A/HRC/38/41 These returns are often made without an individual assessment of possible risks faced upon deportation, at the expense of returning migrants and asylum seekers to countries where they risk serious human rights violations. They are thus contrary to the principle of nonrefoulement. 34. The trend towards the externalization of migration management to border countries by means of return and readmission agreements raises many concerns from a human rights perspective. Such agreements often lack not only a clear legal status but also transparency, culminating in a lack of accountability and human rights monitoring; 24 as a result, the human rights of migrants are frequently violated in such agreements. 3. Removal procedures and the principle of non-refoulement 35. When a decision to deport is not taken with due care — for example, following a comprehensive and effective assessment of individual risks — the return can lead to serious human rights violations, including refoulement. Even though most abuses and violations are committed in the context of forced returns, they are also suffered by migrants who opt “voluntarily” for assisted return. Persons can be subject to different types of risk, such as economic and psychosocial risks, insecurity and threats, and refoulement. 25 States may also use deportations to limit the duration of labour migration, making family reunification impossible and seriously hampering access to decent work, services and justice. 36. Authorities of deporting States should be aware of post-deportation risks;26 reports on the country of origin do not, however, often address such risks, or only do so to a very limited degree. Information of this type is essential for decisions on the granting of asylum and for the preparation of return processes. Furthermore, most Governments do not investigate what happens after people are returned to countries of transit and origin. Little information is in fact available about what the handling by State officials when deportees arrive; the impact of emergency travel documents on the security of deportees; the implementation of exit laws (which sometimes criminalize emigration in countries of origin and transit); or the fate of persons who have been returned to a country of transit rather than to their country of nationality.27 Travel documents that are incomplete or not recognized can have negative consequences for deported persons upon arrival in countries of origin, and emergency travel documents produced by the deporting State do not offer guarantees for their access to national identification documents, a situation that entails the risk of statelessness. Sensitive personal information (regarding for example the identity of the asylum seeker, criminal records, health or sexual orientation) should not be shared with authorities from countries of origin in order to protect the life, security and privacy of the persons concerned and their families. 37. The timely preparation of return processes and the presence of embassy staff or liaison officers from deporting States or from local non-governmental organizations can help to prevent abuses against deported persons upon their arrival. The time and place of arrival by air or land are also crucial to a person’s security upon return.28 Since returns may involve many hours of travel, migrants should have access to water and bathroom facilities, and not be constrained in their physical movement (for example, by the use of restraints). 24 25 26 27 28 Hassan, “Post-deportation risks under the EU-Turkey Statement: what happens after readmission to Turkey?”, European University Institute, Migration Policy Centre, November 2017. “Deported: human rights in the context of forced returns” (see footnote 10). Jill Alpes and Ninna Nyberg Sørensen, “Post-deportation risks: people face insecurity and threats after forced returns”, Danish Institute for International Studies, Policy Brief, November 2016. See also the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens adopted by the International Law Commission (Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/69/10)), which stress the importance of the principle of non-refoulement and human rights of persons subject to expulsions. See “Post-deportation risks: a country catalogue of existing references”, Stichting LOS, October 2017. For instance, the Governments of the United States of America and of Mexico signed local repatriation agreements in 2016 that prohibit repatriations along their common border between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., and include specific provisions for the safe repatriation of children and families. 9