A/HRC/62/35 B. Gendered impacts 32. Externalization measures can have gendered impacts, 79 affecting women, men and persons of diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics in different ways. Pre-existing gender inequalities render risks to human rights, safety and well-being particularly acute for women, girls and persons of diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, and may be exacerbated by externalization, increasing their exposure to gender-based violence, exploitation and abuse. Despite these risks, externalization agreements often lack mechanisms to identify and prevent gender-specific harm, including by ensuring access to gender-responsive and culturally sensitive healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health services, which may be unavailable, inadequate or even criminalized in destination States. 33. The externalization of migration control has coincided with intensified border controls, particularly in destination countries, contributing to increasingly dangerous and violent migration routes. These dynamics give rise to gender-specific risks and forms of harm: while men more frequently report physical violence, women and girls are disproportionately exposed to sexual harassment, violence and exploitation. During interception and at borders, migrants may face sexual harassment, extortion and coercion by State and non-State actors, including in the context of pushbacks that leave them stranded in unsafe areas with heightened risks of rape, kidnapping and trafficking. Protection gaps persist, including the absence of gender-responsive screening, of confidential reporting mechanisms for gender-based violence, and of effective access to asylum procedures. By restricting the access to safe and regular pathways, border militarization increases reliance on smuggling networks, where women and girls are particularly exposed to power imbalances, gender-based violence and exploitation.80 34. Removal within externalization frameworks may expose migrants to a risk of gender-related irreparable harm, both in the receiving third State and in any subsequent State in the context of onward removal. Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, States must not remove a person to any country where they would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of discrimination, including gender-based violence. 81 In K.E. v. Switzerland, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women found that returning a survivor of gender-based violence to a third State would violate the Convention, and emphasized that any removal must be preceded by an individualized, trauma-informed and gender-sensitive assessment of the risk of irreparable harm.82 States cannot thus rely on a general designation of a country as “safe” without assessing the specific risks faced by women and girls and others in need of protection, including in the light of intersecting forms of discrimination.83 Externalization measures may also result in migrants with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics being removed to contexts where same-sex relations are criminalized or where State authorities lack the capacity or willingness to ensure gender-responsive protection.84 In some documented cases, migrants with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics removed from the United States to third States were subsequently returned to their countries of origin, exposing them to a risk of persecution or torture.85 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 GE.26-06322 A/80/302, paras. 10, 13, 33 and 63 (a). Submissions from the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) and from Women in Migration Network; and see EuroMed Rights, “A gendered analysis of EU migration externalisations policies”, February 2024. A. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013), para. 9.8; and R.S.A.A. et al. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015), para. 8.9. K.J. v. Switzerland (CEDAW/C/91/D/169/2021), paras. 7.6, 7.7 and 9. Submissions from M. Gleeson and from AsyLex. Submissions from Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and from Refugee Council of Australia. Human Rights Watch, US/Africa: expulsion deals flout rights; and Cristiano d’Orsi, “The United States’ attempt to deport third country nationals to Africa: is this a mutually beneficial situation?”. 11