DOCSLIB.ORG

Rights Violations Associated with Canada's Treatment of Vulnerable Persons in Immigration Detention Joint Submission To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rights Violations Associated with Canada's Treatment of Vulnerable Persons in Immigration Detention Joint Submission To Rights Violations Associated with Canada’s Treatment of Vulnerable Persons in Immigration Detention Joint Submission to the Working Group on Universal Period Review to assist in its review of Canada, 30th Session (April – May, 2018) Contact information: Samer Muscati Director, International Human Rights Program University of Toronto, Faculty of Law 78 Queen's Park, Room 419 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C3 Tel: 416.946.8730 Fax: 416.978.8894 Email: [email protected] Web: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/ Joint submission by: International Human Rights Program, University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law Amnesty International Justice for Children and Youth Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers Canadian Civil Liberties Association British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Refugee Law Office of Legal Aid Ontario The submission’s recommendations are endorsed by: Human Rights Watch Canada’s Treatment of Vulnerable Persons in Immigration Detention I. INTRODUCTION 1. This joint submission by the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law (IHRP), Amnesty International (AI), Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), and the Refugee Law Office of Legal Aid Ontario (RLO) highlights shortcomings in Canada’s treatment of children or individuals with psychosocial disabilities or mental health conditions in immigration detention.1 Human Rights Watch (HRW) has endorsed the recommendations of this joint submission. II. SUMMARY 2. In the period under review, Canada has begun to make progress in its treatment of immigration detainees, and demonstrated a willingness to address deeply embedded issues within the immigration detention system. Nevertheless, Canada’s treatment of vulnerable individuals in immigration detention – including children and persons with psychosocial disabilities or mental health conditions – continues to violate binding international law, such as the rights to equality, liberty and security of the person, and the right to an effective remedy. In many cases, this treatment constitutes arbitrary detention, as well as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Canada’s treatment of children in the context of immigration detention also violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 3. In the 2013 UPR, Canada accepted two recommendations2 pertaining to the protection of non-citizens, and noted three recommendations with respect to 1 This submission is based on 3 years of research by the IHRP. The full reports are attached: “We Have No Rights:” Arbitrary imprisonment and cruel treatment of migrants with mental health issues in Canada (Annex A); “No Life for a Child”: A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation (Annex B); and Invisible Citizens: Canadian Children in Immigration Detention (Annex C). 2 R.128.147: “Ensure the protection of refugees, migrants and members of their families in full compliance with international standards” (Belarus), online: https://www.upr- info.org/sites/default/files/document/canada/session_16_-_april_2013/ahrc2411e.pdf; R.128.148: “Take the necessary measures to prevent cruel and discriminatory treatment against asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, especially if these are minors, and ensure compliance with the principle of non-refoulement of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees” (Ecuador), online: <https://www.upr- info.org/sites/default/files/document/canada/session_16_-_april_2013/ahrc2411e.pdf>. 1 immigration detention.3 However, none of the previous UPR recommendations directly addressed the impact of immigration detention on vulnerable persons. 4. The IHRP welcomes the following positive developments in Canada’s immigration detention regime: a. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has taken important steps toward addressing systemic issues within the immigration detention regime. CBSA has embarked on several new programs to improve transparency, alternatives to detention, and detention infrastructure.4 CBSA has also engaged in a review of national detention policies and standards.5 b. Since 2013, the number of instances of detention has decreased from a total of 8,739 in fiscal year 2012-13, to 6,251 in 2016-17.6 The average length of detention during this period has ranged between 19.5 and 24.5 days.7 The number of children in detention has also decreased, from 232 in fiscal year 2014-15, to 162 in 2016-17.8 The average length of detention for children during this period has decreased from 16 to 13 days.9 However, it is unclear how many children are separated from their detained parents because CBSA has not collected this data. c. In 2015, an Ontario Court of Appeal decision opened a new judicial avenue for immigration detainees to challenge their incarceration, namely, in 3 R.128.146: “Revise the legal provisions on mandatory detention of migrants and asylum seekers included in the category of irregular entries, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Committee on CERD)” (Mexico); R.128.159: “Investigate thoroughly all cases of the detention of persons who have entered Canada, including Russian citizens, on non-security grounds and also information about cruel treatment vis-à-vis these people, pressure being used against them and demands that they provide personal information and the unjustified searches that have been carried out as well” (Russia); R.128.162: “Reconsider its policy of using administrative detention and immigration legislation to detain and remove non-citizens on the ground of national security” (Egypt), online: <https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/canada/session_16_- _april_2013/ahrc2411e.pdf>. 4 Canada Border Services Agency, “CBSA Comments – Invisible Citizens: Canadian Children in Immigration Detention” (3 February 2017) [CBSA Comments – Invisible Citizens]. This document contains the Canada Border Services Agency’s response to the preliminary draft of this report, and was provided in an email from Canada Border Services Agency on 4 February 2017. 5 Ibid. 6 Canada Border Services Agency, “Detention Statistics” Government of Canada, online: <http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/detent-stat-eng.html> [CBSA “Detention Statistics”]. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 2 the Superior Court of Justice through habeas corpus applications.10 This is an important remedy, although it is only available in a narrow set of cases.11 d. In 2017, the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) announced that it would undertake an independent audit of detention reviews conducted by the Immigration Division in a sample of cases involving lengthy detentions.12 5. Despite these positive steps, immigration detainees continue to suffer significant human rights violations. In particular, non-citizens13 with psychosocial disabilities or mental health conditions are routinely held in maximum-security provincial jails,14 and children (including Canadians) continue to be detained or “housed”15 in detention, or separated from their detained parents.16 There is no legislatively prescribed limit to the length of detention, and as such, detainees have no way to ascertain how long they will spend in detention. A needlessly punitive culture persists within the immigration detention system, and it is enabled by a series of systemic issues that must be addressed through legislative, regulatory, and policy amendments. 6. This submission examines the following key issues within the Canadian immigration detention system. a. Immigration detainees with psychosocial disabilities or mental health conditions held in maximum-security provincial jails (para. 8); and 10 Chaudhary v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 ONCA 700 (CanLII). 11 Recent cases, including Scotland v Canada (Attorney General) (2017 ONSC 4850) and Ali v Canada (Attorney General) (2017 ONSC 2660), have developed this judicial remedy further. 12 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to carry out audit of long-term detention reviews” (17 August 2017), online: <http://www.irb- cisr.gc.ca/Eng/NewsNouv/NewNou/Pages/aud-ver-det.aspx>. 13 “Non-citizens” include migrants, asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim, asylum seekers whose claim has been denied, and permanent residents in the process of being stripped of their status. 14 International Human Rights Program, "We Have No Rights": Arbitrary Imprisonment and Cruel Treatment of Migrants with Mental Health Issues in Canada (2015) at 78, online: <http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/IHRP%20We%20Have%20No%20Rights%20R eport%20web%20170615.pdf> [“We Have No Rights”]. 15 Children who are not under detention orders may stay – or be “housed” – in detention with their detained parents or legal guardians, if it is in the best interests of the child (Canada Border Services Agency, “Statement by the Canada Border Services Agency on housing of Canadian children in immigration holding centres,” (25 February 2017), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services- agency/news/2017/02/statement_by_thecanadaborderservicesagencyonhousingofcanadianchi.html>). 16 International Human Rights Program, “No Life for a Child”: A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation (2016) at 5, online: <http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf> [“No Life
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Exhaustive Overview of European Government Measures Impacting Undocumented Migrants Taken in the Context of COVID-19
    Non-exhaustive overview of European government measures impacting undocumented migrants taken in the context of COVID-19 March-August 2020 This document provides an overview of measures adopted by EU member states and some countries outside the EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and foreseen economic downturn, about which PICUM has been informed by its members or has learned of through regular media monitoring.1 Additional information and analysis are provided on regularisation measures taken in Italy and Portugal. Given the limitations of time and capacity, our intention is not to provide an exhaustive presentation, but rather to give a useful summary of measures broadly helpful to people who are undocumented, or who are documented but with insecure status, whatever may have been the authorities’ motivations for their implementation. Please contact [email protected] if you have additional information about any of these measures, or wish to propose a correction. 1 We are grateful to all PICUM members who commented on earlier drafts of this document, and to PICUM trainees Raquel Gomez Lopez and Thomas MacPherson who were instrumental in gathering relevant information and preparing this summary. 1 Contents FOR UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANTS . .3 1. Regularisation �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3 1.1. Italy . .3 1.2. Portugal . .6 1.3. Other regularisation measures �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7
    [Show full text]
  • International Standards on Immigration Detention and Non-Custodial Measures
    INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW INFORMATION NOTE INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW UNIT NOVEMBER 2011 IML INFORMATION NOTE ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES I. Purpose and Scope of the Information Note .................................................................................................. 2 II. General Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Definitions: deprivation of liberty vs. restriction of liberty .................................................................................. 2 2. Legality and legitimate grounds for detention ..................................................................................................... 2 3. Necessity, proportionality and prevention from arbitrariness ............................................................................ 3 4. Procedural safeguards .......................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Specific Standards Applicable to Immigration Detention ............................................................................. 4 1. Right to be informed and to communicate with the outside world .................................................................... 4 2. Registration at detention facilities ....................................................................................................................... 4 3. Maximum
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19 and Immigration Detention
    COVID-19 AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION: LESSONS (NOT) LEARNED 1 Page 02 Mapping Covid-19’s impact on immigration detention: why, where, when and what 2 Pages 03-08 Detention policies during the pandemic: unlawful, unclear and unfair 3 Pages 09-10 Alternatives to detention in Covid-19 times: missed opportunity 4 Pages 11-16 Living in detention in time of Covid-19: increased isolation, uncertainties Table ofTable contents and risks ABOUT JRS CREDITS Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an Drafted by Claudia Bonamini international Catholic organisation with a mission to accompany, serve and Copy-edited by Chiara Leone-Ganado advocate for the rights of refugees and Designed by Pablo Rebaque others who are forcibly displaced. Published on February 2021 Project Learning from Covid-19 Pandemic for a more protective Common European Asylum System. The report Covid-19 and immigration detention: Lessons (not) learned presents the findings and the lessons learned from a mapping on the impact of Covid-19 on administrative detention in seven EU countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Malta, Romania, Portugal, Spain) This publication has been supported by the European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM), a collaborative initiative of the Network of European Foundations (NEF). The sole responsibility for the publication lies with the organiser(s) and the content may not necessarily reflect the positions of EPIM, NEF or EPIM’s Partner Foundation.” MAPPING COVID-19’S IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION DETENTION: WHY, WHERE, WHEN AND WHAT Between the end of February and the beginning of March 2020 it became clear that the Covid-19 outbreak had reached Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Charkaoui and Bill C-3 Craig Forcese
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 42 (2008) Article 12 A Bismarckian Moment: Charkaoui and Bill C-3 Craig Forcese Lorne Waldman Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Forcese, Craig and Waldman, Lorne. "A Bismarckian Moment: Charkaoui and Bill C-3." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 42. (2008). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol42/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. A Bismarckian Moment: Charkaoui and Bill C-3 Craig Forcese and Lorne Waldman* I. INTRODUCTION The German statesman Otto von Bismarck once said that “[i]f you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.”1 The recent enactment of Bill C-32 — the government’s response to the Supreme Court’s February 2007 decision in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)3 — can best be described as a “Bismarckian moment”. An effort to remedy the core defects of the prior immigration security certificate regime, the new law cobbles together a potentially half-hearted “special advocate” regime and converts immigration law into a de facto system of indefinite limits on liberty for foreigners. The new system will generate an inevitable series of new constitutional challenges, some of which may succeed at the Supreme Court unless the deficiencies of Bill C-3 are cured by careful innovation at the Federal Court level.
    [Show full text]
  • Deportation As a Crime of International Law
    Is There any Blood on my Hands? Deportation as a Crime of International Law VINCENT CHETAIL∗ Abstract The present article revisits international criminal law as a tool for sanctioning the most patent abuses against migrants. Although deportation is traditionally considered as an attribute of the state inherent to its territorial sovereignty, this prerogative may degenerate into an international crime. The prohibition of deportation has been a well-established feature of international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War. This prohibition has been further refined over the past 15 years by an extensive jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. Against such a background, this article demonstrates that, in some circumstances, deport- ation may amount to a war crime, a crime against humanity or even a crime of genocide, depending on the factual elements of the case and the specific requirements of the relevant crime. This article accordingly reviews the constitutive elements of each crime and transposes them into the context of migration control. It highlights in turn that, although its potential has been neglected by scholars and practitioners, international criminal law has an important role to play for domesticating the state’s prerogative of deportation and infusing the rule of law into the field of migration. The article concludes that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that a crime against humanity would have been committed in the Dominican Republic and Australia with regard to their deportation policy. Key words crime against humanity; deportation; genocide; migration 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Rauma at the Border: the Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS TRAUMA AT THE BORDER THE HUMAN COST OF INHUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICIES BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business OCTOBER 2019 Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson* independent, bipartisan agency established Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chairperson by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: Debo P. Adegbile Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to Washington, DC 20425 discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or (202) 376-8128 voice national origin, or in the administration of justice. TTY Relay: 711 • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information www.usccr.gov in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • There Are Alternatives
    There are alternatives A handbook for preventing Including the Revised unnecessary immigration Community Assessment and detention (revised edition) Placement model (CAP) The International Detention Coalition (IDC) is a unique global network, of over 300 civil society organisations and individuals in more than 70 countries that advocate for, research and provide direct services to refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants affected by immigration detention. Coalition members are supported by the IDC Secretariat offce, located in Melbourne, Australia, and regional staff based in Berlin, Germany, London, United Kingdom, Geneva, Switzerland, Mexico City, Mexico and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. IDC Secretariat Level 1, 112 Langridge Street Melbourne Victoria 3066 Australia Email: [email protected] Website: www.idcoalition.org © International Detention Coalition, 2015 ISBN Paperback: 978-0-9871129-8-9 ISBN PDF version: 978-0-9871129-9-6 Published by the International Detention Coalition Melbourne, Australia Recommended citation: Sampson, R., Chew, V., Mitchell, G., and Bowring, L. There Are Alternatives: A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention (Revised), (Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2015). Design and layout by Haydn Jones Communication Design The views expressed in this document are those of the authors. This report is available online at http://www.idcoalition.org Acknowledgements The revised edition of this Handbook was written by Dr. Robyn Sampson of the Swinburne Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University of Technology as well as Vivienne Chew, Grant Mitchell and Lucy Bowring of the International Detention Coalition (IDC). Research for this revised edition was undertaken by Adele Cubbitt, Elba Coria Marquez, Gisele Bonnici, Ben Lewis, Jem Stevens, Vanessa Martinez, Leeanne Torpey, Libby Zerna, Katherine Wright, Caroline Stephens, Athena Rogers, Jocelyne Cardona, Ahmed Correa, Beth Edgoose, Danielle Grigsby, Shaista Kiran, Thais Pinheiro, Catherine Stubberfeld, Natasha Warchalok and Rosario Rizzo Lara.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Report: Portugal
    Country Report: Portugal 2020 Update Acknowledgements & Methodology This report was written by Inês Carreirinho at the Portuguese Refugee Council (CPR) and was edited by ECRE. The information in this report draws on the experience of CPR staff, gathered inter alia through research, advocacy, legal assistance and reception services, as well as data and information shared by national authorities, civil society organisations and other stakeholders consisting of CRegC, Crescer, CSTAF, DGE, DGEstE, IEFP, IOM, ISS, OTSH, SCML, and SEF. CPR appreciates their contributions. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not in any way represent the views of the contributing organisations. The information in this report is up to date as of 31 December 2020, unless otherwise stated. The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) is coordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). It aims to provide up-to date information on asylum practice in 23 countries. This includes 19 EU Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, ES, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI) and 4 non-EU countries (Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom) which is easily accessible to the media, researchers, advocates, legal practitioners and the general public through the dedicated website www.asylumineurope.org. The database also seeks to promote the implementation and transposition of EU asylum legislation reflecting the highest possible standards of protection in line with international refugee and human rights law and based on best practice. This report is part of the Asylum Information Database (AIDA), funded by the European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM), a collaborative initiative by the Network of European Foundations, and the European Union’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 & Immigration Detention
    Annex to Policy Brief COVID-19 & Immigration Detention: What Can Governments and Other Stakeholders Do? February 2021 This Annex aims at revisiting some of the promising responses on COVID-19 and immigration detention identified in the Policy Brief published by the UN Network on Migration in April 2020, including obstacles in implementation that have emerged since. By taking a close look at some developments observed over the past months by members of the UN Migration Network Working Group on Alternatives to Detention, this document identifies both worrying trends and opportunities to address these. The policy brief and its annex focus on helping States and other stakeholders to operationalize Objective 13 of the Global Compact for Migration, where governments reaffirmed the commitment “to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants”. Under the current international framework this translates into using detention as a measure of last resort only and never resorting to detention for children. Even when immigration detention is used as an exceptional measure of last resort, the norm should be non-detention for migration governance purposes. This norm of non-detention is practised by a number of States and has been maintained by them during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose immense risks to those held in immigration detention, underscoring the ongoing need for governments that rely on detention or any other forms of deprivation of liberty to adopt and implement appropriate alternative measures.1 In a context where new challenges arise every day and promising practices are being reversed, the practical guidance provided in the Policy Brief remains as relevant as ever.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal and Illegal Detention in Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany
    LOCKED UP AND EXCLUDED Informal and illegal detention in Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany LOCKED UP AND EXCLUDED 1 INFORMAL AND ILLEGAL DETENTION IN SPAIN, GREECE, ITALY AND GERMANY INTRODUCTION This report provides an overview of the use of administrative detention of non- nationals in four members-states of the European Union (EU). While three of those (Italy, Spain, Greece) are points of first arrival for people trying to reach Europe, the fourth one (Germany) is considered a destination country, which people reach by crossing borders internal to the Schengen Area. The way each of these four countries governs migration, including through the use of administrative detention, depends on their position within what has been called the EU border regime – namely the set of rules, laws, structures, agencies and practices that have been developed by EU insti- tutions over the last 30 years to govern migration. As has long been argued by Migreurop, this border regime is premised on an unequal sharing of control practices and duties within and outside the EU territory. On the one hand, members-states closer to the external borders of the Union have been endowed with the role of buffer zones against migrants on behalf of core western and northern EU members-states (especially through the Dublin Convention that states that the country responsible for assessing an asylum claim in the EU is the first country of Migreurop is a network of associations, activists and researchers, with a presence in entry, thereby forcing members-states sharing a border with the Schengen Area to around twenty countries across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Detention in Portugal
    Portugal Immigration Detention Profile October 2017 • Introduction • Laws, Policies, Practices • Detention Infrastructure INTRODUCTION1 Although for much of its history Portugal has been an emigration country, during the first decade of the 2000s it became a net immigration one as economic growth spurred increasing labour migration from Brazil, Eastern Europe, and former Portuguese colonies in Africa. However, during the period 2010-2015, Portugal joined a handful of other European Union countries—including Ireland and Spain—that transitioned back to net emigration.2 According to Eurostat, Portugal’s population has shrunk every year since 2010.3 These demographic trends have impacted Portugal’s response to the refugee “crisis” in Europe, which has contrasted sharply with that of many other EU members. While countries like Hungary and Slovakia have sought to limit their quotas of refugees established by the European Commission (EC) in 2015, Portugal offered to accept 10,000 people, more than three times the amount set by the EC.4 This decision was motivated in part by the country’s shrinking population.5 Some 20 percent of its citizens 1 The Global Detention Project (GDP) would like to thank Costanza Ragazzi, Matthew Flynn (Georgia Southern University), João Portugal (Provedor de Justica), and Maria João Guia (Universidade de Coimbra) for their suggestions and insights. Any errors in this profile are those of the GDP. 2 UN Population Division, International Migration Report 2015, p. 13, 2015, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationRep ort2015.pdf. 3 Eurostat database, “database,” http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. 4 P.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Council for Refugees
    Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés Canadian Council for Refugees Submission on immigration detention of children to the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, May 2020 Information on any legislation or policy that prohibits or restricts the use of immigration detention of children and their families in Canada Legislation The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), in force since 2002, affirms“as a principle that a minor child shall be detained only as a measure of last resort, taking into account the other applicable grounds and criteria including the best interests of the child.” (IRPA s. 60) The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations includes among the factors to be considered before a decision is made on detention or release: “the best interests of a directly affected child who is under 18 years of age” (s. 248(f). The regulations also provide, at s. 249, “Special considerations for minor children”: For the application of the principle affirmed in section 60 of the Act that a minor child shall be detained only as a measure of last resort, the special considerations that apply in relation to the detention of minor children who are less than 18 years of age are (a) the availability of alternative arrangements with local child-care agencies or child protection services for the care and protection of the minor children; (b) the anticipated length of detention; (c) the risk of continued control by the human smugglers or traffickers who brought the children to Canada; (d) the type of detention facility envisaged and the conditions of detention; (e) the availability of accommodation that allows for the segregation of the minor children from adult detainees who are not the parent of or the adult legally responsible for the detained minor children; and (f) the availability of services in the detention facility, including education, counselling and recreation.
    [Show full text]