A/73/178/Rev.1 the courts without a prior administrative appeal. In such cas es, migrants have access to administrative courts, sometimes with the right of appeal to a higher court. Some systems provide for the possibility of access to the high court. Italy has recently established a special section on immigration, international protection and free movement of citizens. 31. Access to a judicial review of the detention of migrants and asylum seekers is also impeded by the elimination of procedural safeguards such as ex officio judicial reviews of detention orders and the poor prospects for a successful appeal against such orders while the person is in a detention centre prior to removal. 26 32. In recent years, some States have adopted reforms affecting the independence and effectiveness of the bodies that review negative asylum decisi ons. For example, in Greece, following the adoption of the agreement between the European Union and Turkey on 18 March 2016, the composition of the review body was amended, affecting the way in which it rules on appeals against decisions deeming applicatio ns for asylum inadmissible based on the “safe third country” concept. Derogations from the general rules of administrative procedures may also occur in the bodies that review asylum applications, to the detriment of applicants. For example, several countries have limited the range of circumstances in which a review is available to asylum seekers in order to expedite proceedings. 27 F. Firewall protections 33. “Firewalls” establish a strict and real separation between immigration enforcement and public services, meaning that immigration authorities cannot have access to information regarding the migration status of visitors to public services, and that the institutions responsible for providing such services are not required to investigate or share information on the migration status of their users. 28 These institutions include service providers in the fields of education, health, social security, social assistance and labour protection, as well as the police and the judicial system. As the only mechanisms that allow migrants to exercise and enjoy their human rights without fear of being reported to the immigration authorities, “firewalls” are an inescapable consequence of the State’s obligation to protect all persons under its jurisdiction against discrimination, in accordance with international human rights norms and standards. 29 34. The establishment of “firewall” protections is key to ensuring migrants’ access to justice. One of the reasons for their difficulty in having access to an effective remedy before the courts is their fear that their migration status will be discovered during the proceedings and that they will be detained and subsequently deported. 30 In this regard, “firewalls” allow migrants who are in an irregular situation and are afraid of being discovered and deported, or those who are in a precarious legal situation and afraid of ending up in an irregular situation, to report offences as either vi ctims or __________________ 26 27 28 29 30 18-15902 Submission by University of Texas School of Law, Human Rights and Im migration Clinics, Locking up Justice. Submission by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)/European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). François Crépeau and Bethany Hastie, “The Case for ‘Firewall’ Protections for Irregular Migrants: Safeguarding Fundamental Rights”, European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 17, 2015, p. 165. Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), General Policy Recommendation No. 16 on Safeguarding Irregularly Present Migrants from Discrimination, adopted on 16 March 2016 (2016), 16. A/HRC/26/35, paras. 19, 57, 100 and 103. 9/20