A/HRC/23/46 placing the migrants within the firm control of non-European Union countries, without the European Union providing commensurate financial and technical support for human rights mechanisms in such countries, thereby allowing the European Union to wash its hands of its responsibility to guarantee the human rights of those persons attempting to reach its territory. 59. This worrying shift of border control to other States is not accompanied by appropriate human rights guarantees. Emphasis seems to be increasingly placed on the capacities of countries to stop irregular migrants exiting their territories, rather than ensuring that migrants’ rights are adequately protected within a legitimate migration control process. (a) Capacity-building of foreign border control 60. One key way in which the European Union has promoted the externalization of border control has been through assisting with capacity-building for foreign agents responsible for border control. The Special Rapporteur heard of numerous programmes supported by the European Union for improving cooperation and training for coastguards, border guards and other government officials in countries of transit and of origin responsible for border control. 61. This is not to say that improving the capacity of countries in which migration management has not always been a priority is necessarily the wrong approach. To the contrary, effective training that emphasizes human rights as a core component of migration management can be an important tool for safeguarding the rights of migrants. In particular, better coordination and skills in terms of search and rescue operations at sea may have the fundamental effect of saving the lives of migrants at risk. Yet although increased search and rescue capacity in the Mediterranean is undoubtedly of paramount importance in order to save the lives of migrants in distress at sea, strengthening the capacities of neighbouring States coastguards may simply be an attempt to ensure that boats are not permitted ever to leave the territorial waters of that country, and to facilitate quick return of migrants aboard such ships to the territory of the State from which they departed. This is particularly the case where infrastructure that adequately respects the human rights of migrants does not exist in countries to which migrants are being returned. This preoccupation is reinforced by the fact that such policies have the effect of driving further underground attempts to reach European Union territory. Smuggling rings are reinforced, migrants are made more vulnerable, corruption is made more potent, exploitation more rife, human rights violations are more prevalent and graver, and ultimately lives may be more at risk than before. (b) Readmission agreements 62. The most favoured tool for European Union-wide cooperation with third countries on the question of irregular migration is readmission agreements. Such agreements aim to ensure the return of irregular migrants to countries of origin and transit. Importantly, European Union readmission agreements often include the additional obligation of being able to return third-country nationals and stateless persons to the country from which they entered the European Union. To date, 13 European Union readmission agreements have entered into force.22 63. In particular, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the negotiation and conclusion of these agreements, specifically as to how human rights guarantees are 22 Furthermore, readmission provisions are included in several other European Union agreements, including the Cotonou Agreement signed with 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). 15