A/80/302 14. Another example of an offshore processing regime is the arrangement that was agreed upon by the United Kingdom and Rwanda. Under the terms of the deal between the countries, asylum-seekers arriving in the United Kingdom by irregular routes, in particular those arriving on so-called small boats across the English Channel, were to be relocated to Rwanda for processing of their asylum claims. In accordance with the memorandum of understanding that was concluded by the United Kingdom and Rwanda in 2022, successful applicants would be required to remain in Rwanda, while those whose applications had been rejected would be required to leave the country. 36 In 2023, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that Rwanda was not a safe country, because there was a possibility that people could face a “real risk of ill treatment as a consequence of refoulement to another country.” In response, the Government of the United Kingdom signed a treaty with Rwanda in which it is stipulated that people would not be sent onward to a third country, 37 and the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed an act in 2024 in which Rwanda is declared a “safe” country. 38 However, the deal was abandoned after the change of government in the United Kingdom in 2024. The arrangement raised concerns about the risk of indirect refoulement and the lack of individualized and fair assessment. 39 15. In November 2023, under a bilateral protocol, Italy was granted use of facilities in Albanian territory for the establishment of two migrant processing centres. 40 In accordance with the terms of the protocol, migrants rescued or intercepted on the high seas by the Italian authorities, in particular adult men from countries that are deemed “safe,” were to be transferred to those centres for a fast-track asylum procedure on the basis of the safe country of origin concept. Asylum procedures would be carried out under Italian law and the centres would be controlled by Italian personnel. In case of a successful application, the person was to be transferred to Italy. In l ate 2024, however, Italian courts ruled that it was illegal to channel migrants of certain nationalities into accelerated procedures and, as a consequence, detain them on the basis of the “safe country of origin” concept. Accordingly, the plans to use the centres for the originally intended purpose have been put on hold (see para. 21). These arrangement raises concerns about delayed disembarkation, unclear screening for vulnerability, risk of automatic detention and limited access to legal assistance. Indeed, although operating under Italian law, the arrangement would effectively restrict asylum-seekers’ access to the safeguards that they would otherwise enjoy in European Union territory. 41 16. In the United States, the Migrant Protection Protocols (also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy), which were in effect from 2019 to 2022, represented a form of the externalization of asylum-claim processing. On the basis of the United __________________ 36 37 38 39 40 41 8/23 Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-moubetween-the-uk-and-rwanda. Unsuccessful applicants, however, would have been allowed to apply for permission to remain on other grounds. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership to strengthen shared international commitments on the protection of refugees and migrants”, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656f51d30f12ef07a53e0295/UK Rwanda_MEDP_-_English_-_Formatted__5_Dec_23__-_UK_VERSION.pdf. United Kingdom, Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, available at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/contents. See communication GBR 9/2022 and the reply thereto. Available at https://odysseus-network.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Protocol-between-theGovernment-of-the-Italian-Republic-and-the-Council-of-Minister-of-the-Albanian-Republic-11.pdf. See communication ITA 3/2024 and the reply thereto, and communication ALB 1/2024. See also submission by Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione; and Kristina Millona, “What awaits for Italy-Albania migrant deal?”, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (20 February 2025). 25-12609