A/HRC/62/35 third country be able to grant refugee status is replaced with a more flexible notion of “effective protection”, and a country may be considered safe with the exception of certain regions or for specific categories of persons.27 Secondly, the current requirement of a genuine connection between the individual and the safe third country is weakened, and mere transit through the country, or presence at the border or a transit zone, may be deemed sufficient. Transit may not be required where an agreement or arrangement with the third country provides for examination of the merits of a claim for protection.28 Asylum-seekers may be transferred to countries with which they have no connection, raising risks of refoulement and chain refoulement, which are increased by weakened individual assessments and the limited suspensive effect of appeals. Overreliance on the “safe third country” concept may shift responsibility to third States and undermine access to asylum in the European Union. In contrast, the Council of Europe relies on stronger safeguards in its use of the “safe third country” concept.29 A parallel can be drawn between the European Union safe third country mechanism and the Dublin system, which allocates responsibility primarily to the country of first entry into the Schengen area based on a presumption of safety. In practice, however, this system has exposed applicants to risks due to deficiencies in some asylum systems30 and has effectively shifted responsibility between States. The system will be replaced in June 2026 by the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, which largely maintains this presumption. 2. United States: asylum cooperative agreements 13. The United States has reportedly concluded or reactivated so-called asylum cooperative agreements – a form of “safe third country” agreement – with Belize, Cabo Verde, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Paraguay and Uganda. 31 The United States may consider a person ineligible to apply for asylum in the United States due to the application of a safe third country agreement and, pursuant to the asylum cooperative agreements, remove asylum seekers – including those with cases already pending before its immigration courts – without a full examination of the merits of their claims. In the countries concerned, these individuals are expected to have access to asylum procedures; however, serious concerns arise regarding the accessibility, effectiveness and fairness of these procedures for persons removed from the United States. Between November 2025 and February 2026, nearly 9,500 asylum applications were reportedly declared inadmissible, with a view to transferring applicants to asylum cooperative agreement partner countries – approximately half to Ecuador and one third to Honduras.32 Among other concerns, practices under the asylum cooperative agreements risk undermining the right to seek asylum and may result in refoulement, arbitrary detention and the denial of due process. C. Removal to a third State 14. In externalization involving readmission or expulsion to a third State, the externalizing State removes an individual to a country other than their country of nationality. 33 Such transfers have traditionally involved transit countries. Recent developments envisage sending individuals to countries with which they have no prior connection (e.g. “return hubs”). In contrast to externalization involving extraterritorial asylum processing, these arrangements are often presented as applying only to migrants in an irregular situation, including persons whose asylum applications have been examined and rejected. In practice, however, they may well apply to individuals whose asylum claims have 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 GE.26-06322 Asylum Procedure Regulation (2024/1348), arts. 57 and 59. Safe Third Country Regulation (2026/463), art. 1. Submission from Council of Europe, Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law. Bayush Alemseged Araya v. Denmark (CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015); and K.J. v. Switzerland (CEDAW/C/91/D/169/2021). See https://www.thirdcountrydeportationwatch.org; and submissions from Fundación Scalabriniana and others and from the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello and others. See https://www.thirdcountrydeportationwatch.org/. A/80/302, para. 17. 5