Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
I studied European and other practices. And in so doing, I demonstrated that, as a matter of fact, little practice is innovative. It follows our many precursors, including, as the president just mentioned, the experience of Australia with Nauru and Papua New Guinea, of the United States with Guantanamo Bay, and of Israel with Rwanda. My key finding is that all such areas of cooperation are replete with human rights risks. Where externalization initiatives have been implemented, serious human rights violations have systematically been documented.
Where they are being developed now, they may have wide-ranging harmful effects, extending from diminished procedural safeguards to fostering measures that can expose people to ill-treatment or arbitrary detention. This does not, of course, mean that such external cooperation is never possible, but we need to face the risk with our eyes wide open. Turning then to each of the three areas. First, externalized asylum procedures. I look at two distinct forms.
The first of these is the situation where the asylum procedures are undertaken by the country to which the asylum seekers are relocated. And the second concerns situations where the procedures are still conducted, albeit on foreign soil, by the externalizing state. Both forms of externalization raise multiple human rights risks and, according to UNHCR, should be exceptional. Moreover, alternatives to territorial asylum are unlawful if they lead to responsibility shifting and are not accompanied by adequate human rights safeguards. Now, in theory, the second model could mitigate some of the concerns.
However, some violations may still ensue, as in practice, applying safeguards extraterritorially—think about access to a judicial remedy—poses almost intractable challenges. Turning to the second area: externalized return procedures. I refer in particular to the so-called return hubs. Among the principal human rights concerns are those arising where the removing state does not take into adequate consideration the individual risks in the country where the hub is located. In terms, for instance, of respect for human rights and dignity, there is also a clear risk that returnees may be left in circumstances of protracted uncertainty.
The third and final form regards the externalization of border management. My concern here is with situations where states assist another state, for instance, with equipment, training, or financial support in circumstances where such assistance is likely to lead to serious human rights abuses. Think, for instance, of when Libya, equipped with European speedboats, equipment, and intelligence, attacks migrants at sea and then subjects them to torture on land. I'm aware that a colleague from UN OHCHR will shortly present to you a new report on this matter, which I very much welcome. Now, across the various contexts and risk areas, I have issued, as a conclusion to my report, a number of key recommendations.
First, I recommend that states explicitly adopt a precautionary approach. In other words, embed attention to human rights from the very outset. This can be done, in particular, by engaging transparently in human rights risk assessment and matching these with adequate mitigation measures. Second, states should assiduously honor clear legal principles such as those prohibiting refoulement and torture, respecting the rights of the child, and employing detention only as a last resort. Third, all externalization actions should be based on legally binding agreements providing robust safeguards, on the basis of which specific externalization initiatives can be challenged.
Furthermore, externalization strategies should assiduously avoid shifting responsibility to the receiving state, which, as I said, is illegal. And finally, honorable members, states should develop adequate transparency, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. Allow me to wrap up with two final observations. The first is an invitation for us to keep in mind the bigger picture: that migration is an area, a gateway through which the rule of law can be eroded. As states search for innovative solutions, their attention is currently turned to the European Convention on Human Rights and even to the practice of the Strasbourg Court.
I urge states to proceed with great caution due to the risks along the route that they have embarked on. My final comment is that while we decry unchecked migration control and enforcement on the other side of the Atlantic, we should no less reflect on our own practices. We must pause and ask whether the laws, policy, and practice that we are introducing in Europe are consistent with our human rights obligations and respect the dignity of the people to whom they are directed. I thank you for your attention.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much indeed, Commissioner, and thank you for your report as well. An assessment of the situation and recommendations. I'll now give the floor to Mr. Jonas Grimheaden. You have the floor for 7 minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, and good morning. I would like to try to supplement what the commissioner just said with the four areas that I think are important to highlight. The first one is that when Frontex engages on its own, the risks are much greater. So, there is importance in delivering as one. So that is not meant as a simple general statement, but ensuring that international partnership, DG Home, etc., are all involved and all working in the same direction, in a way offering a package that is human rights-based and enabling these human rights-based mechanisms and approach to function.
That will also give the European Union the leverage that we need to ensure that fundamental human rights are respected. The second point is very much linked to that, and that is that border management needs to be obviously professional but also deliver in a humane way. This is more effective. There are beliefs in some countries, in some contexts, that if we are more violent and rough, there might be a deterring effect. But what I have seen from a few years of very practical work is that the more professional, humane, solid, reliable, and trustworthy the organization is, the more effective we can be in offering professional and correct border management in compliance with international standards.
The third point is maybe more concrete but remains very vague. If we invest a lot of money in third countries to deal with border management, to deal with security risks, etc., if we were to set aside 1% or maybe even 10% of those funds to go towards human rights, what could that amount to? The commissioner mentioned monitoring and accountability, and that would certainly be part of it. Independent monitoring is something that I do and try to offer on a daily basis, and I think that's a lesson learned that we need to replicate elsewhere. That human rights fund, 10%, let's say, would also have to go towards capacity building, ensuring that the actors are aware.
But even more important would be that the standard operating procedures are in place to ensure that the training and the monitoring in place are also delivering results on the ground, so that we have a human rights-proof way of acting at land borders, sea borders, and airports. So, if you think of those speedboats that the commissioner mentioned, of course, there has to be a standard operating procedure to make sure that those speedboats operate in a correct way and that we do not only have speedboats, but we also have additional measures at sea and on land to ensure that we deliver in a human rights-proof way. The fourth and last point is maybe a bit self-congratulatory, but if I can refer to the work that we have done at Frontex Independent Fundamental Rights Office as somewhat of a role model, at least that's how we perceive it within the EU, where we have a lot of experiences to share with the national mechanisms that are out there and that will be required by law from June. We offer an independent service within Frontex, independent from Frontex and from the member states, influenced by EU law.
And we are, in that way, building trust, ensuring transparency, and accountability. And that is, as I said before, key to an effective organization. Just to put a few numbers out there, we spend about 1,500 to 2,000 hours a year in the field monitoring. In addition to that, a few hundred days of training are provided to the Frontex Standing Corps and to National Border Guard Services. We are available daytime and on call 24/7, checking all the aerial surveillance assets that Frontex deploys in the field. We're also on return flights that Frontex operates and involved in all processes, with access to all databases and all resources that the agency has.
And I think that is key for effective monitoring and, again, something that we should replicate and draw on. So let me conclude by saying that we, from the Fundamental Rights Office, are available to support in any way we can. We are already spending a few hundred days per year monitoring in third countries. We are part of the European Union, and we should be packaged, as I said in the beginning, Frontex together with other parts of Europe to ensure that we deliver as one. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
You. So we're going to be hearing from Missus Buslamat online. I hope that the connection works. You've got the floor, madam, for 7 minutes.
Yes. We do.
Please go ahead. We can hear you.
Speaker 8
Excellencies, distinguished members of the European Parliament, and esteemed human rights colleagues, good morning. I'm Samira Buslama. I work for ONCEML in the human rights office, and I would like to briefly present our ONCEML-OECHR joint report entitled "Business as Usual: Human Rights Violations and Abuses Against Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees." It was published on 02/17/2026. Sorry.
Speaker 9
The report covers the period from January 2024 to December 2025. It is based on interviews with nearly 100 migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, women and men from 16 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Interviews were carried out mainly by telephone. Onsmail was denied access, though several requests were submitted during the reporting period to the eastern and western authorities, but we received no response. We were allowed only once to such a visit after many attempts.
Speaker 8
Business as usual documents widespread and systematic human rights violations and abuses against people on the move, committed by state and non-state actors, armed groups, trafficking, and organized criminal networks, in a context where impunity prevails. The violation and abuses, sorry. The violations and abuses documented include arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and other forms of ill treatment, killings, enforced disappearances, extortion, expulsions, violent interception, sexual and gender-based violence, including rape, forced prostitution, and sexual exploitation, forced labor, and modern-day slavery. State actors are numerous. I would name the key actors, at least for the case of the migrants today: the Libya Coast Guard, the department to combat illegal migration, border guards, GACS, which is the General Administration for Coastal Security, the criminal investigation department, as well as armed groups integrated into state security structures under the Minister of Interior, the Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry of Justice.
Despite well-documented allegations of gross human rights violations, individuals within these entities have, in some cases, been formally incorporated into state institutions, granted official mandates, or promoted rather than subjected to effective investigation and prosecution. They continue to receive state salaries and use state equipment to carry out their violations. After their disembarkation, migrants are routinely held in detention centers that are breeding grounds for human rights violations and abuses. Detention, including in official detention facilities, has become a revenue stream within an exploitative, profit-driven system by DCIM and other state officials. Survival depends on payment.
Those without money are passed along, sold, or disappear. Despite well-documented patterns of abuse since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the report notes that third countries and regional institutions, including the EU, continue to provide financial, technical, and operational assistance to state institutions in Libya that face credible allegations of gross human rights violations. Horrific attempts to cross the Central Mediterranean, interceptions by Libyan actors were frequently dangerous and involved threats, hazardous maneuvers, and excessive use of force, putting people's lives at risk. Those intercepted are often forcibly returned to Libya, where they risk facing the same cycle of abuse. Libya is not a safe country for asylum or disembarkation, say UN high officials.
Expulsions and forced deportations occur without the examination of each individual's case. Breaching the prohibition of collective expulsions, denying the right to seek asylum, human rights protection, and assistance, and exposing individuals to the risk of refoulement, those expelled along the borders are often left in life-threatening conditions without access to water, food, and health care. Impunity for horrific abuses against refugees and migrants in Libya, against the backdrop of deep-rooted racism, should be a stain on humanity. OHTHR and UNSMIL consider your engagement with the Libyan authorities to be both timely and essential and would respectfully suggest the following measures for your consideration. Establish an operational and effective vetting, monitoring, and accountability mechanism to ensure that EU support does not contribute directly or indirectly to human rights violations and that safeguards are consistently upheld.
And I'm happy to hear that this mechanism is considered now. Ensure that robust human rights due diligence is systematically applied to all forms of funding, training, equipment, technology, transfers, and operational cooperation involving Libyan entities, particularly where there are credible allegations of serious human rights violations and abuses, including against migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. Finally, establish a moratorium on interceptions and returns to Libya until adequate human rights safeguards are ensured. Thank you for listening, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
You. Let's have a round of questions. So, let me open the floor to members for their questions. We'll start with Mr. Assis, who will be speaking about the Socialist Group. Thank you, Chair.
I will be speaking Portuguese.
Francisco Assis
I would like to welcome our three speakers today. You have expressed some of our concerns as well. It's an incredibly compact and complex topic. The EU, to a certain extent, represents the notion of European civilization around the world, especially when it comes to human rights. Unfortunately, despite the universal character of these rights, which we believe in, it is true that human rights are not respected everywhere around the world.
And I think perhaps the EU is one of the regions where human rights are most respected. The EU is founded on the effect of human rights, and we have to take responsibility for ensuring that this remains the case. What is at stake here are our very own values and our founding principles. We cannot just sit back and depend on empty words. Our policies need to find solutions to the problems we have encountered.
We have to say very clearly that what we are looking at here is a serious difference between the approach taken by the EU and the rest of the world in terms of respect for human rights. We state and restate our respect for human rights, and we have to actually put these words into practice. Now, if you look at the US, we've seen what's happening there and the way in which the administration is treating migrants. So, if you have a democracy, and the US is still a democracy, what is a democracy without respect for human rights? Against this backdrop, I think that the main concerns we've seen here have to really act as a sort of compass, looking at the path the EU has taken.
We cannot finance initiatives that risk undermining human rights. So, in any case, we cannot accept that member states refuse to process migrants and send them off to countries that insist on violating the human rights of these asylum seekers. This is the bottom line. We have to ensure this principle is respected. And I think that this is the concern that should guide our work going forward.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
You, Mr. Assis. I would ask colleagues to respect their speaking time. Mister Vale, thank you, Chair. Thank you to the speakers. Now, we've already said that human rights advocacy doesn't protect anyone if we don't deal with the smugglers.
Now our oceans and seas are our graveyards, and, obviously, we go and rescue these little boats which are put out to sea by smugglers profiting from human misery, and we see men, women, and children who drown. And, unfortunately, we've always seen the images. Being humanist isn't just outsourcing our job to humanitarian NGOs; we've got to have a clear human rights policy, and we've also got to fight against human trafficking. And then, regarding the externalization of the processing of asylum applications, Europe and all of its member states have diplomatic networks that we can use. So, what is the point of this? Now, what is the point?
Matthieu Valet
We've got to take steps, be able to process some of these applications in countries of origin, and support the states that want to work together with us to fight against these illegal trafficking networks. That's why this, well, I mean, this is a policy that many of our citizens have been demanding for some time. And you can see this also, the sort of impact this has on election results. And I think it's absolutely crucial for us to be able to protect our borders, and we've also got to be firm when it comes to combating smuggling networks. Thank you.
Arkadiusz Mularczyk
Thank you. Mister Molansik, for the group, thank you very much. I'll be speaking Polish, and thank you very much for your presentations. I also wanted to point to one of the problems, which is due to the fact that our asylum system, which is based on foundations that used to be groundbreaking but now seems to be out of date and does not take into account the current realities. And, of course, we hark back to Geneva 1952, but there is huge migratory pressure, and people abuse some of the procedures.
What we urgently need is a revision of asylum law in order to make our laws efficient and to ensure that we can protect those people who need it. There is this, of course, people have talked about refoulement, and, well, you can't just apply this to people on the grounds of their ethnicity or their religious beliefs. But, of course, you've got the convention against torture, and we've got to heed those provisions. And we've got to realize that even if we're talking about dangerous criminals, we've still got to be aware of the fact that, in many cases, migrants are getting rid of their documents and lying about who they are and where they come from. And so, we've got to put in place other safeguards, and we've obviously got to be able to have cooperation amongst our states, but we are not able to ascertain who people are when they come in, so we don't know where we can even send them back to.
So, obviously, we've got to renew our asylum procedures. And it is only in this way that we can protect our own citizens. The rights of our own citizens have got to take priority. Thank you. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Oyten for the Renew Group. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Jan-Christoph Oetjen
I would first like to address my two previous speaking colleagues and invite them to study what has already been decided, because you talk as if there has been no pact on asylum and immigration, and as if there have been no debates about what will be implemented from June onwards. So please be updated when you take the floor here in the committee. But I would like to first address the Commissioner for Clarity because there has been, this week, the approval of the Council as well on the safe third country concept. And we will see that, most probably, there will be some member states attempting to cooperate with third countries on the externalization of migration policies. So you talked about the safeguards that we need to be in place to safeguard dignity, human rights standards, and good processes.
Do you think that, with the regulation that has been put in place, those safeguards are also in place? Or do you think that we lack clear European standards because it is up to the member states to negotiate and see how they will carry out those processes? What is your opinion on this? And a question to Jonas, because we already see the reflections about the front tax mandates in the commission, and upcoming changes are being prepared by the commission. Do you see, because there's no mechanism to automatically include Frontex in those operations.
Do you see room for an improved role of Frontex as a safeguard of a unified European standard in the treatment of migrants, even outside the European Union? Thank you.
Thank you.
Ilaria Salis
By now, it's very difficult to get away from the feeling that this is an exercise in pure institutional hypocrisy. We've got to base ourselves on the rule of law, fundamental rights, and the protection of human rights. When we're talking about migratory policies, which we discuss in abstract terms, we are in a political time where we're witnessing a return of racism, nationalism, and also all this propaganda that claims to have security at its heart. And, basically, what people are trying to do is to stop migrants from leaving, no matter what this may cost, even flouting human rights. Let's stop telling fairy tales.
We've known for years what's been going on in Libya: rapes, extortion, torture. The United Nations has documented this. We all know about this, and the survivors also tell us what has been going on. And we continue to cooperate. And in fact, we talk about the need to reinforce cooperation with those people who are structurally involved in human trafficking, specifically with these Libyan militias.
We continue to equip, finance, and train the military militia, the so-called Libyan Coast Guard. This coastal guard, which six months ago, just to mention one episode, shut down a vessel off its coast with total impunity. Many people died, but this is systematic, and it concerns many countries from Tunisia to Turkey. Now, I would like to ask a question to the Frontex representative. If Frontex really does work to respect its own mandates, guaranteeing the protection of fundamental rights across all of its activities, respecting international law and community law.
How is it that you are not aware of these? How is it that there are no consequences for these activities, or are you just taking the mickey? Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Yes. Thank you very much. Hmm. I'm going to ask the panel to reply, but in reverse order. So, we're going to be starting off with Mrs.
Bousslamat, who is going to start? But I'd like to say something. We've been talking about many things, Justice. There was one thing that made me sad. I don't want us to continue our debate with the right referring to this.
Usama Asmaric Khadijen is from Libya. He was responsible for prisons in Tripoli. He was present on European soil in Italy, and he was covered by an arrest warrant from the ICC for crimes against humanity. The authorities in Italy, rather than dealing with this according to rules, well, he was just a company back home. So, where is the justice when it comes to this? It was an important aspect in the externalization of migration.
Obviously, we have certain political positions when it comes to migration, out of our respect for fundamental rights. Justice has to be guaranteed. But what about the possibility to appeal for those people who have been victims? And so, El Masary, in this particular case I've referred to, we were complicit. So it means that, basically, by dealing with him in the way we did, we weren't allowing justice for the victims.
I'm a Democrat. Obviously, I respect the rule of law, but I think there should have been a trial in that particular case. And I feel that, if it wasn't handed over, maybe it was because there was a desire to hide European responsibility for what's going on in Libya. So I'll leave it at that, and I'll hand the floor to Mrs. Buslamat.
You have three to four minutes, each member of the panel, to reply. We are a bit short on time because there is an extraordinary sitting today in the European Parliament.
Speaker 9
Good morning again, and thank you for giving me the floor to answer. Though I haven't heard the questions, I would emphasize the impunity in Libya. And you mentioned the case of Usman Jim, that he was responsible, and there were allegations. It is not covered in this report. Of course, it was covered in other reports, particularly of 2016 February 18 on migrants, but also on detention in general of Libyans.
And there were clear allegations of gross human rights violations, including forced recruitment of migrant asylum seekers during the war or the attack on Tripoli, etc. So the guy is free. Even he was returned to Libya, and we were at least expecting that he would be facing a proper trial in Libya, as they promised. However, we see that he is free. And as of yesterday, he attacked the prison again, and he tortured people with their, of course, allegations until our investigations are carried out.
Are we going to see investigations? I doubt it. Basically, as I said, we started working on migrant asylum seekers since 2011 because of our mandate. It's also the migrants in Libya. And all the patterns that I spoke about today have been there since 2011.
Of course, with time, the traffickers became bigger. I would like to talk about aggravated smuggling and trafficking, and not only smuggling. Because the aggravated smugglers and traffickers are the ones who are harming the migrants and asylum seekers the most. They are behind the extortion. They are behind all kinds of atrocities at sea, but we must not forget that the border guards are also receiving equipment.
And many of the border guards and the general administration, of course, are receiving equipment and are also involved, as our report states. They are involved in human trafficking, extortion, sexual violence, and all the atrocities that were noted in the report. I think it's obvious that there should be a mechanism to monitor. First, to assess the risks by providing any financial support, any equipment, etc., and then the mitigation measures. We know that the European Union had endorsed the human rights due diligence, but until now, we don't see the mechanisms in place to first make the risk assessment, then to monitor all stages of any assistance, including trainings.
Because through the trainings, many of the armed groups are gaining legitimacy. And if you recall the scandal of having Abdrahman al Dijk, who was killed last year in December, he was offered training abroad. And then we had, of course, a big problem when it was leaked, and the victims were raising their voices and talking about impunity, but also they want to see justice and seek justice. I think one of the key issues is the security entities in Libya that should be taken very carefully because many of them, or the vast majority, are taken without vetting or screening from armed groups or militias to the structural security entities. They are promoted.
What we've seen is that they are promoted rather than prosecuted, rather than brought to justice. And sorry. If I missed something, please let me know.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much to MEP Etienne. So I would respond on the fund on Frontex mandate that, in my experience, and I've been there now for almost five years, we spent just monitoring in those five years around 5,000 days in the field. And I gave you some other numbers before. And in my assessment, Frontex is, in that sense, a force for good. We provide objective, professional, and apolitical border management.
And that is not always the case in the member states, and certainly not always the case in third countries. So, that's the starting point. Regarding the presence and involvement of Frontex, we are involved in all third-country assessments at the desk stage in terms of due diligence, and we also have an automatic presence in any activity where Frontex is present. So, we are there, have the capacity, and monitor the situation. So, as a concrete example, I spent Monday last week monitoring a surveillance airplane in Cape Verde, making sure to understand how that works and trying to push, on that basis, safeguards and mechanisms that we see are needed to ensure that we deliver with human rights guarantees.
Coming back to the point I made before, it's important to have a link to other EU actors so that we have leverage and can ensure these safeguards. And to MEP Salis, we are aware. Let me reassure you, my office issued an opinion as early as 2023 on Libya not being safe for disembarkation. At the same time, what I offer is advice. I'm not deciding. I have advised the agency in this direction.
At the same time, it's also important to consider that if we are not providing details on where migrant boats are, the option is very often that the boats might sink. So, it's not an easy choice. In terms of consequences, I think we can point to a number, but I'm happy to do that maybe bilaterally. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Briefly, first to Mr. Vale. I want to agree with you, sir, that smuggling is despicable. It's a criminal act, and smugglers must bear the full consequences of criminal law. You have my absolute support in that regard. However, combating smuggling can never include allowing people to drown within its toolbox.
They're in those dreadful boats because of the smugglers, but we have a clear international law requirement for search and rescue. We must increase capacity for search and rescue, including in the Mediterranean. Mister The Valle, you spoke about the importance of processing asylum claims outside the country, including in countries of origin. And that is exactly the point my recent report is about. Yes.
In theory, it could be done with respect for human rights, but it is replete with risk. Any state that embarks on such a pathway needs to proceed with a very precautionary approach. We have some very specific recommendations in that regard. Are our diplomatic networks up to looking after the human rights considerations? Right now, no.
Human rights diplomatic representations across the world are all under pressure, all stretched, and it is evident from empirical examination that they do not currently, in general, have the capacity to do the human rights risk assessment and monitoring that is required. Turning to Mr. Mullerczyk. Sir, indeed, the refugee standards and the human rights standards were, in large part, drafted a long time ago. But look at the time. They were drafted at the time of an enormous population displacement on the European continent, much larger than anything we have seen since.
So, they were designed for a time of acute crisis, and they are well able to engage with the situation as we see it today. I would make no argument against the need for ongoing reform of procedures under the law. That's an entirely different matter. And so, if indeed there is an issue of the destruction of papers and this makes it very difficult to do asylum determination, then it's entirely legitimate for states, with respect for law and for rights, to change the procedures appropriately. And I have no further observations on that.
Mister Mullerczyk, you spoke about the rights of our citizens having to take priority. Well, the first comment I would make here is that our citizens are not at risk. The perception that somehow migrants are importing criminality and destabilizing our societies is not borne out by the evidence. We're talking, as I said earlier, of 4.5% of all those who enter the European Union, a tiny number of people, within which a very tiny number commit criminal acts, and most of them are successfully expelled from the EU and other countries. And I would finally say on this point: let's never forget the universality of human rights.
I have a human right because I am a human, not because of my nationality. And finally, to Mr. Urten, on the safe third country concept, you ask: are the safeguards in place? No. They're not. There are three categories of safe third countries according to the decision adopted yesterday.
Countries of meaningful connection to the person, transit countries, and countries with which there is an agreement because the country is deemed safe. It's that last category that worries me the most. Then we don't know yet. What does "safe" mean? What does safe look like?
Who is going to determine safety? How will we determine safety in the medium- to long-term? How will we avoid the illegal act of transferring responsibility? Look at the fundamental charter; the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees a right to asylum. How can that be honored when we transfer responsibility to a third state?
And we must put in place very sturdy human rights assessment and mitigation strategies in the context of such third-country transfers. And then I'd come right back, and I'll finish with this to the point I made to Miss Jovalet earlier. For all of this to be done in a meaningful way, we would need to find a capacity that does not currently exist. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Yes. Thank you very much. I'm now going to hand the floor to the deputy head of unit from DG Home, Alexandra.
Speaker 26
I did share, honorable members and panelists. In the commission, we shared the objective of the commissioner's report: to ensure that migration management and human rights protection go hand in hand. There is no intention to delegate the EU's asylum processing obligations to such countries, nor to shift the EU's responsibility elsewhere. The packed approach, which will be fully implemented from June, is rooted in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the international protection system, and this has been recognized by the UN agencies. The EU's legislation contains explicit and cross-cutting guarantees to the right of asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.
In fact, the pact strengthens procedural safeguards for migrants who apply for protection in the EU. However, international law explicitly foresees the possibility of cooperating with such countries in sharing the common obligation that we have to offer protection to those in need. In fact, it is an international line to promote protection close to the place of forced departure. When there is cooperation, any agreements or arrangements need to respect all safeguards stemming from international and EU law to ensure that persons entitled to protection receive effective protection, that their rights are fully protected and respected, and that non-refoulement is upheld. Regarding the revision of the safe third country concept that was referred to here, the legislative proposal that was adopted recently is not about outsourcing our obligations to provide protection for those in need.
The concept, in fact, already existed in the US asylum law. We just made targeted amendments to clarify it while fully respecting the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. Sorry. This can be applied only on the street under strict conditions, and there is always an individual assessment when the concept is to be applied. In the external dimension of the pact, our objective is not to shift responsibility, but to build partnerships to improve capacity and promote joint solutions with countries of origin, transit, and departure.
Our migration, cooperation, and funding support partners in addressing migration pressure in a mutually beneficial way and also saves lives. All our programs are firmly rooted in a human rights-based approach. Respect for human rights is a key criterion for eligibility and for the allocation of funds. All new contracts include a human rights clause that allows the commission to take adequate measures when they are not respected. Thank you for your attention.
Mounir Satouri
Yes. Thank you very much for those comments. I have heard the discussion and debate, but to declare a country to be safe when only a short time ago the president of that country called upon the tracking down of anybody that had black skin, and there have been atrocities which have been documented by the European press, and even where national people were chased after by certain locals, and where the European Parliament voted by a huge majority a resolution to defend these human rights. I must say, I have listened to the discussion and heard the comments, but I feel that there's a lack of consistency. But I'll leave it at that.
We're now going to interrupt the meeting to go along to the plenary sitting. This is for the colleagues to mark the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. We're going to be meeting again at 3 p.m. M. This afternoon, for a joint hearing with the EURA Committee on immunity of United Nations and ICC staff, not in this room, but in 5.2.
And this afternoon, together with my Ukrainian counterpart, I'm going to be signing a joint statement about the dreadful impact of the war on human rights and the people of Ukraine. So, I wish you a good plenary. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.