A/61/324 which, in many countries, migrants and other non-nationals in administrative or immigration detention have only limited rights. This was pointed out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her remarks during the high-level panel convened in preparation for the High-Level Dialogue. 3 In numerous countries, migrants, often including unaccompanied and other children, can be held, sometimes for prolonged periods, in administrative detention without the State being obliged to present reasonable evidence that the person might escape or not comply with expulsion orders. The migrants have limited rights to challenge the legality of the detentions, which are sometimes subject to review procedures that are often not carried out by courts or judicial organs. This limitation of their right to liberty is considered as normal and routine, not as a measure of last resort, and is rarely the subject of debate. The result is that, in a number of countries, migrants in immigration detention may have more limited rights than persons facing criminal charges. 29. The discussion at the High-level Dialogue can be the occasion to confront the “deficit” of multiple rights — economic, social and cultural as well as civil and political, and the right to development — that is often at the basis of migration itself and which can accompany migrants throughout the whole of the migration process. It can begin with violations of their rights in their countries of origin, be they economic, social and cultural or civil and political rights; by abuse and violations in countries of transit, suffered in particular by irregular migrants who can be victims of violations by authorities enforcing border controls, or even of abuses such as extortion by such authorities; and finally in the countries of destination where migrants often encounter exploitative and abusive working conditions and discrimination. 30. To a certain extent this rights deficit can persist at the international level, as evidenced by attempts by some countries to limit the application of fundamental guarantees to migrants and the extreme reluctance expressed by many States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. 4 The relatively slow rate of ratification is also reflected with respect to the ILO conventions that directly deal with migration 5 and of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers. 6 31. In this context, it is important to recall that most of the principles contained in these instruments are also contained in a number of different complementary international instruments that have been widely ratified. Under those latter instruments, as a general rule, there can be no discrimination in the guarantee of the fundamental rights. A number of principles of customary law can also, of course, be applicable to the situation of migrants. States are therefore under the obligation to protect all migrants present in their territory from violations of their fundamental rights. __________________ 3 4 5 6 8 See http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/A2E8520F882D1F16C12571A2003514 067opendocument. The Convention had been ratified by 34 States as of 17 July 2006. The Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97) and the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143) have relatively few ratifications (Convention No. 97 has 45 ratifications and No. 143 only 19). In 1999 ILO carried out a General Survey on the question of ratification. See http://www.migrantsrights.org/ILO_report101199.htm. The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers has been ratified/acceded to by 9 of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe. 06-51782