A/80/302 community, 90 and deportation flights from the United States are carried out by charter carriers. 91 46. In the light of the potential human rights implications of externalization measures, the obligation to comply with human rights standards and the principle of due diligence require that an ex ante human rights impact assessment be conducted before engaging with other countries. An ex ante evaluation of the human rights situation in the third country is essential to assessing whether the proposed cooperation can be implemented in a human rights-compliant manner. Such assessments play a crucial preventive role by identifying reasonably foreseeable human rights risks. 92 Once these human rights risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures, including legally enforceable and available rights for migrants and refugees, can be incorporated into agreements. Where human rights risks cannot be mitigated, compliance with human rights obligations may require suspending or terminating externalization arrangements until mitigation becomes possible. 93 Periodic human rights impact assessments are necessary to continually evaluate the human rights impact of externalization measures on migrants and refugees throughout the implementation of the agreement. 94 In order to be effective, human rights impact assessments should be conducted by independent actors. 47. Human rights monitoring enhances the protection of human rights, as well as transparency and accountability. Ideally, the national statutory human rights bodies of the externalizing and third countries would be jointly involved in monitoring. 95 The formal readmission agreements of the European Union are subject to monitoring by joint readmission committees, which are composed of experts and representatives from European Union member States and the third country and co-chaired by the European Commission and the third country. 96 The focus of Joint readmission committees, however, is on practical readmission cooperation rather than the respect of the human rights of concerned migrants. In an example of monitoring informal (non-binding) agreements, the European Commission piloted third-party monitoring of projects implemented in Libya and Tunisia under the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa. Concerns remain, however, at the narrow scope of monitoring, which is focused mainly on project implementation, the lack of clarity regarding follow-up, including mitigation measures, and the limited transparency that characterizes the monitoring itself. 97 __________________ 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 25-12609 Human Rights Committee, M.I. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/142/D/2749/2016), para. 9.8; and Australian National Audit Office, “Offshore Processing Centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea: Contract Management of Garrison Support and Welfare Services”, Auditor-General report No. 32 of 2016-2017, 2017. Indy Scholtens, “Which air carriers are positioned to benefit from increased deportations?”, Open Secrets, 12 May 2025. See Anna Talbot and others, “The gender- and sexuality-based harms of refugee externalization: a role for human rights due diligence”, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 36, Nos. 1 and 2 (March/June 2024), p. 67. See, for example, High Court of Australia, Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 32, Order, 31 August 2011, para. 135. European Ombudsman decision in case OI/2/2024/MHZ, paras. 28–29, 34, 39 and 41; European Ombudsman decision in case 1904/2021/MHZ, paras. 22, 26, 30 and 35; and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Planned return hubs in third countries: EU fund amental rights law issues”, 6 February 2025, para. 69. Ibid., para. 124. European Parliamentary Research Service, “EU Readmission Agreements”, briefing, 2015. European Court of Auditors, The EU trust fund for Africa: Despite new approaches, support remained unfocused (Publications Office of the European Union, 2024), paras. 48–60. 17/23