COMMITTEE ON MIGRANT WORKERS RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT EXPEDITED EXPULSIONS IN DIALOGUE WITH ARGENTINA

The application of decree 70/2017, which allowed the expedited expulsion of migrants, could lead to violations of migrant rights in Argentina, as well as adversely impact families, causing significant psychological harm to children. These were amongst the concerns voiced by Experts of the Committee on Migrant Workers in a dialogue with Argentina on its second periodic report.

Committee Experts said that national decree 70/2017 generated contradictions with the Convention and pointed out that other treaty bodies had requested its repeal. The Committee understood that this decree limited migrants’ access to public services, health, employment opportunities and justice, amongst others. What measures was the State party taking to rescind it? Taking into consideration that a court had declared this decree unconstitutional, had the Government continued to apply it?

Horacio José Garcia, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, explained that there had been 2,200 deportations, which represented 0.25 per cent of migrants that had been resettled in Argentina. There needed to be proceedings that were balanced, fair and rapid. Without this, the State would not be able to resolve the situation of migrants who had broken the “contract of trust” that bound them to Argentina. Decree 70/2017 sought to make things run smoother. No deportation could occur without a two-fold legal procedure.

Maria Landazuri de Mora, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur for Argentina, underscored the impact of deportations on children. How could one explain to Argentinian children that their family had been destroyed by the application of a law on migration? What body could provide redress or reparations for the psychological harm done? How could the Government ensure that children could make their voices heard and were given an independent defense lawyer?

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Landazuri de Mora thanked the State party’s delegation and all those who attended the meeting. The process of migration was dynamic and that was why further actions were needed, to address the numerous challenges that stakeholders were facing. The legislative, the executive and the judiciary had a shared responsibility with regard to migrants’ rights. She urged the State to abide by the Convention and encouraged the media and others not to link insecurity and crime to migrants and their families. Migrants held rights, and should be treated accordingly, she stressed.

Mr. José Garcia said Argentina was a firm defender of human rights and of the Human Rights Special Procedures. Argentina was one of the most generous and open countries in the world. He was deeply grateful for this open and fruitful dialogue. He hoped to continue to collaborate with the Committee so that migration could benefit all human beings and to ensure that Argentina could continue to learn from the Committee.

Ahmadou Tall, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation. The Committee now had a better understanding of the situation in Argentina. He commended the delegation’s constructive contribution and encouraged the State party to properly follow up on the Committee’s recommendations.

The delegation of Argentina consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of External Relations and Cults, and the Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public this afternoon at 3 p.m. to consider the third periodic report of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CMW/C/BIH/3).

Report

The second periodic report of Argentina can be read here: CMW/C/ARG/2.

Introduction of the Report

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, said migrations ran in Argentina’s DNA. Since its beginnings as an independent country, Argentina had had policies on migration and had proven itself to be an open and hospitable country. It had become one of the largest receivers of migrants in the last century.

According to one of the country’s maxims, “To Govern is to populate”, and in that spirit Argentina continued to be an attractive country for migrants and welcomed with open arms “every man of good will who wants to populate the Argentinian territory”. Argentina had granted residency to over 805,000 people. Migrations being multidimensional and having multiple factors, they had to be tackled from various angles, and with a comprehensive approach. To seek to reduce the impacts of migrations to the single area would not allow an adequate understanding of the phenomenon.

One of the main challenges lay in striking a balance between the real causes that led to migrations and destination countries’ capacity to host migrants with dignity. The persistence of migrants was a quality that must be valued. The Government had been working to direct migrations, aiming to link migrants’ search for work to the needs of various production areas of the country. This would allow a meeting of interests -- that was a pairing of the will of migrants and their needs with the opportunities that the country could offer.

Designing smart public policies was a significant challenge. Migrations to Argentina were mostly motivated by economic factors. However, it was legitimate to be concerned about the influx of persons who were in conflict with the law as well as about the permanent stay of individuals who intended to break the law of Argentina. Argentinian law, like that of most countries, prevented the entry of people with a criminal background and individuals who had taken part in transnational offences, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, arms trafficking and trafficking in persons.

The mobility and coordination of international criminal organizations was quick in comparison to the slow cooperation and exchange of information between States. In that context, it was important to adequately channel data and information in a timely manner so that the State was able to prevent and address criminal activities.

The Argentinian legislation had responded to these various issues through different means. It had steered labour flows towards the areas where the expertise of the migrants was needed. The Government had also expelled individuals who had committed crimes, and thus violated the trust and good faith contract that tied them with the Republic of Argentina. It had also expressed solidarity to those that needed it, through notably the Syria Programme and the Venezuela Programme.

The Government had granted residency to 170,000 Venezuelans, who had come to Argentina to find a better future. It was working with all provinces to direct them towards places where their talents were required.

Furthermore, the Government had created a system called RADEX, which allowed migrants to manage their residency from anywhere in the country, electronically. It had also implemented EGates, self-management biometric portals, in airports and land border crossings. The Government had also created three Orientation Centres for Migrants and Refugees and strengthened its Syria Programme. Measures had been taken to recognize academic titles from abroad.

On the international cooperation front, Argentina had submitted concrete projects during the Fourth Meeting of the Quito Process, such as the creation of regional mobility cards and the establishment of reception centres at borders.

Argentina’s arms would remain open to welcome good-willed individuals who wanted to contribute to the country’s advancement through their own personal development.

Questions by Committee Members

MARIA LANDAZURI DE MORA, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur for Argentina, expressed hope that the dialogue with the Committee would foster a frank and constructive dialogue on migrations at the national level in the country. The objective of the Committee was to improve the management of migrations in the country, and, above all, ensure the protection of the rights of migrants.

She recalled that a national law had been flagged as it generated contradictions with the Convention. Other treaty bodies had requested the repeal of the decree 70/2017. The Committee understood that this decree limited access to public services, health, employment opportunities and access to justice, amongst others. What measures was the State party taking to repeal the emergency degree 70/2017?

The Committee had information to the effect at the provincial level, that there was legislation that was being implemented to restrict migrants’ rights, including charging migrants for healthcare services. Was the State party planning to harmonize legislation in the country by strictly implementing the Convention?


There were migrants from Africa who were subject to persecution by the police. The police violently seized their merchandise and beat them. Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities were falsely accused of being linked to drug trafficking groups. What was the State party doing to prevent violent raids against migrants, including those that were part of the aforementioned vulnerable groups?

Turning to discourse of authorities that stigmatized migrants, the Rapporteur said that authorities referred to migrants as being the causes of crimes, warning that these messages could incite violence. Such messages, coming from authorities, fostered a negative mindset and led authorities at various levels of the State to behave in a discriminatory manner.

Over the last two years, deportations had doubled. These expedited procedures removed many guarantees for due process. How was the State party ensuring that there was indeed justice in the deportation process? What was the justification for deporting migrants with criminal records, given that they had already paid for these crimes, and some of the individuals concerned had been in Argentina for a very long time?

Drawing attention to the cases of deported women who had, or were caring for, children who were Argentinean nationals, the Expert asked what measures were being taken to allow their return when their deportation had violated the principle of the family unit. What measures were being taken to prevent deportations that violated the family unit? The affected children were entitled to be in a family. How could one explain to Argentinian children that their rights had been violated and their family had been destroyed by the application of a law on migration? She requested information on how the Government assessed the best interest of the child. What body could provide redress or reparations for the psychological harm done to those children whose families had been demolished by expedited expulsions?

Another Expert welcomed the steps taken by the Government to use new technologies to facilitate access to migration. How did the Government ensure that migrants did not have to pay to access healthcare services? Pursuant to information that had reached the Committee, he requested information about the decision handed down by the first chamber of the administrative court. What measures was the Government taking to ensure decree 70-2017 remained null and void, as per that decision? What was the State doing to ensure that the right to family life and the right to privacy, including that of Argentinian children, were upheld? How, precisely, and why was the State doing it? He requested information on the way in which the Government conducted substantive analysis on these matters as well as on the proportionality of its decisions on deportations. Certain groups, such as people of African descent, including Senegalese and Haitian nationals, had been subjected to racial profiling, according to reports. How was the Government addressing this issue? He asked what was being done to grant equal access to social and cultural rights to migrants. He also requested information on the fines issued against migrants; their access to regularization; and the situation of migrants who were independent workers.

An Expert said that the Constitutional Court had ruled that decree 70/2017, was unconstitutional. This decree, he stressed, did not comply with the Convention. Now, given that it was deemed unconstitutional, had the Government continued to apply it following the court’s decision?

Another Expert recalled that the State party had said that migration was in the country’s DNA and that to “govern was to populate”. And yet, Argentina’s Immigration Museum overlooked the contribution of certain groups, including people of African descent. That amounted to a form of discrimination, he said.

Media was the ultimate purveyor of ideas for the public and therefore had an important role to play with regard to the rights of migrants, an Expert said. Were there any efforts by the Government to use the media as a tool to encourage the public to disengage from xenophobic practices and promote migrants’ rights? There was quite a large number of Argentinian nationals who were migrants. What facilities were there to service them in their countries of destination, such as the United States?

Another Expert said a migrant had to follow procedures and rules. The search for “balance” mentioned in the opening statement should not prevent the State from properly receiving migrants, regardless of their motivations. For a person to be deported, the diplomatic and consular missions had to be notified, he added. Could the delegation confirm this was the case? He commended the Government for its Syria Programme. The provision of advantages to nationals from Mercosur countries, and the denial to those who did not come from these countries, ran counter to the non-discrimination principle put forth in the Convention. Could the delegation provide reassurances in that regard?

An Expert asked about the implementation of the Convention in federated states. What checks and balances were in place to guarantee it?

Another Expert requested information about data collection.

Responses by the Delegation

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, said Argentina was working to find solutions and make headway to improve the situation of migrants.

There had been 2,200 deportations, which represented 0.25 per cent of migrants that had been resettled in Argentina. Migrants came to work and be productive, and this was a clear-cut position of the Directorate. These migrants who in the past came from boats and now came from closer countries had built the republic of Argentina.

There was a need to have proceedings that were balanced, fair and rapid. Without this, the State would not be able to resolve the situation of migrants who had broken the contract of trust. There were cases when a person should have been deported earlier, but the deportation had been ineffective and the situation had been prolonged for years. The lack of certainty under the previous system had also had an impact on the person. There was shortcoming there, and this had happened in other cases when the prolonged proceedings had led to uncertainty and thus a violation of certain rights.

Decree 70/2017 sought to make things run smoother. Any decision taken by the National Directorate for Migrations involved two legal bodies. No deportation could occur without a two-fold legal procedure. He explained that the criterion of family reunification was dropped in cases of serious crimes. The Government sought to prevent the mafia or organized crime from coming to the country and violating the rights of children and adolescents.

Argentina firmly defended the rights of migrants that came to Argentina to engage in the daily task of developing the country. The Government wanted various migrants from all over the world to work and study in Argentina - 805,000 of them were not mistaken when they decided to come to Argentina. Argentina would continue to be a beacon in that regard.

When the Government wanted to set up the RADEX system, the electronic settlement system, it aimed to address the situation of irregular migrants that had been living in the country, some of them for 15 years. It was important to find a system to address this situation. There were very few people who breached the contract of trust.

Other delegates explained that decree 70/2017 could not be rescinded because the Constitutional Court was still discussing it. The court had still not pronounced a final judgement. If the decree were deemed to be unconstitutional, it would be rescinded, but that had still not happened. That was why decree 70/2017 was still in force today.

In one decision, one chamber of the Argentinian judicial system had ruled that the decree’s application was not constitutional because the alleged emergency was not deemed to be an emergency. As the Executive did not agree with that decision, it had appealed the decision.

The decree established a three-day deadline to appeal a deportation decision. This appeal petition could be brought before the National Directorate for Migrations. Nobody could be expelled without judicial review. It was not possible, had never happened and would never happen, delegates stressed. This deadline in fact became a 7 to 9-day deadline: the public defense, which was part of the branches of Government and acted independently of the State, could appeal to the first judicial instance, where a 7- to 9-day deadline was applied.

There was a set of legal requirements that had to be followed lest the deportation decision was nullified.

The decree had established a common-sense procedure, which was limited in time. About 2,000 migrants had been expelled, and over 800,000 migrants had been settled. About 0.25 per cent of migrants, therefore, had been expelled, most of whom had criminal records. A majority of those who had criminal records had been involved in drug trafficking. The decree added new grounds for expulsion. The percentage of expelled migrants was negligible, virtually non-existent when compared to the number of migrants that had been settled.

For 85 per cent of expulsions, public defence lawyers and private defence lawyers had put forward habeas corpus writs, none of which had led to a condemnation of State officials. The Government did not like to make these decisions, but it had two. The National Directorate for Migrations promoted migrations, but also had a policing role.

On people of African descent, there were Afro-Latinos in Argentina and the region. These were groups about which the Government cared; it took into consideration their situation. Some members of the Senegalese community, not all of them, had engaged in trade that was unregulated. These street vendors did not have local permits to trade. Some members of the Senegalese community were involved in unlawful street trading, in other words. Argentina was far from a situation where people were discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation. The local authorities had not been convincing enough to persuade the Senegalese vendors that it would be better for them to register and conduct trade within the confines of the law.

There were about 5,000 Senegalese in Argentina, about 1,081 of whom had been regularized. A certain number of them had accepted to relocate to an area where they could trade legally or be trained to practice another profession. In spite of all the tolerance and the patience demonstrated by the Government, the law had to be enforced. There might have been excesses in some isolated cases in the use of force against persons who did not want to submit to the authority of law-enforcement officials. However, public officials who misbehaved were investigated, delegates assured.

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, said Senegalese migrants were not criminals but breached local laws. Efforts were being made to see how things could be sorted out. An understanding could be reached with persons who did not wish to engage in criminal activities.

Delegates said that the judicial review was comprehensive and broad-based. The Government knew that when standards were breached, the concept of family reunification could be omitted. A person could be expelled when they had committed a crime, regardless of their family situation. The Government did not make these decisions lightly. Professionals, such as social workers, assessed the situation when a person said that they could not be expelled due to their family situation. If the social workers said that these persons could not be expelled, the judges would support non-expulsion. Some criminals used family reunification as a pretext, invoking family members that they had not seen in ages. Such situations had to be distinguished from situations where there were actual family separations.

The delegation assured that the Government had never discriminated against migrants on the basis of race or religion, and as a result, Argentina’s migrant population was diverse. Most of the migrants came from neighbouring countries, with about 32 per cent of them coming from Paraguay. Around 7 per cent of migrants came from Venezuela. People of African descent represented 4 out of every 1,000 migrants.

In Argentina, 99 per cent of the permits issued were given to persons who were already living in the country. There was not discrimination on the basis on qualifications. The National Directorate for Migrations in its plan to integrate migrants put in place a special registrar for agricultural workers to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers.

On data collection, the Government had implemented RADEX, a platform designed to speed up and simplify the granting of residency to aliens. The Government agreed with the international standards established in Marrakech for safe, orderly migration, and sought to regulate all aliens in Argentina, so they may enjoy the same rights and fulfil the same duties.

Thanks to RADEX, it was not necessary to go to a migration office to trigger the residency procedure. It could be used anywhere, even with a tablet or a mobile phone. The process was very straightforward and guided the migrants so that they made the best decision. RADEX was a one-stop shop. Email addresses, instead of postal addresses, were now used as the principal channel for notifications. Argentina was one of the countries that charged the least for residency applications.

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, said that 80 per cent of migrants were in Buenos Aires or in the surrounding area. Only 20 per cent, therefore, had been resettled elsewhere. The Government had liaised with the Governors of provinces to understand their needs, so they could be matched with the qualifications of migrants through RADEX.

A delegate said that there were between 1.1. million and 1.2 million Argentinian migrant workers living abroad. Argentina’s network of consulates included offices in the United States, in New York, Miami and Los Angeles; as well as in Rome in Italy and various cities in Spain. The Consul ensured that accused Argentinean nationals abroad were given information about the charges against them and that they had access to a lawyer and adequate legal procedures.

A programme called Raices had been sought to repatriate researchers and scientists or encourage them to participate in research projects in the country. In Argentina, there were about 3,400 refugees and 600 asylum seekers. They had the possibility to receive what was called “precarious residency”, which allowed them to work. There were no reception centres for them; they were free to move around the country.

Argentina had not had an Ombudsman since 2008, as the Government and the opposition had failed to reach agreement on one. The Ombudsman had the power to conduct investigations and played a leading role in dealing with files managed by the National Directorate for Migrations. The Secretariat for Human Rights collaborated with associations that worked with migrants to foster cultural pluralism in the country.

Argentina had a public health system that was free of charge; the population had access to it without any discrimination based on the migrant status. On education, delegates said public education was free of charge. Efforts were made by the Ministry of Education to recognize and validate degrees from different parts of the world, including Venezuela and Syria. Argentina had a distant education programme, which had a great take up amongst migrants and Argentinians living abroad.

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, turning to the digital divide, said the National Directorate for Migrations had worked on training. It had imparted courses to governmental bodies and associations. Two focal points had been set up to provide access to migrants who did not have access to technological tools for any reason. This had been done with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration.

On the humanitarian visas provided to migrants affected by the conflict in Syria, also known as the Syria Programme, he explained that it sought to allow persons afflicted by this conflict to obtain a visa, travel to Argentina, and settle there. In 2006, an Inter-Ministerial Working Group comprised of representatives of nine ministries had been set up to work on this matter. It had put in place a private partnership scheme. This was done hand in hand with international bodies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration.

The Government was working to hire experts to foster socio-cultural integration and establish a protocol on cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. A study was being conducted on barriers that women and girls benefiting from this programme faced. In total, 425 persons had been resettled in various parts of the country through the Syria Programme.

Responding to questions on provincial laws related to migrations, delegates explained that only the federal Government was competent to legislate on, and resolve cases related to, the entry, exist and stay of migrants. Any law on migration adopted at the provincial level would not be applied.

There was a provincial law in Jujuy that required migrants in transit to have health insurance, which had been established to address the situation of persons that did not live in Argentina but came to the country to receive health care services. Technically speaking, this law was not being applied, and negotiations were underway with Bolivia to resolve this matter. The Federal Government had not taken any coercive measures in relation to that situation, but rather sought to support the province of Jujuy and foster the conclusion of an agreement with Bolivia.

Regarding the domestication of the Convention and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, delegates said that Argentina had already been guaranteeing all of the rights it put forth before signing it.

On the media, delegates remarked that, in Argentina, opinions could be freely voiced, even those with which the Government disagreed.

Additional Questions by the Committee Experts

MARIA LANDAZURI DE MORA, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur for Argentina, asked for more information about the Government's good practice to properly receive Venezuelan migrants. Given the regional migration influx, how did the regularization and visa issuance procedures work? How was the State party intending to sort out the situation to the future? Some Venezuelans had to go back to Venezuela and pay a fine before they could be granted a residency permit. If the expulsions continued, the Venezuelans could find themselves in a position where their integrity could be compromised.

Turning to the detention of migrants, she drew the delegation’s attention to Argentina’s obligations in that regard. The “retention” process in place in Argentina was the same as “detention” for all intents and purposes. There should always be alternatives to detention, and the various options were provided in the General Comments. That being said, she asked for information on what the Government was doing in that regard.

She also requested information on children impacted by the deportation of their parents. How did the Government intend to protect the rights of Argentinian children who were deported with their parents who were not Argentinian?

On the negotiations between the Jujuy Province and Bolivia, how was the State party ensuring that the Convention’s principles regarding access to care were upheld?

Was there a process where the family situation was assessed prior to deportation? How could the Government ensure that children could make their voices heard and were given an independent defense lawyer?

She asked how civil society had been involved in the preparation of the report.

Another Expert, congratulating the State party on the work done to reduce statelessness in the country, asked for more detailed information on the measures that had been implemented in that regard. Turning to deportations, he underscored that there were allegations that the right to a family life was overlooked. The deportation procedures should take into consideration the interest of the child. Failing that, they could lead to an indirect deportation of children or cause the forced exit of Argentinian children whose parents were not Argentinian.

When weighing up proportionality, various factors had to be taken into account, such as the migrant’s contribution to society and their ability to speak the national languages. The Committee had received documents, including graphic photos, on bodily harm inflicted to Senegalese migrants by the police, notably in Buenos Aires. Concerns about this matter had also been raised by other treaty bodies, such as the Committee against Torture and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. He requested information on steps taken by the State party to address this situation.

An Expert asked which court had ruled on the constitutionality of decree 70/2017. As the Constitutional Court only had one chamber, could the delegation provide information on the exact situation? Was the Cassation Court competent to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Another Expert said a member of the delegation had said that Muslims or Islam was “problematic”. What, exactly, did the delegation mean by that? The comment had been made in reference to Senegalese migrants.

An Expert asked about the situation of unaccompanied minors. She requested information about the legislative framework on gender-equality as well as data disaggregated by gender so the Committee could understand how gender issues impacted migrants.

Additional Responses by the Delegation

Delegates explained that the National Directorate for Migrations had put in place a special programme for Venezuelans to facilitate their rapid settlement in the country. The Government would not want, however, to rest on its laurels.

Regarding the expulsions, out of the 2,400 expulsions, only five concerned Venezuelans. They were convicted criminals; Venezuelans that broke the “contract of trust” could not remain in the country. If a Venezuelan had served a sentence and was due to be deported, they should be deported, but the Government acted on a case by case basis. If a person had left Venezuela because they were persecuted for whatever reason, it was taken into account, and so was the non-refoulement principle. The Venezuelans concerned could invoke the international convention on refugees, and that would be taken into account.

When staying in Argentina, Venezuelans, like everybody from the Southern Common Market MERCOSUR countries, were initially considered as persons in transit for a six-month period. If they left the country before receiving their residency permit, they had to start from scratch when they returned. If a Venezuelan migrant did not want to start from scratch when returning, that person had to wait for 30 days to obtain a “precarious residency” status, and then they could leave.

On retention, delegates explained that it was used for citizens that were meant to be deported but only for those whose deportation had been “confirmed”. There was no pretrial detention. Therefore, any person who was the subject of a deportation order waited for the final decision as a free person. Pending the final decision about his or her expulsion, the person remained free. Nobody was in a custodial facility while waiting for deportation unless the deportation had been confirmed.

In Argentina, people were not deported for administrative offences, only for criminal ones, the delegation stressed. Decisions were not taken arbitrarily and were subject to judicial review. Social workers looked at cases to analyse family situations. A vast majority of migrants came from neighbouring countries and spoke Spanish. Those that did not speak Spanish could be assisted by an interpreter. The right to be defended by a lawyer was specifically guaranteed in decree 70/2018.

On the defence of children, there had not yet been a situation that had warranted defence of minors, from the perspective of the courts.

Argentina had only one court that could issue definitive rulings on matters like the constitutionality of decree 70/2017 -- the Supreme Court of the nation. A lower second court ruled that the decree was unconstitutional, and now this issue was being discussed by the Supreme Court of the nation, which had not yet ruled on the matter.

Concluding Remarks

MARIA LANDAZURI DE MORA, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur for Argentina, thanked the State party’s delegation and all those who attended the meeting. The process of migration was dynamic and that was why further actions were needed, to address the numerous challenges that stakeholders were facing. The legislative, the executive and the judiciary had a shared responsibility with regard to migrants’ rights. She urged the State party to abide by the Convention and encouraged the media and others not to link insecurity and crime to migrants and their families. Migrants held rights, and should be treated accordingly, she stressed.

HORACIO JOSÉ GARCIA, National Director at the National Directorate for Migrations of the Interior Ministry of Argentina, said Argentina was a firm defender of human rights and of the Human Rights Special Procedures. Argentina was one of the most generous and open countries in the world. He was deeply grateful for this open and fruitful dialogue. He hoped to continue to collaborate with the Committee so that migration could benefit all human beings and to ensure that Argentina could continue to learn from the Committee.

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation. The Committee now had a better understanding of the situation in Argentina. He commended the delegation’s constructive contribution and encouraged the State party to properly follow up on the Committee’s recommendations.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW/19/8E