A/HRC/62/35 diffuse responsibility. Alongside the States concerned, a range of non-State actors are involved in the implementation of externalization measures, including international organizations, such as the United Nations agencies,92 and NGOs, as well as private entities such as technology firms, detention facility operators, security companies and private carriers.93 For example, deportation flights from the United States are frequently carried out through contracted private aviation services, often coordinated by companies acting as brokers for multiple carriers on behalf of the Government. 94 Building on the foregoing analysis,95 the present section examines potential avenues for redress at both the domestic and international levels. A. Domestic remedies 39. States are required, in line with their positive obligations, to conduct prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations, to hold those responsible accountable, and to provide redress for harm, whether caused by their own organs or agents or by private actors.96 In many legal systems, private entities may incur civil, administrative, or in serious cases, criminal liability, including where they perform public functions. Domestic courts have increasingly been called upon to assess externalization arrangements and related measures. In Costa Rica, the Constitutional Chamber found that migrants removed from the United States had been subjected to violations of their rights to liberty, information and access to legal counsel, and ordered their release.97 In Italy, courts have on several occasions refused to validate detention orders issued in respect of migrants removed to centres in Albania, finding that their countries of origin could not be considered “safe”, and ordering their return to Italy.98 In Australia, the Federal Court held that the authorities owed a duty of care to an asylum-seeker removed to Nauru and subsequently to Papua New Guinea for medical treatment, and granted injunctive relief. 99 In Eswatini, the High Court held that migrants deported from the United States were entitled to access legal counsel.100 At the time of writing, several cases challenging externalization measures remain pending before domestic courts, including in Ghana and the United States. 101 B. Responsibility under international law 40. Given the multiplicity of actors involved in externalization measures, questions arise as to the attribution of conduct and the allocation of responsibility where human rights violations occur. As discussed in the Special Rapporteur’s previous report,102 these matters are governed by the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, in respect of States, and by the articles on the responsibility of international organizations, in 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 GE.26-06322 Submissions from Brazil and from K. Allinson. Submission from Ecuador. Submissions from Human Rights Advocates and from the Kennedy Human Rights Center. A/80/302, paras. 49–59. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2 (1) and (3); and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 8. Sala Constitucional Protege Derechos Fundamentales de Personas Migrantes Deportadas a Costa Rica, 24 June 2025. A. Natale and F. Filice, Nota ai provvedimenti di rigetto delle richieste di convalida dei trattenimenti disposti dalla Questura di Roma ai sensi del Protocollo Italia-Albania, emessi dal Tribunale di Roma, sezione specializzata nella protezione internazionale, Questione Giustizia, 18 October 2024. Federal Court of Australia, Plaintiff S99/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, FCA 483, File No. VID 305 of 2016, judgment of 6 May 2016. See https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/eswatini-court-rules-first-trump-deportees-jail-have-rightlawyer-2026-04-10/. U.T. v. Bondi, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:20-cv-00116; D.A. et al. v. Noem, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-03135; D.V.D. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 25-1393, (1st Cir.); and see https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/11/11/explainer-does-ghanas-deportation-deal-with-the-usbreach-constitutional-procedure/#. A/80/302, paras. 54–59. 13