Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Thirty-eighth session

Summary record of the 552nd meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Monday, 3 June 2024, at 3 p.m.

Chair:Mr. Corzo Sosa

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 73 of the Convention

Second periodic report of Türkiye

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 73 of the Convention

Second periodic report of Türkiye (CMW/C/TUR/2; CMW/C/TUR/QPR/2)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Türkiye joined the meeting.

In accordance with the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines), Mr. Ünver withdrew during the consideration of the second periodic report of Türkiye.

A representative of Türkiye, introducing his country’s second periodic reportCMW/C/TUR/2, said that Türkiye had one of the largest refugee populations in the world, being host to 4.6 million foreigners including 3.2 million Syrians under temporary protection. Conversely, almost 7 million Turkish nationals lived abroad some of whom had also become citizens of other countries. During the 20 years since it had ratified the Convention, Türkiye had maintained its unwavering commitment to the principles enshrined therein, especially non-discrimination, fundamental rights, equality of treatment, family rights, access to justice, employment and residency. Türkiye was also a party to 15 other United Nations human rights treaties, and it was a champion country for the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Challenges and threats had multiplied over recent years as conflicts and other destabilizing factors had forced thousands of people to leave their homelands and caused a global upsurge in human mobility. His Government therefore believed that promoting and protecting the rights and dignity of all migrant workers and members of their families required joint efforts at the international level. Nonetheless, in the eight years that had passed since the submission of the initial report in 2016, Türkiye had been actively engaged in initiatives to promote and protect the rights of migrant workers, within a general context of ongoing human rights reforms.

Inter-institutional coordination had become more effective following the transition to a presidential system of governance in 2018. The State’s endeavours to regulate migration had been greatly facilitated by the creation of the General Directorate for Immigration Policies and Visa Procedures and of the General Directorate for International Labour Force, as well as by the enactment of the International Labour Force Act No. 6735 of 2016. Under recent amendments to criminal law, migrant smuggling and human trafficking had become arrestable offences and the lowest penalty for migrant smuggling had been increased from 3years’ to 5 years’ imprisonment. Türkiye was also strengthening bilateral, regional and international cooperation with a view to preventing trafficking, punishing offenders and protecting victims. The third National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking had been drafted and was scheduled to be put into effect shortly.

In the course of 2023, the authorities had identified more than 254,000 irregular migrants and apprehended more than 10,000 migrant smugglers. As of May 2024, those numbers stood at around 90,000 irregular migrants and 5,000 migrant smugglers. In order to bolsterinstitutional capacity, military and law enforcement personnel working at border posts had received training on human rights, migrants’ rights and non-discrimination. The Judicial Reform Strategy Document of May 2019 and the twelfth Development Plan adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in November 2023 both made ample provision for migrants, notably with regard to their social integration. Moreover, the Action Plan on Human Rights, which had been announced in March 2021 as part of the Judicial Reform Strategy, had among its objectives protecting vulnerable groups, strengthening access to justice for foreigners and combating human trafficking.

Ever since the early 1960s, Türkiye had been concluding labour force agreements with other States regarding the employment of Turkish migrant workers. To date, 13 such agreements had been signed with 12 States, including 2 with Germany. Türkiye had also signed 35 bilateral agreements regarding social security for Turkish migrant workers abroad, 9 of which had come into force since the submission of the initial report in 2016. An agreement with Uzbekistan regarding the protection of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families was expected to come into force in the near future. A family‑oriented project aimed at promoting inclusive education for children in the Turkish education system was being rolled out across 29 provinces. Shelters for women, run by State or local authorities or by civil society groups, were in operation throughout the country and were also accessible to female migrants, and a presidential circular on combating violence against women had been published in November 2023.

The Ombudsman Institution and the Human Rights and Equality Institution both contributed to the enhancement of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Türkiye. The Human Rights and Equality Institution had been established in conformity with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles). It had been accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in October 2022. Both the Ombudsman Institution and the Human Rights and Equality Institution had issued reports regarding the situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in the country. Lastly, it was important to note that, in addition to the comprehensive policies and measures envisaged specifically for them, migrant workers also had access to all the ordinary remedies available against violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, including acts of discrimination.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas(Country Rapporteur) said that the Committee was mindful of the many challenges that Türkiye faced in the field of human mobility, which were due to the large number of migrants the country had to handle and its status as a country of origin, return, transit and destination. He wished to know why the State party maintained a “geographical limitation“ in its application of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, particularly in the light of the claim made in the periodic report that the limitation had no impact on the treatment of refugees of different categories. He would be interested to learn if the limitation had any effect on refugees’ labour rights.

Troubling information had been brought to the Committee’s attention regarding pushbacks and collective returns of migrants at the State party’s borders with Greece, Syria and Iran. He hoped the delegation could explain if any action had been taken to confirm the veracity of such reports and if any measures had been taken in that connection. It would also be helpful to hear the delegation’s comments on reports of ill-treatment and excessive use of force at border crossing points which, in some recent cases, had led to the death of migrants. The delegation should also address concerns that so-called “voluntary returns” were sometimes effected using coercive means. He wished to know whether “foreign terrorist fighter“ was a definition enshrined in law and how persons so designated were treated. He hoped to learn more details about the number and typology of migrant detention centres in the country and, in particular, whether there existed any unofficial or unlisted centres where migrants were held before being transferred to the so-called “removal centres”. He would be interested to hear if there were any reports of abuse, torture or enforced disappearance against migrants in detention centres and what action had been taken to prevent such violations and to punish those responsible. Were civil society organizations allowed to visit inmates of detention centres?

In the face of reports that large numbers of foreign children – perhaps hundreds of thousands – remained outside the school system, he looked forward to hearing about measures taken to ensure that all children could exercise their right to education, irrespective of their migration status or that of their families. It had been heartening to discover that unaccompanied migrant children were not taken to removal centres but placed in care facilities. In that regard, he would be interested to know what subsequent steps were taken to ensure their protection, integration and access to services. Accompanied migrant children should be kept with their families, and families should not, to the extent possible, be placed in detention centres. He wondered what measures the State was taking to give effect to a recent recommendation made by the Committee for the Rights of the Child concerning birth registration for children born in Türkiye to foreign parents, regardless of the parents’ migration status.

The 2023 general elections in Türkiye seemed to have been accompanied by the emergence of xenophobic political discourse and, in particular, of candidates who attributed the country’s economic crisis and other problems to the presence of migrants. He wondered if that state of affairs had given rise to acts of violence against the migrant population and whether any steps been taken to counter such tendencies.

Mr. Taghi-Zada (Country Rapporteur) said that Türkiye was under great pressure due to the fact that it shared borders with countries that had experienced conflicts, such as Syria and Iraq, and he commended the Turkish authorities for providing at least a minimum level of social protection for refugees from those countries. It might be helpful to determine what percentage of the migrant population was composed of such refugees and thus compare the situation in Türkiye with that of other countries around the world experiencing similar circumstances.

He had been encouraged to learn of the existence of agreements with countries of destination of Turkish migrant workers, such as Germany, and with countries of origin of migrant workers in Türkiye, such as Uzbekistan. He would be particularly interested to know exactly what rights were enshrined in the agreement with Germany and whether it was consistent with the Convention. In fact, Germany had not ratified the Convention, and any information Türkiye could provide about its bilateral agreement would help the Committee understand how to pursue efforts towards wider ratification, particularly by countries of destination of migrant workers. Although some migrant workers in Türkiye came from countries where Turkic languages were spoken, many did not, and he hoped to hear about any initiatives to provide language teaching for workers and their families, particularly children, to help them integrate into Turkish society. More generally, he wondered what possibilities were open to migrants to pursue their education up to and beyond university level.

Ms. Dzumhur (Country Rapporteur) said that the delegation should report on the current status of the Harmonization Strategy Paper and National Migration Action Plan (2018–2019) and the National Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (2017–2023). Both those initiatives had expired and she was curious to know if they had been renewed or replaced. She wondered how effective the General Directorate for International Labour Force had been since it was established, what results it had achieved and what challenges it faced. She wished to commend Türkiye for the measures it had taken to protect migrants during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and during the 2023 earthquake. Hopefully, important lessons had been learned about how to deal with migration issues during future crises.

The delegation should report on progress in the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The Committee would be interested to learn more details about the procedure whereby migrants, including undocumented migrants, could obtain a work permit. It would also be helpful to know which body was responsible for overseeing the rights of migrants employed in domestic work or the agricultural sector. She would welcome information about the complaints procedures available to migrants who had suffered a violation of their rights and about any steps taken to make migrants aware of those procedures. Details about the kinds of complaints that migrants submitted and the time it took to resolve them would also be appreciated. The Committee wished to know what steps the authorities took to tackle gender-based, sexual or domestic violence against migrant women. Could migrant women gain residency status regardless of the status of their husbands? It would be helpful if the delegation could provide statistics relating to unaccompanied migrant children. Lastly, she wished to know what specific steps had been taken to assist Turkish migrant workers abroad, particularly in Germany, and what role was being played by labour attachés in consulates.

Ms. Diallo said that she wished to know how the “right of petition“, envisaged in article 74 of the Constitution, could be exercised by foreign migrants in Türkiye, particularly as its exercise appeared to be governed by the principle of reciprocity. She wondered if the delegation could provide statistics concerning the number of migrants who had availed themselves of that right. It would be helpful to understand how the Human Rights Presidency, the Human Rights High Council and other human rights structures at the provincial level interacted and coordinated their activities, and what human and financial resources they were given.

She understood from the periodic report that health care and social security were accessible for stateless persons and for foreigners who had requested international protection. She wondered, however, whether migrant workers could also access the same services and, if so, what procedures they had to complete. The delegation should provide statistics in that regard. In the light of the Committee’s conviction that the detention of offenders should be used only as a means of last resort, she wondered what mechanisms were in place to ensure that, insofar as possible, migrant workers in conflict with the law received non-custodial penalties. What specific alternatives to detention were available and how were they applied? While commending the Government for the efforts it had made on behalf of Syrian refugees in Türkiye, the Committee wished to know what steps had been taken to ensure effective access to education for Syrian refugee children. The Committee was concerned by recurrent reports in the media of the degrading treatment meted out to sub-Saharan migrants in Istanbul and other parts of the country. She wished to know if the Government was aware of that issue and what steps it was taking to combat it.

Mr. Kariyawasam said that he looked forward to hearing about any systems in place that allowed refugees in Türkiye to find work. It would be an example to other countries and a service to the refugees themselves if the State provided means that enabled them to earn their livelihoods. He also wished to know whether refugees who did find work were then treated as migrant workers and thus subject to a different rights regime. He hoped the delegation could give assurances that migrant workers and Turkish nationals had been treated on an equal footing during the rescue and recovery efforts following the 2023 earthquake. He recognized that the Government’s efforts on behalf of Turkish migrant workers abroad were curtailed by the fact that the chief countries of destination in Europe, notably Germany, were not parties to the Convention. Nonetheless, he hoped to hear about efforts being made to uphold the rights of Turkish migrants, specifically their right to practise and express their own culture and to maintain their cultural links with their homeland.

Ms. Gahar said that the Committee wished to know how the Government acted to accommodate the rights of migrant children when negotiating amendments to its bilateral or multilateral migration agreements. She hoped the delegation could inform the Committee about efforts being made by social services to protect migrant women and children. She also hoped to receive data about unaccompanied minors who had been left behind in Türkiye by their migrant parents. She would appreciate more information about the evidence and sources the State party used when elaborating migration-related studies and assessments.

She wondered what forms of State-funded legal aid were available for migrant women and children, particularly for migrant children in conflict with the law. It would also be helpful to learn how detention centres were monitored, and what vocational training and other social reintegration services they offered. What reporting mechanisms were available to migrant children who were victims of violence, including sexual violence? She wished to know how the State acted to ensure effective cooperation with civil society groups in the implementation of the Convention, including any budgetary resources it allocated to that end. The delegation should explain in detail how stateless children – including those with disabilities or chronic diseases – were able to access health care. The Committee hoped to hear about the results of regular and unannounced workplace inspections. How did the authorities’ priority concern for child victims of human trafficking translate into practice during such inspections? Lastly, she wished to know whether the rights of migrant children were accommodated in the State’s strategic action plan for the protection of children’s rights 2023–2028.

Mr. Oumaria said that he wished to know exactly what “pushbacks“ from the borders entailed. It sounded as if they were similar to collective returns, which were prohibited under the Convention. The country’s national human rights institution – the Human Rights and Equality Institution – had been accredited by GANHRI with B status, meaning that it was not fully compliant with international standards, and he wondered if any steps were being contemplated to rectify that state of affairs.

Mr. Charefsaid that the way Türkiye had mobilized to address the influx of persons fleeing conflict in Syria had drawn widespread international recognition and praise. Nonetheless, he was highly concerned by the fact that, during the 2023 general elections, two important political parties had promoted anti-migrant, racist and xenophobic narratives. He would be interested to hear the delegation’s analysis of that phenomenon and to hear about measures being taken by the Government to counteract such forms of political discourse.

The Chair said that he understood that States parties might sometimes have reasons to enter reservations when first they ratified an international instrument. However, Türkiye had ratified the Convention 20 years previously, and it was difficult to understand why it still maintained its reservation to articles 76 and 77, which recognized the competence of the Committee to receive communications, respectively, from States parties and from or on behalf of individuals. He wished to know why the Advisory Board on International Labour Force Policy, envisaged in the International Labour Force Act No. 6735 of 2016, had not yet been designated and how it would differ from the Migration Board, which currently dealt with questions related to migration management.

In order to improve its current category B status under the Paris Principles, the national human rights institution needed to become more autonomous and independent, and he wondered what steps the Government was takingto achieve that goal. He understood from the periodic report that, with a view to stemming irregular migration, Türkiye was making efforts to improve the situation of prospective migrants in their own countries of origin, and he would be interested to know in what such efforts consisted. Lastly, he would be interested to hear about any concrete actions taken by Türkiye to support migrants with disabilities, not only under the Migrant Workers Convention but also under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Türkiye had ratified in 2009.

The meeting was suspended at 4.25. p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

A representative of Türkiye said that migration-related issues had assumed a high profile in domestic politics in countries all around the world. Unfortunately, moreover, social media was often used to misinform and disinform the public about migrants and refugees, giving rise to manifestations of xenophobia that had appeared across the globe. The State was working with international and regional organizations to address that tide of misinformation and disinformation, and to raise awareness about the positive contribution migrants made to society. Türkiye fully respected the international principle of non-refoulement, and no Syrian migrants or refugees had been unlawfully returned. Requests for voluntary repatriation were signed in the presence of a third party such as a representative of the Office of the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees, of the Human Rights and Equality Institution or of a civil society organization.

Turkish law was consistent with all international protection requirements envisaged in international law. The “geographical limitation” in the application of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was not a unilateral reservation on the part of Türkiye, but was envisaged in the Convention itself. In any case, it had little impact on refugees of different categories. A project to assess the capacity of the Human Rights and Equality Institution had recently been conducted with support from the United Nations Development Programme, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, and a road map for full compliance with the Paris Principles had been formulated. Such compliance was a top government priority and was enshrined in a number of key policy documents. The Institution was independent; it had its own budget and managed its own operations. In fact, its budget and resource allocations had recently been increased and it now had more than 200 staff. It pursued international partnerships with other human rights institutions, and it had just opened its first regional office, in Gaziantep.

All official procedures regarding unaccompanied children who entered Türkiye as irregular migrants were consistent with the Convention and the relevant national legislation. Migrant children whom law enforcement officials identified as being unaccompanied were directed to the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management then, depending upon their age, were placed in temporary care institutions run by the Ministry of Family and Social Services where their physical, emotional, psychological and social needs could be met. The Ministry kept records of the foreign children under its care and sought to reunite them with their families. Care was provided to children with disabilities within their own family environment. If they had to be placed in an institution, every effort was made to return them to their families once their rehabilitation was complete.

Combating discrimination and violence against women was a national human rights priority. In particular, steps were taken to empower migrant women and to protect them from the violence to which they were disproportionately exposed by reason of their mobility. The 2012 Act on the Protection of the Family and the Prevention of Violence against Women had broadened the scope of previous legislation to cover female victims of violence, including domestic violence, regardless of their marital status. Naturally, the Act was applied without discrimination on grounds of race, language, religion, nationality or other status, and it also covered migrant women and members of their families. Women in possession of a residence permit could have access to a shelter if they were victims of violence, while female victims of human trafficking were recovered in shelters run by the Presidency of Migration Management. The needs of migrant women were duly reflected in strategic policy documents aimed at combating violence and promoting empowerment. The National Action Plan on Combating Violence against Women (2021–2025) also contained important provisions intended to benefit migrant women.

A new application, known as “Kades”, had been developed for mobile devices. It aimed to leverage communications technology in order to provide rapid and effective support for female victims of violence. The application – which included a button that users could use to call for police assistance 24 hours a day – was available in 11 languages: Turkish, English, French, Arabic, Russian, Persian, Kurdish, German, Uzbek, Kyrgyz and Spanish. Hotlines also existed, which provided free services in languages such as Arabic and Kurdish, also for persons with hearing impairments. A new strategy document and action plan for female empowerment (2024–2028) had been made public on 8 March 2024, International Women’s Day. The action plan, which also took account of the needs of migrant women and had been formulated in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, focused inter alia on education, health, leadership, decision-making, the environment and climate change.

A representative of Türkiye said that when considering the case of Türkiye – which was one of the very few European States that was a party to the Convention – the Committee should take account of its unique position bordering both Europe and the Middle East, and of the fact that it had been hosting millions of refugees for many years. He hoped the United Nations would promote wider ratification of the Convention, particularly in the light of global migration trends and of the fact that more and more countries were taking in migrants in order to meet labour shortages.

The passage of the International Labour Force Act in 2016, just one month after the attempted coup d’état in Türkiye, had been a significant achievement. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security was responsible for regulating labour market standards, social security, occupational health and safety, labour inspection, the foreign workforce and Turkish citizens living abroad. The Ministry always operated on the principle that no one should be left behind. As of 2023, the Turkish labour force numbered almost 35 million and the labour force participation rate stood at 53.3 per cent. Although some Turkish citizens living abroad reported discrimination in accessing the labour market, foreigners in Türkiye were treated on an equal footing with nationals in most cases. Foreign migrants were required to apply for a work permit, which allowed them to reside in the country during its period of validity. The application system was web-based and no physical documents were required. Eighty per cent of applications were approved and 1.25 million work permits had been issued since 2016.

Refugees and holders of “secondary protection status” did not require a work permit while foreigners who had applied for international protection and persons under temporary protection did require a permit. The permit system enabled the authorities to monitor labour market dynamics and needs, and the application process was swift and efficient. Once foreigners were in possession of a work permit, they were covered by domestic labour law on an equal footing with their Turkish peers. The work permit fee for Syrians under temporary protection had been reduced by a third since 2007. Employers were required to abide by the minimum wage. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security provided information to migrant workers via hotlines and its own website and, in cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO), it had opened information centres in areas with the largest refugee populations. The Ministry had more than 1,000 labour inspectors and 2,700 social security auditors who operated across the country. Labour inspectors received training on how to identify cases of human trafficking, and trafficking victims were given facilitated access to the labour market by being exempted from certain criteria in their work permit applications.

The Advisory Board on International Labour Force Policy had been established by decree of the President of the Republic in April 2024 and was preparing to hold its first meeting. International treaties, including the Convention, were duly reflected in national legislation on migration and migrants as well as in the International Labour Force Policy. The outcomes of the National Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour were currently being analysed and a new programme would be announced shortly. Since the 1990s, Türkiye had made great strides towards eliminating child labour. It had declared 2018 as a year for the elimination of child labour and it was, moreover, a pathfinder country of the Global Alliance to Eradicate Forced Labour, Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Child Labour (Alliance 8.7). It had ratified the ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No.182). A European Union-funded programme to encourage school attendance had been launched in 2003 whereby disadvantaged Turkish families were given subsidies on condition that they kept their children in education. The initiative, which been extended to cover foreign children in 2007, currently had 500,000 beneficiaries, 51 per cent of them girls. A similar programme of subsidies in the field of child health care was also available to foreigners in Türkiye.

Since 2018, foreigners who had applied for international protection or for temporary protection were granted free work permit exemptions to allow them to participate in seasonal agriculture work. More than 200,000 exemptions had been issued since the system came into force. In order to ensure that such labour did not go unregistered, a mechanism to coordinate seasonal agricultural work had been set up to collect all relevant information and share it with the competent ministries. Foreigners who participated legally in the labour market had access to social security on an equal footing with Turkish citizens and, regardless of their employment status, all were covered by the health-care system if they paid the national universal health insurance premium.

All assistance and support measures during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2023earthquake had been made available to Turkish citizens and foreigners alike. The earthquake had particularly affected 11 provinces which hosted around 47 per cent of the Syrians under temporary protection in Türkiye. The labour force agreements with Germany had been in force since the 1960s, and a joint working committee had been established in 1980 which held regular meetings regarding the implementation of those agreements and the rights of Turkish citizens in Germany more generally. Consultative meetings for Turkish citizens in Germany were held twice a year, once in Germany and once in Türkiye. The latter were for Turkish citizens who received a pension from Germany but resided in Türkiye. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security had 57 labour attaché offices in 29 countries. In the course of the previous year, the offices had organized 546 information sessions which had been attended by more than 300,000 people. The Ministry was also working to develop its online services, which would help it to reach even more Turkish citizens abroad, many of whom, particularly those living in Western European States, faced discrimination and xenophobia.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas said that numerous stakeholders including, inter alia, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) had repeatedly reported worrying practices such as pushbacks, collective returns and coerced “voluntary returns” of migrants at the borders of Türkiye. He would be interested to hear how the State responded to such reports and, specifically, whether it had acted to verify their accuracy. He would be interested to know exactly how much a work permit application cost and whether it was easily affordable by migrant workers. The unavailability or inaccessibility of work permits led to greater informal employment and opened the way to precarity and exploitation. In that regard, he would also be interested to hear the State’s reaction to reports that around a million Syrian citizens were working in Türkiye without a permit. He wished to know whether persons under protection status could apply for Turkish nationality following a requisite number of years.

He hoped the delegation could explain the system whereby foreign nationals were required to register in the locality in which they lived and were restricted from moving elsewhere in the country, even to access social services. He wondered whether migrants who failed to respect that restriction would incur an administrative penalty and whether the same conditions also applied to Turkish nationals. He would be interested to hear about any policies or programmes to identify persons who died on migrant routes within the State’s jurisdiction. The Committee wished to hear about any concrete practices in place to ensure that female migrants who were victims of violence had access to social services and to justice. Was the relevant information available in multiple languages? He was particularly concerned about the position of women who might be afraid to report domestic violence for fear of losing their residency status and about victims of racially motivated violence. It had been reported that women were sometimes asked to provide medical evidence of abuse before being admitted to a shelter, a procedure that was inconsistent with the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and with the State party’s own laws. Lastly, he wished to know what action was taken in detention centres to respect detainees’ gender identity and to protect persons of differing sexual orientations.

Mr. Taghi-Zada said that he would be interested to hear more details about the racism and xenophobia faced by Turkish nationals abroad. He wondered whether the State provided support for its citizens to pursue legal action in such cases and what the outcomes of any court proceedings had been. He was concerned that, in certain European countries, retirees of Turkish nationality could besubjected to unjust restrictions if they chose to return to Türkiye.

Ms. Diallo said that she would be interested to hear more details about non-custodial alternatives to the administrative detention of migrants. She wished to know what steps the State was taking to facilitate access to detention centres for civil society organizations wishing to provide legal aid to migrant workers in conflict with the law.

The Chair said that he wished to know more about the status of the Convention in the domestic legal order.

The meeting rose at 6 p.m.