Audiencia CIDH: Derecho de las personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo en riesgo
52 vistas｜1 Resumido｜2 mes atrás
💫 Resumen
La audiencia aborda los riesgos en la protección de derechos de refugiados y solicitantes de asilo en Argentina, destacando preocupaciones sobre modificaciones legales, acceso a procesos justos y medidas restrictivas que podrían vulnerar derechos fundamentales.
✦
Se lleva a cabo una audiencia sobre los riesgos para la protección de derechos de refugiados y solicitantes de asilo en Argentina.
00:06La audiencia no se refiere a un caso específico, sino a un tema general de derechos.
La secretaria ejecutiva de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Tania Renault, da la bienvenida a los participantes.
Se ha solicitado la audiencia por varias organizaciones de la sociedad civil, incluyendo el servicio jesuita migrantes.
Se establece un cronograma para la participación de las organizaciones, con un límite de tiempo para sus intervenciones.
✦
Se cuestiona la designación de representantes sin experiencia en temas de asilo en Argentina.
11:04Más de 40 organizaciones sociales y sindicales rechazaron la incorporación de personas sin idoneidad en la CONARE.
El gobierno defendió las designaciones como "profesionales prestigiosos", ignorando las observaciones recibidas.
Se creó una comisión para reglamentar la Ley General de reconocimiento y protección al refugiado, pero las organizaciones no han sido convocadas a participar.
Las acciones del estado son consideradas regresivas y en incumplimiento de pactos internacionales sobre derechos de refugiados.
✦
Se solicita a la comisión que abogue por la protección de los derechos de las personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo.
22:07Se critican las medidas restrictivas que afectan el acceso a procedimientos justos.
Se pide al Estado que fundamente sus políticas en el principio de no discriminación.
Se solicita una visita de la comisión para escuchar a refugiados y organizaciones civiles sobre los retrocesos en el sistema de asilo.
Se ofrece facilitar información confidencial sobre casos de refugiados y solicitantes de asilo.
✦
Argentina prioriza la protección de refugiados y solicitantes de asilo, pero enfrenta críticas por cambios legislativos.
33:11En 2024, el 67.6% de las solicitudes de asilo fueron aceptadas, un aumento respecto al año anterior.
Se aprobó un nuevo decreto (942) que modifica la ley 26165, generando preocupación por un sistema más restrictivo.
Las organizaciones advierten que los cambios afectan las causales de exclusión y el acceso a la justicia para personas en riesgo.
✦
Se discute la importancia de las políticas de protección para solicitantes de asilo en Argentina.
44:17Las políticas adoptadas son constitucionales y alineadas con la convención internacional.
Se busca tutelar los derechos de quienes llegan con temor fundado a Argentina.
Se enfatiza la necesidad de respuestas rápidas y efectivas de parte del poder judicial.
Se menciona la ausencia de estigmatización y la apertura de herramientas para los solicitantes.
✦
Se discuten las obligaciones de los miembros de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre la participación en casos relacionados con su país.
55:20Se agradece a los presentes por su intervención en un tema relevante.
Se menciona el artículo 17 del reglamento que prohíbe a los miembros participar en casos donde son nacionales del estado en cuestión.
Se aclara que la comisionada Pochaco no ha tratado temas de Argentina ni ha participado en decisiones relacionadas.
✦
Se discute la inclusión de expertos y medidas adoptadas por Argentina para proteger los derechos de refugiados.
01:06:22Se cuestiona por qué expertos en la materia fueron excluidos en la revisión de la ley.
Se indagan los criterios para incluir a miembros de la sociedad civil en el proceso de consulta.
Se plantean preguntas sobre el debido proceso en la denegación de la condición de refugiados.
Se solicita información sobre la capacitación proporcionada a los funcionarios en derechos humanos y derecho internacional de los refugiados.
✦
Se critica la baja cantidad de resoluciones en casos de asilo y la falta de agilidad en los procesos.
01:17:30Se menciona que la mayoría de los casos resueltos lo fueron por caducidades, no por un análisis detallado.
Las demoras en el proceso no son responsabilidad de los solicitantes, sino de la ineficiencia del sistema.
Se propone mejorar los procedimientos para reducir los plazos sin perjudicar la defensa de los solicitantes.
Se argumenta desde una perspectiva moral y jurídica, citando convenciones internacionales que amplían el concepto de refugio.
00:06given a hearing for this so t Can you please
00:09Us Sr
00:15commission We Are Not
00:30that What is the case is it a case or is it the
00:34hearing on
00:38uh refugees but commissioner Ron was
00:43wrong It is hearing number one
00:47is not a
00:48specific case it is a hearing on a
00:52topic
00:54risks for the protection of
00:57risks I mean protection of the rights
01:00of refugees and uh
01:07asylum seekers is not the case number that you said
01:37I thank Commissioner Clark for the
01:39observation
01:41and I am going to give the floor to the
01:43executive secretary please so that he can make
01:46the introduction I do not have the form they have
01:48sent me the incorrect form So I would
01:50appreciate it if the secretariat
01:53could make the introduction thank you
02:06the executive secretary Jorge Mesa
02:08is not commissioner Ron because this is not
02:11a case it is the
02:15form a second but
02:19not the same form twice very well
02:23thank you very much I will begin if you
02:26agree This is hearing
02:29number one very welcome and
02:31welcome uh I am Tania Renault I am the
02:35executive secretary of the
02:37Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and
02:39we are at the hearing risks for the
02:41protection of the rights of
02:43refugees and asylum seekers
02:46asylum in
02:47argentina this hearing has been
02:50requested by the argentine commission
02:51for refugees immigrants
02:54care the jesuit migrant service and the
02:57center for legal studies yal is the
03:01i would like to comment on the distribution of
03:05time among the participants and
03:07ask all people to
03:08turn off their microphone thank you very much
03:12we are going to start first with the with
03:15the organizations of
03:16civil society that will have a time of
03:19up to 20 minutes you will see on the
03:21screen that there is a clock that marks the
03:24time after eh we are going to have 20
03:27minutes of participation of the state and and
03:29later we are going to give the floor
03:32to the representative of unhcr today
03:34represented by jose cié then we have
03:37comments from civil society for up to
03:3910 minutes comments from the state 10
03:43minutes and the closing of the session by the
03:45inter-american commission of
03:47human rights eh i want to comment that after
03:49the representative of unhcr the
03:53inter-american commission has 20 minutes for
03:55comments i remind you that the
03:58objective of the hearing is to
04:00inform the commission on the measures
04:02and practices recently adopted by
04:05the state in response to the modifications of
04:07law number
04:0926165 of recognition and protection of
04:12refugees have the
04:15floor civil society for up to 20
04:18minutes Good
04:21morning we greet this illustrious commission to
04:26the representatives of the state and we
04:30thank
04:44laimos to all the people that
04:46please if they are not going to speak turn off their
04:49microphone
04:54Thank you very much He is now speaking with the
04:57microphone open
04:59but it seems that there are two
05:02microphones inside the room one
05:05where you can see the camera in the foreground
05:11Thank you go ahead please now we can't
05:13hear you
05:17colleague Good morning
05:21Thank you continue with the
05:33may be someone in Sims has the
05:40[Music]
05:45microphone can you
05:47comment secretary in reality perhaps it
05:50is not the microphone but the audio whether they have
05:52some device that is with the
05:55audio passing the audio of the audience
05:58that impacts and generates the echo then you have to
06:01leave only the person who is
06:04speaking with the microphone open and not
06:06other audios transmitting the audio of
06:09the
06:10audience good morning yes now you hear well
06:14we hear well and if that was it because go ahead please well
06:17Thank you very much
06:20and apologies for the
06:22inconvenience Good morning we greet this
06:25illustrious commission to the representatives
06:27of the state and we thank the commission
06:30that is with us granted this hearing
06:32requested jointly by and the
06:35Jesuit service i am Gabriela liori
06:38executive director of in 2006 the
06:41national congress sanctioned the
06:43General Law of recognition and protection
06:45of refugees with which Argentina
06:47strengthened its leadership in the matter with the
06:49highest standards of
06:51Human Rights the norm incorporated both the
06:54definition of the convention of 51 as well as
06:56the regional definition guaranteed the
06:59principle of non-refoulement and due
07:01process in the procedures for
07:03determining the status of
07:05refugee also created the conare body in
07:08charge of protecting the rights of
07:11asylum seekers and
07:12refugees and resolving
07:15asylum applications this law left behind the decree
07:18of 1985 that had been the only
07:20national normative reference until
07:22then in terms of
07:23international protection for people
07:25seeking asylum in our country the
07:28decree of urgent need 942 of
07:312024 issued by the current government
07:34modifies substantial aspects of the law
07:37ignoring each of the
07:39instances experiences and needs
07:41that led to its sanction implies a
07:44total regression in terms of due
07:46process for asylum seekers asylum and
07:48even worsens the basic conditions
07:51of the appeal process of the
07:531985 decree the Dn eliminates the possibility of
07:57appealing a negative decision in the
08:00administrative instance establishes the judicial route
08:03within a period of only 5 days to
08:05file a direct judicial appeal
08:08for which it is also mandatory to
08:10have a lawyer in the Pacheco
08:13tineo case the Inter-American Court said the
08:15right to appeal implies several
08:17obligations for the State it must provide the
08:20applicant with information on how to
08:22appeal it must grant a
08:24reasonable period for filing the
08:26appeal and the appeal must have
08:29pivotal effects with the Dn the right
08:33to appeal negative decisions of the
08:35conare is conditioned and the adequate time to
08:37prepare and file a
08:39direct judicial appeal in turn
08:42the judicial power is also conditioned to resolve
08:44in 10 days cases that may be
08:47highly complex and in which
08:50the life, security and
08:53freedom of
08:55people may be at risk recently in Argentina
08:57the deadlines for all
09:01administrative processes have been extended except for that of the
09:03refugee law which leaves
09:05asylum seekers at the mercy of a
09:08more restricted process than those
09:09provided for the rest of the
09:11inhabitants the dnu also modifies the
09:14conditions of application of the
09:16exclusion clauses, cessation and
09:18even cancellation of
09:20refugee status with respect to exclusion. Now it is
09:23applied even in cases where there is
09:26a mere imputation of a crime. But it
09:29also incorporates criteria devoid
09:31of justification, antecedents or
09:34minimal references in its scope to the
09:37definition of serious crimes in the
09:40opposite direction to that established by
09:42the unhcr. And by using as a rule a
09:44supposition that should be
09:47exceptional, this new rule undermines
09:50a safeguard that is
09:52directly related to the principle of innocence and to
09:54the humanitarian, apolitical and
09:58supportive nature of the refugee status.
10:01Last December, carels
10:04initiated a legal action on
10:06behalf of all those
10:08asylum seekers with
10:09procedures pending resolution or in the
10:12process of review, as well as all
10:14refugees recognized in
10:16Argentina for whom there are
10:18certain and concrete risks of their
10:21rights being affected. We ask the justice system of
10:24our country to declare the
10:26unconstitutionality of the D. The
10:29executive branch also introduced other
10:31substantial modifications to the law without
10:33going through congress through of a
10:36delegated decree changed the composition
10:38of conare avoiding dialogue with
10:41civil society or any instance of
10:44democratic debate by decree
10:47819 the ministry of security was
10:49integrated into conare replacing the
10:52National Institute Against Racism,
10:54Discrimination and Xenophobia
10:56inag an organization that had also been dissolved
11:00by
11:01decree later the
11:04executive branch appointed as representatives
11:06of the ministry of security before
11:07conare people without experience in
11:10asylum and international protection issues
11:13more than 40
11:15social organizations unions churches and
11:17referents in immigration and
11:19asylum matters of Argentina we presented a note
11:21addressed to the minister of security with
11:24the observations In rejection of this
11:26incorporation we request that it be with the
11:29law insofar as it establishes the requirement of
11:31moral aptitude and recognized suitability in
11:34the matter by the
11:36representatives of the ministries that
11:38comprise it the government response
11:41confirmed the designations limiting itself to
11:44pointing out that they were
11:46prestigious professionals in violation of the
11:48internal regulations of operation of conare
11:50which stipulates that in case of receiving
11:52observations but deciding to maintain the
11:55candidacies that decision must be
11:57founded and
12:00in this context by resolution
12:03a commission was created to work on the
12:04regulation of the General Law of
12:06recognition and protection of refugees
12:09led by the ministry of justice
12:11cares adra semi mirares and the sjm
12:16civil organizations with extensive
12:18experience in working with
12:20asylum seekers and refugees
12:22formally request to participate as
12:25experts in the commission for the
12:26regulation of the law it empowers the
12:30ministry of justice to convene
12:31outstanding professionals in the field
12:34the response received by the
12:36commission was to grant the
12:38participation that the minister of
12:39justice estimates to date
12:42none of the organizations were
12:44convened and the draft
12:46regulation advances behind
12:49closed doors with these actions d nuu
12:52modification of the composition of
12:54conare regulation of the law behind
12:56closed doors the state fails to comply with
12:59current international agreements and
13:01introduces regressive measures in
13:03relation to the standards on
13:06international protection expresses a biased view
13:08that directly affects the
13:10protection of refugees and
13:12asylum seekers with a
13:14systematic attack on the rights and guarantees
13:17that it seeks to justify through a
13:19one-dimensional and ideological view of the
13:22concept of national security the
13:25result is a direct and
13:29illegitimate right to seek and receive
13:31asylum from the American Convention.
13:36Thank you. Good morning, I am Juliana Miranda
13:38from CELS. The modifications to the
13:41asylum system arise within the framework of a
13:43public narrative that overemphasizes
13:46security issues. The idea of
13:48terrorist threats generates a climate of
13:51permanent urgency that is used to
13:53justify regressive modifications in
13:55norms and procedures, which results
13:58in the criminalization of
13:59vulnerable or marginalized people. High
14:02officials seek to legitimize the use of
14:04the word terrorist to discipline and
14:07limit social conflict and to
14:09justify the need for
14:11legal and institutional reforms that expand the
14:13capacity of the State to exercise
14:15violence and surveillance without controls. The
14:19argument was the excuse to modify
14:22Argentine policy and for people
14:23who arrive in the country as
14:25refugees. The criterion of protection of
14:27rights that prevailed and that had been
14:29recognized by different
14:31international organizations is being replaced
14:33by another centered on
14:35national security, as if the policy of protecting those
14:38who ask for asylum were a source
14:40of threats. This criterion was
14:43precisely the basis for the incorporation of the
14:44Ministry of Security into CONARE.
14:47However, the decree does not include
14:49data on the number of applications that
14:51the conare analyzed nor is there
14:54any reference that identifies an increase
14:55in the use of the asylum system to
14:57protect terrorists
15:00there is nothing within the
15:01geneva convention or in argentine law that
15:04enables the ministry of security to
15:06have a representative in that body or to
15:08influence decisions on
15:10asylum applications focusing the
15:12analysis of asylum applications
15:14on security issues could violate the
15:17principle of confidentiality that
15:18protects
15:20refugees two cases that the state
15:22disseminated in the media
15:23as linked to terrorism served
15:26to promote these reforms that
15:27securiti rights
15:30last june the minister of security
15:32exposed the names surnames and
15:35legal status of a family group of
15:37refugees from paraguay mostly
15:40women boys and girls in the framework of a
15:43meeting of security ministers of
15:45mercosur her statements and the
15:47subsequent cancellation of the
15:49refugee status of this family group
15:51endanger the principle of non-refoulement
15:53that governs the
15:55asylum system the state cannot
15:58unjustifiably based on an
16:00ideological position retreat from
16:02its protection obligations based
16:04on international commitments and the
16:06humanitarian nature of the
16:08asylum system in august
16:11an italian citizen who had been a refugee in
16:13argentina for more than 20 years was arrested after having
16:16demonstrated that the criminal case
16:17against him in his country of origin was
16:20politically motivated this fact was celebrated by
16:23the minister on her social networks who
16:25exposed his personal data and an image
16:27of his face and affirmed his guilt
16:30despite the irregularities in the
16:31criminal procedure the man remained
16:34deprived of his liberty for 3 months and
16:37was then released while he still retains
16:39the international protection recognized
16:41by the
16:42argentine state but the violation of his
16:44privacy the exposure of his face and
16:46his personal data cannot be
16:49undone finally in the grounds
16:51of decree 942
16:54stigmatizing and discriminatory statements are made about
16:57people from the middle
17:00in the recitals the state refers to
17:02the persecution of organized crime and
17:04terrorist threats the figures of
17:07asylum applications in argentina do not
17:09support this diagnosis and there are no
17:11precedents in which members of
17:13terrorist groups have sought refuge in
17:15the asylum system to operate in
17:18national territory despite being unjustified
17:21these statements seek to establish a
17:23discourse stigmatizing and causing fear
17:26in asylum seekers
17:28due to the violence and discrimination they
17:30face in their
17:34daily lives, honorable
17:36commissioners, this is Julio
17:38Villavicencio, a Jesuit priest from the
17:40Jesuit Migrant Service in Argentina, who
17:42supports this action by
17:44civil society because we share the deep
17:46concern about the risks that
17:47loom over the right to asylum and
17:49international protection in Argentina. In
17:51the recitals of decree 942, it is
17:53stated that the asylum system is
17:55being abused and that this can be
17:57seen in an alleged
17:58quantitative leap in applications, reaching
18:01an overall increase of
18:03225% from 2016. This
18:06assertion is not supported by
18:08official statistics. According to the
18:10annual reports of the
18:12National Commission for Refugees itself, between 2016 and
18:152024, the number of asylum applications
18:18in Argentina remained at an average
18:19of 2,000 per year, and even adding up
18:22all the interannual increases, it does not
18:24reach close to the 225% claimed in
18:27the decree as we said in a
18:30deeply stigmatizing narrative framed
18:32in alleged threats to
18:34national security, a
18:36significant increase in applications made by
18:39people from Middle Eastern countries is stated. The
18:41official figures themselves make
18:43such claims unsustainable. In
18:46Argentina, in 2023,
18:48asylum applications filed by people of
18:50these nationalities reached barely
18:533% of the total applications
18:55made that year and in 2024 barely 4%.
19:00Then the official data does not
19:02support the claim that asylum
19:04is used fraudulently or that it
19:07is a systematic way for the entry
19:09of people linked to
19:10criminal activities in Argentina. The
19:12stigmatization of certain
19:14national groups is not only unfounded
19:16but also puts at risk the
19:18integrity and security of those
19:20seeking protection in open
19:22contradiction with the
19:24international commitments assumed by the
19:25Argentine Republic. In addition to the above,
19:28in the same recitals with which it is
19:30intended to justify the modification
19:32of law
19:3426165, the problem of the
19:37accumulated delay in the processing of
19:38asylum applications is recognized. It is noted in the
19:41justification of the Dn that an
19:43administrative file can take up to On average, it takes
19:454 years to process the case, and if the case is brought to
19:48court, the contentious process
19:50can take up to 7 years. However,
19:53instead of proposing a strengthening of
19:56institutional capacities for a
19:58more expeditious response from the
20:00agencies of the asylum system, both
20:02administrative and judicial, it is
20:04decreed that the most convenient thing is to
20:05restrict access to the system and the
20:07guarantees of due process to those who
20:09manage to make an
20:11asylum request, despite everything. Let us remember that we are
20:14talking about situations in which, if
20:15a case is resolved poorly, the
20:18security, freedom and even the life
20:20of the applicant may be in danger. As an
20:22organization based on faith, we share
20:25with the other organizations that are
20:26here today the commitment to
20:28human dignity, especially of those who are
20:30forced to flee their
20:33countries. For this reason, we want to remind those who
20:35have arrived in Argentina with
20:37the hope and the legitimate right to
20:39rebuild their life projects free
20:41from persecution, widespread violence,
20:43foreign aggression,
20:45internal conflicts and the massive violation of
20:48Human Rights. These are not just numbers,
20:50much less threats. These are, for
20:52example, women, girls and families,
20:56who, in addition to persecution, are subject
20:59to
20:59stigmatization, and are wrongly accused of being persecuted. based on
21:02gender stereotypes of mothers and
21:04fathers seeking to protect their children
21:06from a war they did not decide, of
21:09young people with biographies cut short by
21:11persecution in their countries of origin, of
21:13women survivors of various forms of
21:15violence so prevalent in our
21:17region, of people persecuted for their
21:20gender expressions and identities, what
21:22should be a path of protection
21:24and hope in Argentina is
21:26becoming a labyrinth of
21:29uncertainty, those same people who
21:32could be here today giving an account of their
21:34own situation have begun to feel
21:36fear in the face of a government that has not
21:38hesitated to publicly expose cases of
21:41people seeking asylum,
21:43whom it should treat
21:45confidentially, they have even
21:48expressed their concerns to us about the
21:49emergence of a hostile environment, both in
21:52official speeches and narratives
21:54as well as in the measures that are actually being
21:57taken, finally, it is alarming that
22:00this unfounded narrative serves as
22:02justification for the
22:05hardening of policies that violate
22:07the right to asylum and
22:09international protection, instead of guaranteeing
22:12access to fair and
22:13efficient procedures, restrictive measures are being promoted
22:16that can lead to
22:19systematic violations of the
22:20rights of the people we are seeking
22:22protect for all this we ask this
22:25illustrious commission to urge the State to
22:27base its policies and
22:29practices on the principle of non-
22:31discrimination to guarantee
22:33broad consultative processes and to review the
22:36modifications made to the
22:37asylum system to comply with its
22:40international obligations. In addition, we request that
22:43the commission make a visit to the country
22:45in which it can listen to the voices of
22:47refugees and
22:49civil society organizations to
22:51evaluate the setbacks and make
22:54recommendations. Finally, we ask
22:56the commission that in order to better understand
22:59the impact of this situation, it make
23:01contact with refugee and asylum-seeking individuals and families
23:05affected by state measures and
23:07with the public defense specialized
23:10in the subject. We are available
23:13to provide you with
23:15the necessary information on the cases in a confidential manner
23:17and to articulate communication. Thank
23:23you very much, thank you very much
23:26to him and to each of the people who have
23:29intervened to eh In this space
23:33eh express their arguments and
23:36rationale. Continuing with the hearing,
23:39I am going to transfer the floor to the State for
23:42a period of 20 minutes, please go ahead.
23:58Good morning, your commission, Dr. ba.
24:01Are you
24:06connected? No, I don't see you connected. You are
24:10connected but you don't have the
24:17audio. Doctor If you could connect your
24:20audio to make the pertinent observations, they
24:44are listening to me, we are
24:45listening to you and we are watching.
24:47Thank you very much, Doctor
24:51Baños, they are listening to me there, go
24:54ahead, please. I do not want to
24:58make this introduction long
25:01to avoid these
25:04audio problems that I am having on
25:05behalf of the Argentine State, the
25:08head of the cabinet of the cabinet unit
25:11of advisors of the Ministry of Justice,
25:13Dr. María Florencia Sio, is the one who is
25:16going to take the floor and respond to the
25:19position of the petitioners.
25:24Well, thank you very much. Good morning to all,
25:27thank you. Well, preliminarily, I want to
25:31express my concern for the
25:33position that the
25:35Inter-American Commission on
25:37Human Rights has adopted for months against the public policies of
25:40this government. No, it is not idle to say that
25:43the POAC commissioner was the
25:45deputy director of the CELS center that
25:48permanently promotes this type of hearings
25:50and that they are admitted without further delay in
25:53time. No, I am not an official or a
25:56person who looks back or to the
25:57side but who manages. But in
26:00this case, the
26:02disproportion between the hearings, the
26:05requests for reports and the communiqués,
26:09eh, comparatively with the last two
26:12governments, is so evident that it has called me to reflection.
26:14about the motivation and the
26:16reasonableness and proportionality of the use
26:19of the tools that can be used
26:21to safeguard Human Rights eh
26:24Because basically if we look at the
26:26main function of the commission, which is to
26:28promote the observance and
26:30defense of human rights on a
26:32permanent and uninterrupted basis,
26:35here a disquisition is generated in me,
26:38which is about the use of resources, which was
26:40almost nil during the two
26:43previous administrations. And which now seems to have been
26:46disproportionately sparked in the
26:48government headed by President
26:50Javier Miley. This reflection in itself eh It is not
26:54limited to a quantitative question eh
26:56But my alarm also goes off
26:58because to generate disquisitions and
27:01open a debate or eventually
27:02request a hearing with such ease,
27:05one must lead by
27:08example, and in particular, the
27:11aforementioned commissioner was in
27:14charge of the general directorate of
27:15Human Rights in the
27:17Public Prosecutor's Office for 4 years between 2015 and
27:202019, she was undersecretary for protection and
27:22international liaison for Human Rights.
27:25And as of, I believe, June 2020 eh She was a
27:28member of the National Commission for
27:30Refugees on behalf of the
27:32Ministry of Justice. And at this point it
27:34is not idle to say that during
27:37those 8 years of her management in
27:39public office, the only thing that reigned in
27:42Argentina in terms of asylum was
27:45the non-observance of Human Rights
27:47as advocated by the San José de Costa
27:49Rica Pact, such as equality before the law,
27:52judicial protection, the principle of
27:55legality and non-retroactivity.
27:58In Argentina, we have
28:00a general law for the recognition and
28:01protection of refugees, which is Law
28:0426165, which was passed on
28:06November 8, 2006, which has been lacking regulations for more than
28:1020 years, which is an
28:14essential element, as everyone
28:16knows, to establish the
28:18rules that allow for a good execution
28:21of the Norm, and which neither the commissioner nor
28:23any of the requesting associations
28:25managed to get passed. We had
28:35cases of
28:37asylum applications without any type of
28:40administrative treatment for more
28:42than 10 years until I took over the National Commission for Refugees, which I represent on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. eh with a clear choice of
28:45the nationalities that were being
28:46dealt with in order to make decisions on whether
28:49or not to issue them with judicial processes
28:52without deadlines whose duration ranged from what
28:55the Dn regulations say
28:58between four and seven years if that is
29:00judicialized so that the
29:02administrative resolution would become firm eh
29:05during that time no
29:07type of strengthening of the
29:09judicial power was promoted in terms of the operationalization
29:11of a specific jurisdiction or the
29:13training of the jurisdiction in
29:15knowledge on asylum or
29:17migrants
29:18eh And their applicants were abandoned in
29:21the immigration issue because they were not
29:24given legal security and were only
29:28supported by the principle of non-refoulement
29:30which was distorted by these same
29:32associations that boast of defending
29:34human rights allowing
29:36foreign persons who did not have a well-
29:39founded fear in the terms of the
29:40convention on the status
29:43of refugees of
29:441951 and its
29:471967 protocol to take refuge in the country altering
29:50the pillars of the convention of the
29:53aforementioned norms and of the
29:55Constitution itself the norms it is important to
29:57emphasize Carlo and now I am going to to enter into
30:00the points that have been referred to us are
30:03instruments, they are not
30:05political instruments but rather they are tools that have to be
30:07available to
30:08society to obtain responses in accordance with
30:11the Constitution, with transparency and within
30:13reasonable time frames, taking into account its
30:16interpretation in accordance with the times
30:18and current conditions. This emanates
30:20from the precedents of the
30:22Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The
30:24specific protection of people
30:26who have had to flee their homes due to
30:28persecution, violence,
30:30serious violations of
30:33human rights or conflicts must obtain
30:36international protection
30:39through the request for asylum but
30:42with administrative procedures and with
30:44expedited judicial processes with
30:47administrative bodies that do not put
30:49the causes to sleep and that choose them but rather
30:51resolve them and with the guarantee of non-
30:54refoulement in cases where it is
30:55proven that in their country
30:58their life or freedom is at risk. That is not
31:02distorting or politicizing the right to
31:05asylum and this
31:07government, from the beginning of the
31:09management, has been working
31:11hard, either through the
31:13sanction of the two decrees mentioned
31:16as in the imminent regulation of
31:18the law.
31:1926165 and updating the
31:23unjustified delay of thousands of
31:25asylum application files that
31:28people like the commissioner and the
31:30participating associations and
31:32applicants here turned a deaf ear to and for
31:35a period of 4 years or more forgot to
31:38protect the protection of the
31:40applicants, their right to obtain a
31:43solution within a
31:46reasonable time and the only thing they are doing
31:49at this moment is asking for hearings
31:51based on the public policies that are being carried
31:53out that are in accordance with
31:55the convention and the guidelines of
31:57the constitution
31:58eh warning of this framework of
32:00irregularities that I did not want to fail to
32:03mention eh I will proceed to provide
32:06specific responses to the
32:08requests made
32:09eh the Inter-American Commission calls on the
32:13Argentine State to participate in this
32:15hearing relative to what they
32:17call risks to the protection of
32:19the rights of refugees
32:21and asylum seekers in Argentina
32:24and by the note by which the
32:27call was made it was made known eh that this
32:29hearing was requested by caref by
32:32the Jesuit migrant service and
32:34by the center for legal and
32:36social studies by virtue of what they
32:38also call regressions of the
32:39rights of refugees eh and
32:42asylum seekers in Argentina
32:45perhaps prior to exposing the observations
32:47to the presentation made by the
32:49aforementioned organizations it seems prudent to me to
32:51make a disquisition regarding the
32:54denomination given the reference of the
32:56present hearing, that is to say, what they
32:58call risks for the protection of the
33:00rights of refugees eh
33:03This does not correspond with the reality eh of
33:06our country in protection of the
33:07rights eh and of
33:09asylum seekers the protection of
33:11refugees is a priority issue for
33:14the Argentine Republic and constitutes a
33:16state policy that is reflected in
33:17our normative complex and in our
33:19daily management eh Argentina has been
33:22supporting the initiatives eh at a
33:25global level in matters of
33:27international humanitarian law of
33:29international refugee law with the
33:31objective of maintaining the highest
33:32standards of protection If we enter
33:35eh into the facts in the
33:37official statistics emanating from the
33:39National Commission for refugees, a
33:42greater number of recognitions emerge than in
33:44previous years in
33:462024
33:4867.6% of applications were
33:51accepted and 58% of applications were
33:55denied in 2023, that is, in the
33:58previous administration, it rose to 33% in
34:022024. 2024 with the sanction of the new
34:05commission by the different
34:07ministries that make it up was the year
34:09with the greatest number of resolutions
34:12adopted without distinguishing nationalities
34:15but with the commitment that arises from
34:17law
34:1826165 of the convention of our
34:21functions and obligations and to
34:23treat and restrict all
34:25asylum applications. The
34:29organizations express their
34:30concern in relation to the issuance of
34:32decree 942 that modifies law
34:3526165. From what I can understand,
34:38they state that this decree modifies
34:40two major aspects of the regulations
34:42in force in the country. On the one hand, the
34:44causes for exclusion from
34:47refugee status, creating a more
34:49restricted system in their opinion and based on
34:51reasons of persecution of
34:53organized crime that represent a risk for them.
34:56For people with
34:58international protection needs.
35:00On the other hand, what they understand is that
35:02significant changes are incorporated in
35:04terms of procedure and access to
35:07justice
35:09and in relation to these manifestations it is
35:12necessary to highlight that the
35:15modifications introduced by the dnu
35:17are neither regressive nor violate
35:20any right this government is
35:22perfectly aware of the principle of
35:23progressiveness and operationalizes it in its
35:26regulations guaranteeing that the issue of
35:28Refuge is not used as a
35:30mechanism to evade justice but
35:32to protect the rights of
35:33people who really need asylum
35:36in Argentina it is worth clarifying that the
35:38causes of exclusion from the
35:40Refuge status are not created by Dn 942 but rather
35:44derive from the convention
35:45on the status of refugees of
35:481951 if we consider what
35:51article one states that the
35:54provisions of the convention will not
35:57be applicable to any person for
35:59whom there are well-
36:01founded reasons and there are three paragraphs that
36:04this article provides for article 9 of
36:082615 before the Reform established
36:11similar criteria what
36:13the decree of urgent need basically did
36:15is to specify and expand these
36:17criteria in accordance with
36:19international standards ensuring
36:21that Argentina does not become Refuge
36:24for persons who represent a risk
36:25to national security Here it is
36:28important to highlight that
36:29states have discretion to
36:32define the seriousness of a crime
36:33based on its social impact. On the other
36:36hand, UNHCR recognizes that there is no
36:38definition of a serious crime in
36:40international law and that its interpretation
36:42varies according to the legislation of each
36:44state. For example, the manual in the
36:48manual of guidelines on
36:49procedures and criteria for
36:50determining refugee status in
36:52section 155
36:54specifically establishes the difficulty of defining
36:57what is a serious common crime for the
36:59purposes of this exclusion clause,
37:01especially because the term crime
37:03has different connotations in the
37:05different legal systems. In
37:07Argentina, the penal scale of 10 years of
37:09prison or more receives a
37:12legitimate criterion to determine the seriousness of the
37:14crime since it aligns with the concept
37:16of very serious penalties recognized by
37:17UNHCR by virtue of the fact that crimes
37:20classified with sentences of 10 years or more
37:23in the penal code include both
37:25homicides and rapes, kidnappings,
37:28drug trafficking and crimes against
37:30humanity. This basically what it does
37:32is clearly demonstrate that the
37:34Argentina applies a reasonable,
37:36legitimate and proportional criterion to the seriousness of
37:38the conduct in comparative law,
37:41for example, the United
37:44States immigration and
38:00nationality law. It establishes in section 208 that a person may be ineligible for asylum if he or she has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. Basically, if one analyzes it in depth, there is no legal basis that validates that the decree in
38:02question alters law
38:0426165, neither in its bases, nor in its text, nor
38:07in its
38:08spirit. Continuing with the presentation
38:10made by the organizations,
38:13they express their concern in
38:15relation to the modification introduced
38:17by 942 in relation to article 50,
38:21which determines that in the event of receiving a
38:24notification of rejection, cessation or
38:26cancellation of the
38:28refugee status, applicants may
38:31have a period of 5 business days to
38:34file a direct appeal in order to
38:36request a review of the decision.
38:40Speaking of an illusory appeal, the
38:44assessment here, in reality,
38:46after a very in-depth analysis
38:49of the subject matter, is also in view
38:51of the imminent regulation
38:53of the law. 26165 that what this government is going to do in an
38:57integral way
38:59is
39:01to give an expedited course both in
39:04administrative and judicial headquarters to all the
39:06procedures of all people for the
39:08principle of equality before the law.
39:11Then this assessment formulated by
39:12the associations seems totally
39:15inaccurate
39:16eh as they arise from the
39:19recitals of the decree in question the
39:21excessive duration of the terms in the
39:23procedures constitutes a real
39:26eh prejudice for the applicant because it
39:29is true that the duration and here eh the
39:32administrative files the
39:35administrative procedures and the
39:37judicial files account for the
39:39veracity of the duration of between 4 and 8
39:41years eh in which the person requesting
39:45Asylum can obtain a
39:48definitive resolution regarding his
39:51definitive status as a
39:54refugee in in the country.
39:57This is the real situation. And here is
40:00where we have to focus on that it
40:02generated a legal uncertainty
40:05relative to that status and a
40:08violation by not obtaining a response
40:11within a reasonable period. It is
40:13necessary to repair at this point that
40:15all asylum seekers have
40:18the right to free legal services
40:20from the beginning of their application.
40:22that they can go to the commission for the
40:24assistance and comprehensive protection of
40:27refugees and applicants for
40:28recognition of
40:30refugee status of the general defense of the
40:31nation eh And that's good at that point
40:36because I don't want to go into detail in time
40:38but relatively to the questioning of
40:40the elimination of the
40:41administrative route for the review of
40:45state decisions, the modified article 50
40:48establishes that in case of rejection of
40:50cessation or
40:52cancellation, the applicant may
40:54file a direct judicial appeal
40:56that must be filed in writing,
40:58duly founded and with
41:01legal sponsorship, before the executive secretary of
41:03CONARE, which must elevate it to the court
41:05of appeals with jurisdiction within
41:0748 hours. The affectation of the
41:11measure of effective administrative protection does
41:13not exist. There is no
41:16violation of the measure adopted.
41:18What is being done is
41:20objective compliance with the principle of
41:22speed, which is mandatory and operational
41:24in administrative processes and which
41:26for many years. Unfortunately,
41:29asylum seekers have
41:32had to wait around 6
41:35to 10 years to obtain a
41:37firm administrative and judicial resolution with this
41:40modification, which is comprehensive. I reiterate that,
41:42along with the imminent entry into
41:44force of the regulations of Law
41:4726165, what is being sought is to
41:49speed up the deadlines and provide simplicity
41:51to the processing of procedures and
41:53processes within a reasonable period of time in
41:56order to avoid lawsuits for
41:58asylum seekers and
41:59refugees. However, it is
42:02important to emphasize that
42:05asylum seekers, according to the
42:07regulations that they themselves invoke, do not
42:09have any type of restriction
42:11as to the form and time they
42:13have to present the evidence they
42:15consider pertinent.
42:16Here I would basically mention the
42:20essence of the Giroldi ruling and the essence
42:22of the Ojeda Hernández ruling of our
42:25highest court to
42:28conclude that it is up to the
42:31legislator to decide whether or not a
42:33double instance is appropriate in this type of process,
42:35since this guarantee is not contemplated
42:37in a mandatory manner either by the
42:39Constitution or by treaties with
42:41equivalent hierarchy. And if we go to
42:45Comparative Law, the
42:47Eastern Republic of Uruguay in 18076 on
42:50Refugee matters provides for two
42:53administrative instances with effect from 1999 to 2001. and
42:55that if the request for
42:57Asylum is rejected, the Ministry of the Interior issues
42:59the expulsion resolution and
43:02a 30-day expulsion period is granted. In
43:05Bolivia, there is only one
43:08administrative instance, which is the
43:10appeal. If the resolution is
43:12confirmed by the foreign person, he or she
43:14has a period of 30 calendar days
43:16to leave the country. In Spain,
43:20Law 12 of 2009 provides for only one
43:23administrative instance, which is the
43:24appeal for reconsideration, which is
43:26discretionary, and one judicial route, which is the
43:29administrative litigation appeal.
43:32This is basically what I wanted to show, or with this, basically
43:34what I wanted to show was the legality and
43:37reasonableness of the decision taken.
43:40On the other hand, the organizations allude
43:42to the fact that the modification of the law is
43:43regressive and that, by virtue of the
43:45Rights at stake, it should have been done through
43:47ordinary means through the honorable
43:48Congress of the nation. Here, it is important to
43:51highlight what emanates from 99,
43:53section 3, which enables the executive power to
43:55issue decrees of urgent necessity in
43:57exceptional circumstances when,
43:59excuse me for interrupting you, the
44:00representative, the time has already run out.
44:02As there were connection problems, I'll give you
44:0530 seconds, a minute so you can
44:07close the idea. Okay, yes. I'm not going to
44:10answer
44:12all the points,
44:14eh.
44:17But, well, basically,
44:20we understand as a
44:23national state that the policies adopted in
44:26terms of protection of the rights of
44:29asylum seekers are
44:31constitutional and are consistent with the
44:34guidelines of the convention, eh. And what we
44:37're trying to do that hasn't been
44:39done over the last 20 years is to
44:41manage so that
44:43asylum seekers can receive their rights. And this is
44:45important, and I'm going to take a second
44:47because I think I had made a
44:48note regarding something that had been
44:51said about the stigmatization of
44:53discrimination and the scope of the
44:55measures adopted by this government here,
44:57eh. No, there is no stigmatization.
45:00Basically, what we're looking for is to protect
45:02the rights of people who
45:04really come with a well-founded fear of
45:06Argentina and who need, within the framework of
45:09their applications, to have a
45:11prompt response and to have all the tools
45:13open and within reach to obtain a
45:16decision from an organ that does not decide
45:20which nationality it provides or does not provide a
45:22response to, and to have a judicial power that
45:25in a reasonable period of time can resolve their
45:28requests by providing and providing
45:31legal security to their situation
45:33and I think that is all.
45:37Thank you very much, thank you very much, we have taken note of
45:41the presentation made by the state. We
45:44will continue with the agenda and I
45:47welcome the representative of Abnur,
45:50Mr. José Cever, eh, will have,
45:54according to what I have
45:57structured in the agenda, 7 minutes for his
45:59intervention. Please go ahead.
46:03Thank you very much, eh, your
46:06excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
46:07commissioners, your excellencies,
46:11members of the delegation of the
46:13Argentine Republic, Madam
46:16Executive Secretary, ladies and gentlemen,
46:18representatives of civil society. Ah,
46:21we thank the commission for this
46:23invitation and our presentation will
46:27address four eh points. Ah, first of
46:31all, Ah, we want to emphasize that eh, the
46:34safeguarding of the legitimate security interests of states and the protection of refugees are not mutually exclusive issues, but rather fully compatible. It is possible to guarantee access to international protection while preserving the integrity of asylum systems and addressing the legitimate
46:37security concerns Ah of states in this regard. Ah, from the point of view of the Commission, we would like to express our gratitude to the Commission ... express our gratitude to the Commission for this invitation and our presentation will address four eh points. Ah, first of all, Ah, we want to emphasize that eh, the safeguarding of the legitimate security interests of states and the
46:39protection of refugees
46:42are not mutually exclusive issues, but rather
46:46fully compatible. It is possible to
46:49guarantee access to
46:52international protection while
46:54preserving the integrity of
46:56asylum systems and addressing the legitimate
46:58security concerns Ah of
47:01states in this regard. Ah, from the point of view of the Commission, we would like to express our gratitude to the Commission for
47:05from the view of the unhcr all
47:07measures aimed at
47:09state security must always be based on the
47:12recognition that
47:14refugees are fleeing persecution,
47:17violence, armed conflicts,
47:20including those acts that could be
47:23classified as terrorism,
47:27refugee law provides mechanisms
47:30that allow the identification of
47:32those who participate in these activities, it
47:35establishes the exclusion of
47:37refugee status when appropriate and does not
47:40necessarily prevent the application of
47:43criminal procedures. Ah, extradition
47:46or expulsion, we are then talking about
47:50different tools such as the
47:53exclusion clauses provided for in the
47:5551 convention, one is the figure of
47:58cancellation, the figure of extradition,
48:01as well as expulsion, however
48:05here I want to refer
48:08particularly to in specific relation to
48:10exclusion, the primary purpose of
48:14this clause of this figure is to deprive,
48:18always individually,
48:20those guilty of atrocities,
48:23serious common crimes, of the
48:25international protection that is normally
48:28provided to refugees,
48:31thus preventing the abuse of the institution
48:34of asylum to evade
48:36accountability before justice, however, the
48:40reasons for exclusion are
48:43exhaustively listed in the 51 convention
48:47And although these reasons are always
48:50open to interpretation, they could not be
48:54complemented or modified with
48:57additional criteria if there is no
48:59international convention in this
49:03regard, finally, the standard of proof
49:05established by the convention refers
49:08to the well-founded reasons for considering that in
49:12order for the
49:15exclusion to be applicable, and eh, for applicability,
49:18we must always have a broader threshold
49:21than mere suspicion, mere
49:23distrust, and it must always be more
49:27than a balance of probabilities. In
49:30relation to
49:32cessation, the statement of cessation is
49:35also exhaustive in the
49:3951st convention. And therefore, it must be interpreted
49:43restrictively, and
49:45other causes cannot be adduced by analogy to
49:49justify the deprivation of
49:51refugee status, since the application
49:53of the cessation clause operates in
49:56effect as a formal loss of
49:59refugee status. In conclusion,
50:02all these tools, all these
50:05measures that make the protection
50:07of the refugee person compatible
50:10with the legitimate
50:12security concerns of the State,
50:15must be essential to the
50:19observance of the minimum guarantees of
50:22due process. This implies that any
50:25decision related to these
50:27tools must be adopted with due process. based
50:30on fair impartial procedures
50:33ensuring the right of the
50:35affected person to be informed in a clear
50:37and timely manner of the reasons for the
50:39decision to have
50:42adequate legal assistance to present evidence in his or her
50:44defense and to access an effective remedy
50:48before a competent and
50:51independent authority the application of all
50:54these tools should not be
50:57done in an arbitrary
50:59or discretionary manner but in accordance with the
51:02principles of legality necessity and
51:06proportionality in strict adherence to
51:08international standards of both
51:11international refugee law and
51:14international human rights law
51:17but a third point
51:20refers to the fact that the
51:23human right to seek and receive asylum
51:25as provided for in the
51:27American Convention on Human Rights imposes
51:30specific obligations on States
51:33among these obligations we speak of
51:35respect for the principle of non-refoulement
51:38access to a procedure that is fair
51:40and efficient for determining
51:42refugee status and
51:45minimum guarantees of due process that includes
51:48the right to an appeal with
51:52suspensive effect both the inter-
51:56American court and the
51:57Inter-American Commission have highlighted that the
52:00violation of any of these
52:02minimum guarantees of due process in
52:04the framework of the procedures to
52:06determine refugee status as well
52:10as in administrative
52:13expulsion procedures, the extradition process or
52:16any other process that involves the
52:18forced return of a person could constitute
52:21a violation of the principle of non-
52:24refoulement, so we consider
52:26from the UNHCR the importance of
52:29the suspensive effect of appeals
52:32within the framework of the procedures to
52:34determine refugee status,
52:37which also functions as an
52:40essential safeguard to guarantee respect for the
52:43principle of non-refoulement. Finally,
52:48when we talk about and regarding the
52:50establishment of
52:52differentiated processes as a
52:55legal tool that allows for the
52:58rapid and efficient processing of
53:01asylum seekers, it is extremely important and the UNHCR
53:04has called on States in
53:07the region so that they can evaluate
53:10what would be the
53:14differentiated modalities of processing cases
53:17for determining
53:20refugee status most appropriate for their
53:23specific context. Is it possible to
53:27introduce different modalities
53:30of processing cases? Sorry,
53:32representative, I am going to ask you to
53:34conclude since your time has run out.
53:36OK, so I
53:39was saying that it is possible to introduce of
53:42different modalities of
53:45case processing for different population groups and profiles
53:48we are talking about an
53:53ordinary regular procedure many states in the region
53:55have given simplified procedures
53:59accelerated procedures
54:02Ah that as we detail in the
54:06written document that we will present to the
54:09commission and to both the petitioners
54:12and the state involved in this
54:15presentation I finish by just
54:18reiterating that the unhcr remains
54:22available to provide national support and
54:25guidance to the petitioners
54:27to the State to this commission precisely
54:31on the implementation of these
54:34differentiated modalities of
54:37case processing so that they can
54:39then be adapted to the
54:42particular context of each one of the states
54:45Many thanks once again to the
54:47commission for this invitation and here we
54:50will be accompanying this
54:54hearing Thank you very much we take note of
54:57the intervention of the representative of
55:00unhcr we are going to move on to the next
55:04part of the hearing eh I ask please
55:06that an adjustment be made to the clock so
55:09that the commission has 15 minutes for
55:13its
55:14intervention I would like to begin in my
55:17capacity as rapporteur for Argentina
55:20by using the word
55:23Thanking all the people who are
55:26present today and
55:30have intervened on a very
55:32relevant in which it allows us as a
55:35commission to carry out a much more
55:38specific monitoring and to be able to listen to the
55:42position of both parties, both the
55:45state and the petitioning organizations. I
55:48would like to indicate that in the
55:52Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
55:55our regulations, specifically article
56:0017, establishes an obligation that
56:04each of the members of the
56:07commission must fulfill and that up to now, well, it has been
56:09fulfilled. This is my, I am beginning
56:11my second year as rapporteur for Argentina. I am
56:14going to allow myself to very quickly
56:17indicate the relevant part of the
56:20regulations, specifically article 17,
56:23numeral 2, which establishes that
56:26the members of the
56:28commission may not participate in the
56:31discussion,
56:33investigation, release or decision
56:36of a matter submitted to the consideration
56:39of the commission in the following cases and
56:42establishes two assumptions, the first if they
56:45were nationals of the State that is the object of
56:48general or specific consideration or if they
56:52were accredited or fulfilling a
56:55special mission as
56:57diplomatic agents before said State and the
57:00second assumption is if they
57:02had previously participated in any capacity
57:06in any decision on the same
57:08facts on which the matter is based or if they
57:11had acted as counselors or
57:14representatives of any of the parties
57:16interested in the
57:18decision in this case, in case There was
57:22some doubt about what was mentioned. I must
57:25indicate that as rapporteur for the country,
57:29Commissioner Pochaco has known about
57:32issues in Argentina and also about no
57:36case of a programming situation for
57:39a hearing, whether thematic or
57:42precautionary measure, and none of the
57:44instruments of Argentina. This is a
57:46decision that is always made in the plenary session
57:49without the participation of the commissioner,
57:51which is National of the country. I just wanted to
57:55leave what is established in this
57:59hearing. On the other hand, I would like to
58:03ask two questions that I am going to ask
58:06openly so that both the
58:08state and the petitioners
58:11can respond
58:13to them. The first question I
58:18have is in relation to the modification
58:23of Law No. 26,165.
58:27I would like to understand the
58:31procedure. How was it
58:33modified? It is a procedure that was
58:37given by some decree. It
58:40goes through Congress. It does not go through
58:43Congress. It is a decision of the executive and I
58:47would like to understand under the regulations of
58:51the State of Argentina. How is
58:55this modification given or if it is a project,
58:59let's say
59:00pending, that is on some
59:04additional modification that they want to
59:06make to this decree. That would be the
59:08first question I
59:10have. The second question, which I also ask
59:13openly, although
59:16both parties have already referred to it in some way,
59:21is what measures are
59:24considered
59:27to ensure that in the
59:30application of the regulations that are currently in
59:33force in Argentina, a
59:36Human Rights approach is respected, let's say,
59:40knowing
59:42that the
59:46international protection of refugees is compatible with the
59:49national security mechanisms in that
59:52procedure.
59:53How is it done in practice to
59:57be compatible? And to respect the
01:00:01Human Rights approach
01:00:03specifically in the application of this
01:00:05regulation in its current text, which is
01:00:08Law 26,1665 today? Those would be the two
01:00:13questions that I have.
01:00:15In the format that we have, when
01:00:18the commission finishes asking its
01:00:20questions, I will mark the time that
01:00:23each of the parties has to
01:00:25respond, but I anticipate that if there is not enough
01:00:28time to answer all the
01:00:30questions, they can send us in
01:00:32writing any extensions to their
01:00:35answers if time is not
01:00:37necessary. So those would be the two
01:00:39questions. And now, eh, I ask
01:00:41Commissioner Roberta Clark if she has any
01:00:47questions. Thank you very much,
01:00:50Commissioner,
01:00:52Country Rapporteur for Argentina, and I
01:00:56join Commissioner Elon to
01:00:58say good morning to everyone in
01:01:01the bathroom, representatives of the Secretariat.
01:01:06representatives of civil society, the
01:01:09Jesuit society and our
01:01:14representative of the High Commissioner
01:01:17for
01:01:19Refugees is very important. How we
01:01:22treat refugees and
01:01:26asylum seekers is a very very
01:01:30active issue because everyone is
01:01:33mobilizing
01:01:35to
01:01:37flee
01:01:40organized crime and other persecution. I want to
01:01:45start by
01:01:48complementing what the
01:01:52commissioner said regarding the commissioner
01:01:56spent a lot of time
01:01:58talking about Commissioner Pocha that
01:02:01Commissioner Pocha mentioned the
01:02:04regulations sometimes there are violations of the
01:02:08regulations but this Rule is not
01:02:11violated by the commission and I
01:02:15want to
01:02:19say that she is very
01:02:21scrupulous and meticulous regarding
01:02:24article 17
01:02:26regarding this this procedure and
01:02:29also regarding the perception of the
01:02:33number of
01:02:36hearings regarding Argentina I want to
01:02:39say that the secretariat sent them
01:02:41information about the we have the figures
01:02:45on the decisions, the press releases,
01:02:49communications by
01:02:52the
01:02:54special rapporteur and for hearings the
01:02:58Cota, that is, the highest number of for
01:03:01hearings was in 2017 there were seven
01:03:04hearings long before
01:03:06Commissioner Poch joined the
01:03:09commission. I hope that the
01:03:11state's concerns in this regard have been
01:03:14addressed to its satisfaction and it is no longer
01:03:17a concern for the
01:03:20state I have two questions for
01:03:23civil society and two for the
01:03:25state eh for the representatives of
01:03:29civil society Excuse me I don't remember your
01:03:32name the person who represents the
01:03:34Jesuits I didn't catch your name but
01:03:37you said something that
01:03:39struck me that has to do with a commitment to
01:03:44human beings that people fleeing
01:03:47persecution should be
01:03:50able to lead a life free of I
01:03:56agree with that I think that is the
01:03:57spirit of what I am saying it is a
01:03:59moral
01:04:01and ethical or legal obligation is what I
01:04:05ask that obligation and to
01:04:08civil society what do you understand to be the
01:04:10principles used by the state to
01:04:12regulate the movement of people
01:04:14through its territory when
01:04:18seeking or requesting asylum or not that is to
01:04:22say in the modification In what way
01:04:27has that legal obligation of
01:04:31providing some access to asylum or
01:04:36refugee status in your country restricted in what way Which one do
01:04:40you consider is the space
01:04:42for the States all states
01:04:44have parameters for the formulation of
01:04:47policies what do
01:04:49you consider that the state of
01:04:52Argentina Where have you
01:04:56overstepped the limits to
01:05:00regulate
01:05:02and also in terms of restrictions on
01:05:05requests for
01:05:11refugee status is that it is about
01:05:13accused or convicted of
01:05:17serious crimes what is it that says only
01:05:21accused or convicted and to the states and
01:05:26also civil society eh the
01:05:29representatives of the State said that
01:05:31limitation from 15 days to 5 days for
01:05:36the appeal
01:05:38eh said the State is It is a way to
01:05:42speed up the process and not keep
01:05:45people in limbo so to speak in
01:05:47suspense about their when
01:05:50asylum is requested How does civil society respond
01:05:54to that that that
01:05:56expression of the State and
01:05:59also I endorse the question of the
01:06:03commissioner but more than that in
01:06:05relation to the decree and who could have been in
01:06:10the consultation on this this
01:06:13decree What were the were the
01:06:17criteria for organizations to
01:06:19participate in this process it was said
01:06:22that experts in and that were the
01:06:26experts in this matter were excluded
01:06:30in terms of the review and the
01:06:32public consultation that 26 165 How do you respond to that
01:06:37What were the criteria to include
01:06:40members of civil society in this
01:06:42process when reviewing this law and finally
01:06:47What were the
01:06:49reasons why it was opted for
01:06:53a decree instead of eh eh amending the
01:06:57law. Thank you very much, thank you very much,
01:07:00Commissioner Clar, I give the floor to
01:07:02Commissioner Gloria de
01:07:09Mes. Good morning,
01:07:13thank you very much, Commissioner
01:07:16Ron and the Republic, the representatives
01:07:19of the Republic of Argentina. I also join
01:07:23my fellow commissioners in
01:07:28welcoming both the state and
01:07:31civil society and the representative of the
01:07:36UNU at this hearing. I also want to
01:07:40endorse and emphasize compliance with
01:07:45article
01:07:4617 of
01:07:49the
01:07:51commission's regulations regarding conduct
01:07:56as commissioners or members
01:07:59of the commission. I
01:08:01emphasize that it be affirmed and I
01:08:08reaffirm the
01:08:10conduct of the commission in terms of
01:08:14hearings such as this one and in
01:08:17fulfilling its mandate. I
01:08:21have two questions. I have therefore listened to
01:08:25both the state and civil society
01:08:31in explaining the different
01:08:35modifications to the legal framework and
01:08:39practices when it comes to ensuring
01:08:42the rights of refugees and
01:08:45asylum seekers in Argentina
01:08:48today. I would like to know what
01:08:50measures have been adopted by the state to
01:08:52ensure due process
01:08:56in
01:08:58denying refugee status. and as
01:09:02for the
01:09:05suspensive effect when there is a denial a
01:09:09second
01:09:12question Regarding the
01:09:14professional and institutional structure, what kind of
01:09:20training has the state given to the person
01:09:23in terms of human rights and in
01:09:27particular international
01:09:30refugee law to ensure the
01:09:33rights of refugees and
01:09:35asylum seekers What is the
01:09:38training and what kind of training is
01:09:40given to those who handle and deal with
01:09:43this issue that have two minutes left and I
01:09:48give you the floor I return the floor to the
01:09:51president
01:09:55we will then move on to the final part
01:09:58of the hearing I will give 10 minutes
01:10:00to each of the parties there is a clock to
01:10:02which I ask you please adjust since I will
01:10:06be quite rigorous with the control
01:10:08of time so we begin with the
01:10:10petitioners 10 minutes please go
01:10:15ahead how are you well some
01:10:19clarifications based on the questions
01:10:21that have been asked to us
01:10:22the modification of the law was
01:10:24given through a decree of necessity
01:10:26and urgency that is an instrument for use
01:10:29by the executive but that should be used
01:10:31with absolute exceptionality eh the
01:10:34need to discuss the duration of
01:10:36administrative or judicial processes of
01:10:39no way it can be the axis of a
01:10:42declaration of urgency,
01:10:44urgent need that requires immediate measures, making it
01:10:47impossible to resort to the
01:10:49ordinary procedure of the laws
01:10:51eh currently in Argentina there are no
01:10:54circumstances of force majeure that
01:10:56prevent the members of the
01:10:58National Congress from meeting and discussing a reform of
01:11:02the law eh the considerations of the
01:11:05decree do not express the
01:11:09existence of urgent reasons eh the
01:11:12decree does not define in any of its
01:11:15instances nor in the
01:11:17grounds the urgency of these changes
01:11:21focused on the increase in
01:11:23asylum applications that in d from a request
01:11:26for public information that we made to the
01:11:28conare we can realize that this
01:11:30increase has been minuscule in
01:11:33absolute terms let's say we do not speak eh of 35
01:11:38cases of a number of of
01:11:40situations regarding the
01:11:42nationalities that you mention that are
01:11:44quite limited eh He also
01:11:47referred to national security and
01:11:49cites statistics of applicants
01:11:51from the Middle East making eh an
01:11:55express allusion to certain
01:11:59terrorist groups which we understand that it is
01:12:02absolutely stigmatizing and that this is not
01:12:04the framework in which
01:12:07these types of discussions should be incorporated
01:12:11eh Therefore, since there is no
01:12:15urgent situation, this should have been
01:12:16resolved in Congress.
01:12:18Civil society has not had a place
01:12:21to participate in any of the
01:12:23instances of the Reform, not even. In other
01:12:25words, it has not been possible to discuss
01:12:27issues that were expressed in the
01:12:29urgent decree, but
01:12:31also in what had to do with the
01:12:33inclusion of the Ministry of Security,
01:12:35CONARE, or with the designation of the
01:12:40people who
01:12:42were proposed as commissioners, who,
01:12:45as we have said, were challenged and the
01:12:48response was
01:12:51absolutely
01:12:54limited.
01:12:55Finally, with respect
01:12:59to one aspect that I would like to
01:13:02point out, which is the concern
01:13:04that in the State's speech,
01:13:06the expanded
01:13:08Regional definition from the
01:13:10Cartagena Declaration, which is part of our law, has not been mentioned
01:13:12at any time. This worries us
01:13:15because it can also be an indicator of
01:13:17the limited and restricted perspective
01:13:19regarding the definition of
01:13:24refugees. Finally, the suspension, eh,
01:13:28before an appeal, eh, only operates
01:13:31according to what we understand from
01:13:34the decree. Until a situation
01:13:37reaches the Supreme Court, eh,
01:13:40before the instance in
01:13:42the Supreme Court, the issue is resolved. The
01:13:45suspensive becomes ineffective, therefore
01:13:47a person could be extradited
01:13:49while the case is being
01:13:52discussed in that instance.
01:13:58Good morning, Commissioners, here Diego
01:14:01Morales, I can be heard well, excuse me, I am going to
01:14:03intervene at this moment to give
01:14:05some answers in relation to
01:14:08Commissioner Clark's question
01:14:12about what is the standard required by
01:14:16the reform of the DNU that we are bringing to this
01:14:19hearing. Reform 942
01:14:24significantly varied the original article 9
01:14:26decided by the Congress of the
01:14:28nation in
01:14:292006. It requires that there be well-founded reasons,
01:14:34and look. The regulation proposed by the DNU
01:14:39says that refugee status will not be recognized
01:14:41for
01:14:43foreign persons who are in any
01:14:46of the following situations. And then it
01:14:48says related to crimes, eh,
01:14:52related to crimes such as those
01:14:55established by the Geneva Convention and
01:14:57other crimes, which is the second point
01:15:00that I want to highlight in this
01:15:03intervention because the extension that
01:15:06makes the causes of exclusion.
01:15:08Unlike what the Argentine state said, they
01:15:10deviate from the
01:15:13UNHCR procedure manual, and this because
01:15:16because the incorporation of article 9
01:15:19includes crimes not of those very
01:15:22serious as defined in the
01:15:24convention,
01:15:25but also includes all those
01:15:28crimes that affect freedom,
01:15:30physical integrity, that affect
01:15:33property, that is to say, a series of crimes
01:15:38that are very extensive. And if we add to that
01:15:40the standard of proof that is
01:15:42required. Well, there we have a very
01:15:45particular problem, and returning to the issue of
01:15:47resources, something that the Argentine state did not say is
01:15:50that
01:15:53the administrative one was effectively eliminated and the
01:15:57comparisons that it makes with other states
01:15:59or with other countries do not include the
01:16:02possibility or the effective judicial recourse
01:16:04or the effective judicial review
01:16:07of those decisions. So what
01:16:09interested us is that it is
01:16:11compared with other rights or other
01:16:13procedures that exist in Argentina.
01:16:15The Refuge procedure is the only one that does not
01:16:18have administrative protection and
01:16:20judicial protection is exclusively
01:16:23limited to those 5 days, it is understood. That is
01:16:26the point. Thank you very much.
01:16:30Well, regarding the
01:16:33security situation, something that the
01:16:36representative of UNHCR also mentioned. The right to
01:16:38asylum and security are not exclusive.
01:16:40Given that international instruments
01:16:42such as the
01:16:441951 convention already include exceptions to exclude
01:16:47people who represent a threat
01:16:49to security, such as those who
01:16:51have committed war crimes. or
01:16:53serious crimes and further tightening these
01:16:56provisions could weaken
01:16:57international protection without providing
01:16:59greater security with respect to the
01:17:02exclusion clauses. We understand that
01:17:05given the serious consequences that
01:17:06the application of the exclusion clauses can have for the person, it
01:17:08must
01:17:09always be evaluated in a restrictive manner and
01:17:12with great
01:17:13caution with a view to
01:17:15prioritizing international
01:17:17human rights law and
01:17:18international refugee law. We
01:17:21understand that the State has overstepped
01:17:23its limits by interpreting the
01:17:26exclusion clauses that come directly
01:17:28from the Geneva Convention. That is to say, from
01:17:30an institute that is exhaustive and that by
01:17:32definition is
01:17:34exceptional with respect to the number of
01:17:36recognitions mentioned by the
01:17:38State representative. We understand that
01:17:41this cannot be analyzed in
01:17:43isolation. Since the
01:17:45criterion by which a case is
01:17:47presented to CONARE for
01:17:49resolution is unknown and the treatment of cases
01:17:51is always carried out according to the
01:17:54agenda determined by the
01:17:56presidency. And we understand that
01:17:59although the
01:18:01majority of the cases treated were resolved favorably, the
01:18:02number of cases resolved remains
01:18:04low. The most significant number of
01:18:07resolutions was given by application of
01:18:09expirations and not by analysis of the
01:18:12cases as indicated by
01:18:14international standards eh And regarding the
01:18:16terms, simply add that the
01:18:18terms only get worse for people
01:18:21while the historical delays to which
01:18:22the state refers are not a
01:18:25responsibility of the
01:18:26asylum seekers but of the lack of agility of
01:18:28the mechanisms that in any case should
01:18:30eh be improved and strengthened. There are
01:18:33other management measures and improvement of
01:18:36the procedures that would contribute to
01:18:38reducing these terms without affecting the
01:18:40defense of the
01:18:48applicants. Well, to answer
01:18:52Commissioner Clark eh
01:18:54with respect to whether that argument
01:18:57has to do with eh moral
01:19:00or legal issues, both eh. I speak from
01:19:04a eh morality and a spirituality
01:19:07from our faith but that is embodied in
01:19:09a legal framework that is contemplated
01:19:11both
01:19:12in the 51 convention and in
01:19:15the Cartagena declaration that expands
01:19:18the concept of Refuge where Ah
01:19:20all these causes are standardized that I
01:19:22listed at the time that have to do
01:19:24with eh people who doubt eh freedom and
01:19:28security
01:19:29and due to
01:19:31widespread violence eh foreign aggression
01:19:34massive violation of human rights
01:19:36foreign aggression
01:19:38eh this while the declaration of
01:19:41Cartagena with which what I argued
01:19:43has to do with the two certainly
01:19:45on the one hand the moral or ethical but that is
01:19:48embodied in our law thanks to
01:19:51Well of course with respect to what
01:19:55I would like to argue about what
01:19:59the state said that I think it is good that
01:20:02the conare has increased the number of
01:20:05recognition of the request for Refuge I
01:20:06think that is positive there is that there is no that there is no need to
01:20:10say no but that does not mean that
01:20:12we are pointing out that the
01:20:14modifications that are being made to
01:20:15the law do not seem good to us to have to
01:20:18interrupt Excuse me I regret having to
01:20:20interrupt you but we must finish
01:20:22here please can you not send it
01:20:24in writing and I will pass the floor to the
01:20:27state for 10 minutes ahead
01:20:29please Mr. Commissioner here Alberto
01:20:32Baños the Secretary of Human Rights
01:20:34Beyond giving the floor
01:20:36again to Dr. Siabo so that she
01:20:37can answer some of the
01:20:39questions eh And that what we cannot
01:20:43do in the time provided should
01:20:45be accompanied in writing I wanted to
01:20:47mention your speech to the
01:20:51reminder that you make us of the regulation
01:20:53that we know and we
01:20:55respect that
01:20:58the number of cases in which they
01:21:01have a certain or petitions or
01:21:03thematic hearings that according to the
01:21:05petitioner place the
01:21:08Argentine Republic permanently
01:21:11subject to hearings and to answer what it
01:21:14seems that no one who does not share
01:21:17a management goes to the
01:21:21Inter-American Commission, the complainants
01:21:24I anes say they are democratic they are not, they do
01:21:28not accept the popular will that has
01:21:30chosen a change of management, they do not accept
01:21:33a new government plan, they do not accept a
01:21:36new normative order, they do not accept that
01:21:39things are not as they say they have to be
01:21:42because of course they are the
01:21:45ultimate interpreter of the law and of what
01:21:48Human Rights should be, owners of
01:21:52the truth, eh,
01:21:54what we are dealing with here is
01:21:57any legislation, any Norm
01:22:00dictated by the Argentine state
01:22:02is automatically taken to the commission
01:22:06for a petition for a thematic hearing
01:22:08for violation of human rights and and
01:22:12this does not seem to be equitably
01:22:15distributed, I know of cases that they have
01:22:17or of petitions that have been going on for more than a year
01:22:20that have not yet been convened, eh,
01:22:25the Argentine state will respond to all
01:22:28the accusations that are
01:22:32brought to them, but taking into account that
01:22:35we are
01:22:36governed by the law, morality and the true
01:22:40we did not make a pact with any
01:22:43terrorist state that has attacked us the
01:22:45doctor will answer the
01:22:47questions that Ed formulated commission
01:22:56Thank you very much Alberto I agree with your
01:22:59words at some point I will respond
01:23:02succinctly to comply with the
01:23:04specific deadline of 10
01:23:06minutes in the first point the decrees of
01:23:08urgent need are dictated and
01:23:10directly sent to
01:23:12congress let us note there this is
01:23:15public knowledge that it is a
01:23:17constitutional power of the president of the
01:23:18nation and congress has at its
01:23:21consideration the ratification of the
01:23:24rejection of the decrees alluded to
01:23:27and So there is not there is not much more to
01:23:30say than that it is a legal mechanism
01:23:32that I know was used with the
01:23:35motivation that arises from the
01:23:36recitals and from what I previously stated
01:23:40and relatively to what was requested or eh
01:23:46evidenced by commissioner Clark eh there
01:23:49was no accusation against the
01:23:52Argentine commissioner eh I did not no no I did not understand or
01:23:55comprehend the reference
01:23:57eh I only alluded to the fact that she was director
01:24:00of the association that permanently
01:24:02convenes eh without any
01:24:05legal justification eh To all the hearings against
01:24:08all the public policies carried
01:24:11out by this government and which in turn remained
01:24:13silent eh During the previous four years
01:24:16of management in which, as
01:24:19can be documented, hundreds
01:24:22of files of
01:24:25asylum applications have been retained in
01:24:28administrative headquarters by
01:24:30discretionary decisions without due
01:24:32legal motivation, then That was the only
01:24:35reference I made because we are
01:24:38sitting here today in this talk at the
01:24:41request of the associations, among
01:24:43them the cels Hi poac has not ceased to have
01:24:47belonged to that
01:24:49association, on the other
01:24:51hand, civil associations eh It does not
01:24:55arise from any Standard eh that they have the
01:24:59obligation to participate in the
01:25:01elaboration of any law of any
01:25:03project eh Nor of any
01:25:05public policy in any matter eh In fact I
01:25:09can say without any doubt that
01:25:11their participation by default eh During
01:25:14the 20 years in which there was no
01:25:17regulatory decree of law
01:25:192615 generated eh the absence of that
01:25:23regulation so necessary for the
01:25:25effective protection of the rights of
01:25:27people eh asylum seekers
01:25:31eh And at this point it is important to
01:25:33identify that eh in line with the
01:25:36Secretary of Human Rights,
01:25:38associations did not identify at any
01:25:40time any particular case of
01:25:42violation or grievance eh
01:25:44relative to the modifications that
01:25:46are
01:25:47introduced normatively
01:25:49eh It is not minor to repair that since
01:25:53the new conformation of the
01:25:55National Commission for refugees was assumed, we
01:25:58had found files of
01:26:00terrorists with refugee processes from
01:26:018 years ago and there was no action on the
01:26:04part of the
01:26:09petitioning associations changes and and those changes
01:26:13in this government the only thing they seek is to
01:26:16give eh a situation of equity to the
01:26:19citizens and to preach for what the
01:26:22national Constitution and the convention say e
01:26:25So I do not have much more to
01:26:28answer than that those that those
01:26:30consultations the decrees of necessity and
01:26:32urgency and the delegated decree are
01:26:35clearly valid and are protected
01:26:38from what the congress of the
01:26:39nation decides and eventually the trials that that
01:26:42event that in which in which
01:26:44the pertinent legislation was challenged eh
01:26:47but at present and despite the
01:26:49passage of time since its
01:26:51respective sanction there is no
01:26:55case in which a Federal judge has
01:26:56decreed the unconstitutionality with
01:26:59which the cases are are being
01:27:01resolved
01:27:03expeditiously unlike what was happening so well that is
01:27:05all I
01:27:08have to report and I also
01:27:09remain available on behalf
01:27:12of the government for any doubts or
01:27:14questions that we can evacuate in
01:27:17writing in the
01:27:18future.
01:27:21Thank you very much very well thank you very much I
01:27:24also thank the State we took note
01:27:27and having reached the time that we
01:27:30had scheduled for this hearing
01:27:32and remind you please
01:27:35that we need or we are going to excuse me eh
01:27:40leave a space of time so that you
01:27:41can send us in writing the
01:27:44questions that could not be answered
01:27:46being a virtual session period, they
01:27:49have indicated to me from the press section that
01:27:51we would like to be able to take a photograph
01:27:53on screen of those of us who are present
01:27:56So I would ask you please to
01:27:58open your cameras and give us the guide eh
01:28:02Through the audio for that photograph
01:28:04Thank you very much I close this
01:28:06hearing and we meet for the photo
01:28:10only
01:28:12Thank you I am going to take the photo eh one
01:28:15moment please eh At 1 at two at
01:28:213 moment I am going to verify that it was okay I am
01:28:25going to take another just in case Okay one
01:28:28two
01:28:31three thank you