructive dialogue. The Committee was aware of the challenges faced by Türkiye and understood the State was doing everything it could to strengthen the rights of migrants. The Committee’s recommendations would reflect this.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Özkan expressed gratitude to the Committee Experts for their comments, questions and the dialogue. Migration was a global matter, and the challenge reminded the State of the importance of working together.
The delegation of Türkiye was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; the Ministry of Trade; the Ministry of National Education; and the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The webcast of Committee meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Committee’s thirty-eighth session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 June, to review the fourth periodic report of Senegal (CMW/C/SEN/4).
Report
The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Türkyie (CMW/C/TUR/2).
Presentation of Report
SERDAR ÖZKAN, Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said Türkiye was one of the countries with the largest refugee populations in the world, with 4.6 million foreigners living in Türkiye, including 3.2 million Syrians under temporary protection. Almost 7 million Turkish citizens lived abroad. The Government actively engaged in initiatives to improve the protection of the human rights of migrants and migrant workers.
This year marked the twentieth year since Türkiye had ratified the Convention. It had been eight years since the evaluation of the initial report in 2016, and since then, several domestic legal and institutional framework developments had occurred. Following the transition to the presidential government system in 2018, a more effective coordination process had begun, with the General Directorate of Immigration Policies and Visa Procedures established within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Immediately after the presentation of the initial report, the international labour force law no. 6735 entered into force in August 2016, with the General Directorate of International Labor Force established within this framework.
In 2019, the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code was amended to include the phrase “migrant smuggling and human trafficking”, to constitute a reason for arrest. In 2023, an amendment was made to the Turkish Penal Code, increasing the penalty for the crime of migrant smuggling from three to five years. The drafting of the third draft national action plan began in 2023 and the process was ongoing. The Government had identified more than 254,000 irregular migrants and apprehended 10,482 migrant smugglers in 2023. Trainings on human and migrants' rights, non-discrimination and vulnerable groups were provided to the military and law enforcement personnel working at the borders. Several documents covered the rights of migrants and their challenges, including the judicial reform strategy document (2019); the twelfth development plan; and the action plan on human rights (2021–2024).
Since the early 1960s, labour force agreements had been concluded between Türkiye and other countries for the employment of the Turkish workforce. To date, 13 labour force agreements had been signed with 12 countries. Social security agreements had also been implemented, which aimed to protect the social security rights of citizens and employees. To date, there were 35 social security agreements, nine of which entered into force after the initial report.
Furthermore, in 2018, the Ombudsman institution published a thematic special report entitled “the Syrians in Turkey”, a comprehensive study of the situation of the Syrians under temporary protection in Türkiye. In addition, in 2022-2023, the Human Rights and Equality Institution published thematic reports in the field of migration, including on the evaluation of pushback actions against asylum seekers and irregular migrants; on combatting human trafficking; and on the principles of non-discrimination and non-refoulment. Mr. Özkan concluded by stating that Türkiye strove to maintain an advanced level of comprehensive policies in the field of the rights of migrant workers and looked forward to the dialogue with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was mindful of the challenges faced by Türkiye in terms of mobility and migration. It was a country with a transit, reception and destination profile and a high number of people circulating to and from the country. Why did Türkiye have a geographical limitation on protection, and would this be removed? What information could the delegation provide on pushbacks with Greece, Syria and Iran? What measures had been taken to investigate these complaints and what happened afterwards? Information had been received about authorities forcing voluntary returns. What information could be provided on this? How many detention centres existed in the country? To what extent could civil society access these centres? The Committee had heard about cases of abuse along the border, including people who had lost their lives.
What was done to ensure children had full access to the education system, regardless of their migration status? How were the best interests of the child taken into account when it came to unaccompanied minors? What was Türkiye doing to raise the profile on birth registration and access to nationality for children born to foreign parents in Türkiye? Information had been received about xenophobia and hate speech, which took place during the elections in 2023. What had been done to stamp this out? Had this led to violence against the country’s migrant populations.
AZAD TAGHI-ZADA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee understood the pressure Türkiye was under when it came to migrants from countries, including Syria and Iraq. The State had done a great job organising the protection of these people’s rights and providing them with minimal social protection. Were there any countries which had a similar situation to Türkiye? This would be a good kind of illustration on what kind of problems Türkiye had to solve. The new agreements between the countries of destination and countries of origin were positive. Could analysis be provided on what rights migrant workers in Germany were provided with, compared to the rights provided by the Convention? This would help the Committee understand how agreements could be reached with countries like Germany, which had not ratified the Convention. How did the Government organise language lessons for adults and children from migrant families? How were these newcomers ensured quality education in Türkiye?
JASMINKA DZUHMUR, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur, said Türkiye had adopted a national action plan 2018-2023. What was the status of the new document? Had a new document on the elimination of child labour been adopted? The Committee recognised that Türkiye had taken extraordinary measures to deal with migrants on its territory during COVID-19 and the earthquake. What sustainable measures had been developed to deal with migration issues during crises? In 2022, Türkiye was recognised as a global champion country relating to the implementation of the global compact of safety in migration. Where was the country at now with the implementation of this document? What was the procedure for undocumented migrants to obtain a work permit? What was the supervisory body for migrant workers in the agriculture and domestic workers sectors? What was the complaints procedure for migrants?
What did access to justice look like for migrants? Did they have access to courts? How long was the complaints procedure? How did the State deal with cases of gender-based or sexual violence? How were migrant women protected in these situations? What were the statistics on unaccompanied children? What measures had been taken since the last report to improve the status of Türkiye migrants abroad?
A Committee Expert said an act had been passed which allowed for the right to petition. How did this apply to foreign nationals? How could this right be applied to migrant workers? Were statistics available? How were the human rights structures in the country equipped to provide the necessary support to protect the rights of migrant workers. Did migrant workers have access to health care? What about those in an irregular situation? Was universal health coverage open to regular migrant workers? What steps were taken to avoid detaining migrant workers? Were there alternatives to detention available? How were they enforced?
The Government should be commended for the work done for Syrian migrants and refugees in Türkiye. What steps had been taken to provide education to Syrian children who found themselves in Türkiye due to the conflict in the region? The Committee had seen videos of discrimination against sub-Saharan migrants. Was the Government aware of this? What was being done to curb this problem?
Another Expert said Türkiye was a very important Member State of the Convention. The country had a long history of dealing with migration and migrant workers. It was mutually beneficial for the Committee to hear from Türkiye, as they could also learn from the practices in the country. How many refugees were now migrant workers in the country? Türkiye had recently suffered the natural calamity of the earthquake and had managed this well. Were migrant workers provided with a similar recovery process to Turkish nationals? What were the procedures that Türkiye had in place with countries, including Germany, to provide Turkish migrant workers with the best possible facilities?
A Committee Expert acknowledged the historic nature of Türkiye’s work to afford rights to migrant workers. How had the State party bolstered the protection of migrant children? Could more statistical data on unaccompanied minors who were left behind in the country be provided? What types of legal aid had the State provided for migrant children and women? What support measures were in place for migrant children in conflict with the law? Were visits conducted to places of detention? What measures had the State taken to cooperate with civil society when it came to implementing the Convention? Could more information about stateless children be provided, including those with disabilities and rare diseases?
Another Expert commended the large delegation from Türkiye for travelling to Geneva. What did the term “removal” from the border mean? Was this collective refoulment, which was not authorised by the Convention? Would the State take measures to bring the national human rights institution in line with international standards?
A Committee Expert said Türkiye was a great country which sat along two continents. It was a multi-plural country. In times of crisis, this had enabled the country to live up to the expectations of the international community. What was the country doing to counteract discriminatory rhetoric by the political parties?
An Expert said Türkiye ratified the Convention in 2004. Twenty years on, were the same reservations still applicable? The Committee should be able to know the reasons why States were maintaining reservations to relevant articles of the Convention. Why were the reservations maintained on articles 76 and 77? What actions was the State taking to ensure the national human rights institute attained the highest status possible, in line with the Paris Principles? Had the country had cases of migrants with disabilities? What support had been provided to them? Could specific examples or cases be provided?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Türkiye had witnessed migrants becoming a topic in domestic politics in countries around the world. Social media disseminated misinformation about migrants. Türkiye was a welcoming country and tried to address this misinformation by creating more awareness about the positive contributions of migrants. No Syrians could be forcibly deported to Syria unlawfully, according to the principle of non-refoulment. Voluntary return forms were required to be signed by a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and a representative of a non-governmental organization, among others.
Türkiye had a right to have reservations to the Convention. The national human rights institution was independent and had its own budget. The capacity assessment project of the institution involved representatives from the United Nations Development Programme and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and had developed a roadmap in compliance with the Paris Principles. As of October 2022, the national human rights institution had been accredited as partially in line with the Paris Principles.
An unaccompanied child was a child who arrived in Türkiye without an adult who was legally responsible for them. Procedures for unaccompanied minors were carried out in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treating unaccompanied children was more complex than treating an adult migrant and required inter-governmental action. Specialised child home building complexes were special centres which provided care and protection for children. To ensure the integrity of children separated from their family, family reunification was carried out in preparation with relevant institutions.
Migrant women were disproportionately affected by risks due to their mobility. Türkiye continued to work towards eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, and combatting violence against women was a high priority for the State. The law on the protection of the family, which came into effect in 2012, broadened the scope of previous legislation to cover women regardless of their marital status. The law provided protection for migrant victims and their family members.
Women who had been granted a resident’s permit could benefit from shelter services. The national action plan on combatting violence against women (2021–2025) covered important measures for migrant women, including a women’s support mobile application for women at risk of violence. The KADES application allowed women in domestic violence situations to download an app to their phone and press an emergency button in situations of danger, which enabled law enforcement operators to provide a 24/7 response. Support was provided in multiple languages.
Türkiye was the single country from Western Europe which was party to the Convention. The country’s location brought both challenges and opportunities. Türkiye was hosting millions of refugees. In 2016, there was a coup attempt in Türkiye, and the law on the international labour force was approved directly after this. Foreigners in Türkiye were subject to equal treatment with Turkish citizens in most cases. These workers were required to obtain a work permit; 1,250,000 work permits had been issued since 2016. The system was totally online with no physical documents required. The country had an approval rate of more than 80 per cent and gave due diligence on the delicate balance between the domestic and foreign labour force.
Refugees or those under international protection could apply for a work permit after six months, and those under temporary protection, such as those from Syria, could apply for a work permit immediately. Information centres had been established in 10 provinces of the country where most refugees were registered. There were 1,000 labour inspectors and 2,700 social security auditors who carried out inspection activities across the country. The General Directorate of the International Labour Force had been established and was preparing for its first meeting. By issuing work permits, the State was able to follow the dynamics of the labour market closely. Once a foreigner had a work permit, they were covered by the labour law. In terms of access to rights, there was no difference between a Turkish citizen and a foreigner who had a work permit.
The year 2018 was declared as the year to eliminate child labour in Türkiye. The State had extensive experience reducing child labour in the country and was happy to share its experiences. Türkiye had ratified International Labour Organization Convention 182 on the elimination of child labour. A programme had been implemented which facilitated monthly payments for parents, provided they sent their children to school regularly. Some 500,000 children had benefitted from this.
A labour force agreement had been in force since the 1960s with Germany. Regular meetings were held with German colleagues about the implementation of the agreement, as well as the rights of Turkish nationals living and working in Germany. Unfortunately, Turkish citizens living and working abroad faced discrimination and xenophobia. The Ministry staff working in overseas missions regularly visited victims, including those who had faced xenophobic attacks.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what the State had to say regarding reports of forced returns at the border? Were the work permits the State issued affordable? Reports had been received that around one million Syrians were working without a work permit. What was the economic impact of having so many people with no work permit? Why was there a geographical restriction on movement and accessing social services? Did these restrictions apply to foreign nationals only, or to Turkish citizens as well? What was done in cases of deaths along migration routes? Were there programmes in place to identify those who had lost their lives? What were the concrete practices in place to enable female migrants to access services for victims of domestic violence? What measures was the State taking to report cases of violence against female migrants? How could a gender perspective be introduced in detention centres?
AZAD TAGHI-ZADA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked for more information about the cases of xenophobia in receiving countries affecting Turkish nationals? Could citizens abroad open cases in the courts? What were the results of these cases? Which percentage of such cases were won?
A Committee Expert asked about the alternative measures to administrative detention; could these be explained further?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said in Türkiye, those under temporary international protection and their families were entitled to access health, education and the labour market. If parents did not enrol their child in school, legal procedures would begin immediately to enrol the child in school. As of March 2024, more than 1.6 million students had been included in education; 90 per cent of foreigner children attended school at the primary school level and 92 per cent at secondary school level, which were well above global averages. Türkiye ensured no one was left behind when it came to education. The fact that high school was not compulsory for Syrian children in their own country meant their enrolment rates in Türkiye remained low, and the Government was working to rectify this. A programme was created to teach Turkish to foreign students in schools. Turkish language programmes were also provided for adults in learning centres, free of charge.
For foreigners under temporary protection, the cost of the work permit for one year was around 100 USD, which was paid by the employer. Turkish migrant workers in other countries faced some discriminatory practices in working life, including restrictions on social security benefits, inequalities in opportunities and education, and issues with family reunification, among others. They also sometimes faced barriers to equal health services. From 2018 to 2022, there had been 1,132 hate crime incidents against Turkish nationals living abroad. Most of these were motivated by racism or faith-based discrimination. Most of these cases occurred in European countries.
Türkiye worked closely with the Dutch Government to solve any issues on migrant workers within the framework of bilateral agreements. The legal counsels within the embassies had been operating since 2001, providing legal assistance free of charge to Turkish citizens living abroad. This service did not replace the role of a lawyer but was an advisory service. Türkiye relied on reciprocity agreements to protect the seven million Turks living abroad.
The Ombudsman institution in Türkiye was established under the Paris Principles. Foreigners or Syrians under temporary protection were required to reside in the province in which they were registered, but they could change their residential address. They could also live in another province for up to 90 days without changing their address. This was in line with international law. Due to the large numbers of foreigners in Turkey, it was important for the Government to manage their movements, to keep public services functioning. If foreigners wanted to work in another city, apart from the city in which they were registered, they could apply for a work permit, which was granted by the Government. Posters and brochures on legal aid were distributed in the seven most widely spoken languages.
Many workshops and meetings had been held to evaluate the alternatives to detention. Information brochures on the rights of irregular migrants to alternatives to detention had been prepared. A research report had been written on how alternatives to detention were implemented in other countries. Necessary measures were taken to protect all rights of children. Unaccompanied minors were identified by enforcement units, and a directive on unaccompanied minors had been published in 2015. Unaccompanied children taken into care benefitted primarily from foster services.
Türkiye was committed to supporting the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in social life. The State had launched numerous protective and supportive measures, in line with international standards. The 2030 Vision document outlined measures for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Türkiye was determined to strengthen the status of persons with disabilities in society and would continue in this regard.
The State attached great importance to the freedom of migrants and refugees. Türkiye was strictly against the act of pushbacks, which violated the rights of migrants, prohibited collective expulsion, and supported non-refoulement. Disappointingly, the State continued to observe pushbacks at many European borders, which deprived migrants of their rights. The situation and the number of deaths and disappearances were alarming. Türkiye was hosting almost 4.6 million foreigners in the country and did not receive any burden sharing from other countries. The State was doing its best to protect the rights of migrants and refugees in its jurisdiction area.
Türkiye faced threats of terrorist attacks and smuggling. Border forces were required to act at the border. Türkiye had identified more than 125,000 irregular migrants last year. Türkiye disputed that people from sub-Saharan regions faced discrimination in the country; this was misinformation spread on social media. All persons from sub-Saharan regions were entitled to apply to all the appeal bodies. Türkiye had close cooperation with sub-Saharan African countries and had been conducting an open form of policy to cooperate bi-laterally and multi-laterally. If there was a concern, these allegations would be addressed. However, this was not the nature of Turkish people. There was no such discrimination in Türkiye.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, recognised the determination of Türkiye to abide by international law and treaty bodies and welcomed efforts to strengthen policy and human rights. What did the State do on a holistic level to address trafficking? What was being done to avoid victims of trafficking ending up in detention centres? Could statistics on hate crimes and xenophobic attitudes be provided? What was being done to curb the number of children who were not within the education system? How was the relationship with the labour market assessed? What was being done to help those without the appropriate work permit? Was the work permit connected to a specific employer?
JASMINKA DZUHMUR, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur, said there were around seven million Turkish people abroad; was there a comprehensive report on Turkish people abroad? Consulates were obliged to provide legal assistance to their citizens. Could information on the registration of the birth of migrants in Türkiye be provided? Were there any issues in this regard? There was no doubt that significant progress had been made on the national human rights institution last year. What was planned to further support this institution to be able to apply for status A under the Paris Principles?
A Committee Expert said the State party had created a fourth plan for combatting violence against women and had established several centres for this purpose. How did these centres work to combat violence against migrant women? Did they have a specific plan? If so, what was it? Was a training programme in place for the professionals working at these centres? Did it consider how they integrated and respected the content of the Convention? How was the State combatting racism against migrants due to their status as a migrant?
Another Expert said human trafficking was a scourge which unfortunately still existed. The State had signed several preventive measures with countries, which was encouraging. Was the State aiming to set up protocols with countries whose nationals were victims of trafficking in Türkiye?
An Expert commended Türkiye for the detailed level of information provided. Türkiye had 1,000 labour inspectors working across the country, with several training centres established. The State had not ratified several important International Labour Organization Conventions. Were the living conditions and independence of labour inspectors guaranteed?
A Committee Expert asked about the structure which had been designed to support communities abroad; could more information on this be provided? In 2018, a platform had been established to combat hate crimes and xenophobia; could figures from this be provided? Did this platform also exist for foreigners and refugees working in Türkiye?
Another Expert said the Committee was acutely aware of the economic role that Türkiye played in sub-Saharan Africa, but this did not mean that there could not be some isolated incidents when it came to the police and security services. Could the State place more attention on this issue and try and curb these incidents? What measures were taken to facilitate contact of a child, who had been taken from a migrant family and placed in a foster family, with their family of origin? What was being done to preserve family reunification? What was being done to raise awareness of other States on the need for a shared responsibility when it came to migration flows?
An Expert said the Committee understood Türkiye’s concerns, as a country that was an entry point to a large region. The delegation had referred to “mobile migration points” which could be used to detect irregular migrants. Were these vehicles with staff interpreters? Could more information about the mobile units be provided? What safeguards did they provide for migrants? What results had they yielded? The Committee had been sad to hear about the consequences of the earthquake which took place one year ago in Türkiye. What had the State done to ensure displaced persons, especially migrant workers, would be cared for? What had the authorities done after this large-scale earthquake?
Could the Convention be invoked directly by courts? How did this work? To what extent were national identity documents issued systematically, as per the Committee’s previous recommendations? Had Türkiye ratified the conventions to reduce statelessness? Were there people with disabilities on the move in Türkiye? What was being done to care for them?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Türkiye aimed to improve the situation of irregular migrants in their country of origin. A programme was in place to support these migrants and provide them with necessary resources. The State coordinated with all agencies to understand challenges on the ground, and coordinate efforts for assisting returnees. This scheme was beneficial and could be utilised by other countries.
Questions by a Committee Expert
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the State’s long-term policy for the full, complete integration of migrant workers? With the mass flows, many people ended up staying for life. What did Türkiye do to try and support this process? Were efforts being taken to give foreign nationals with many years of residence the right to vote?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said visits were conducted for out of school children, and awareness raising activities were carried out with families to encourage them to send their children to school. Problems such as bullying did not have a single cause or a single solution. Many children from different cultures continued their education in the same classes. Peer building was important for children all over the world.
Foreign nationals benefitting from the victim support programme concerning human trafficking were given legal access to the labour market. A work permit was attached to a specific employer. All labour inspectors acted independently in their inspections. The inspection staff personnel were obliged to report those working without a permit, so an administrative fine could be issued. This fine would be paid by the employer and the employee.
Annual reports were published on Turkish citizens living and working abroad. These were available in Turkish and could be accessed on the Government’s website. There were 57 labour offices in 29 countries. Services were being provided in a digital environment, as well as equitable benefits in terms of access to health services. Türkiye had ratified 59 International Labour Organization Conventions, including all the fundamental conventions. The delegation had received more than 100 questions over the past two days, which were clear indications of the desire of the Committee to better understand the situation in Türkiye.
The Syrians registered in Türkiye who received a temporary registration number were entitled to health services, thanks to their resident permits. Safe and voluntary returns were always the best solution. The State made the utmost effort to achieve this. The diaspora was an important issue for the Turkish Government. Since the arrival of the first generation of Turkish migrants in various countries, the diaspora had contributed a lot to Türkiye. Language services, family consultancy and labour consultancy services were offered to the Turkish diaspora, with a focus on the countries where the majority of the Turkish diaspora were living. Only Turkish nationals had the right to vote.
The earthquake was a big calamity for Türkiye and it had created huge challenges. The capacity of health facilities in the affected provinces shrank to 17 per cent. All public and local services sought to address this natural disaster and bring humanitarian aid to people without distinction. Türkiye offered all services to migrants living in the country. The State was grateful to all those who had provided aid and assistance during that time.
Question by a Committee Expert
AZAD TAGHI-ZADA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked, from an analytical point of view, what was the main difference between the Convention and the agreements signed by Türkiye with countries such as Germany and Holland. This information would be helpful and interesting for the Committee to understand.
Closing Remarks
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for all the information and the constructive dialogue. The Committee was aware of the challenges faced by Türkiye and understood the State was doing everything it could to strengthen the rights of migrants. The Committee’s recommendations would reflect this.
SERDAR ÖZKAN, Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, expressed gratitude to the Committee Experts for their comments, questions and the dialogue. Migration was a global matter, and the challenge reminded the State of the importance of working together.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CMW24.002E