A/80/205 persecution. Detention in poorly equipped immigration detention centres often proves unsanitary, sometimes resulting in death. 51 Migrants in detention have reportedly been forced to carry out religious practices that were not their own and faced increased risk on account of their religion or belief 52 or other identity. 53 Converts, especially, face challenges in exercising their religions due to social and administrative factors. 54 33. Immigration detention centres often also ignore the religious dietary requirements of detainees, for example with respect to halal food and mealtimes in the light of religious fasting periods. In Mexico, however, under the Migration Act and associated policies, migration centres – set up to provide temporary accommodation for foreigners who cannot prove their migration status – can offer special diets to individuals who request them for religious purposes. In addition, religious associations that enter such spaces must offer their services for fre e. Implementation is lagging, however; in the north of the country, 76 per cent of the migrants participating in a survey noted that no meals based on religious preferences had been prepared. 55 34. Facilities for prayers and access to religious texts are also often denied. 56 Regular access to religious personnel (clergy) or religious services and visits to places of worship outside detention centres are also denied, even where laws prohibit interference with the religion or belief, or caste, of prisoners and permit detainees to fast, observe religious holidays and maintain “approved” religious books in prison libraries. 57 Places of worship, in addition to their religious or spiritual function, can serve as important spaces for intercultural and interfaith dialogue, along with practical support for migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees. 58 35. Further examples of such rights violations have been captured in regional human rights jurisprudence. In A.P. v. Hungary, numerous violations were found in which an Iranian Christian convert was subjected to indefinite detention in a transit zone under “jail-like” conditions, with limited access to food and deprivation of contact with the outside world. 59 D. Expulsions, credibility assessments and the non-refoulement obligation 36. Asylum-seekers fleeing human rights violations that are based on their religion or belief are required to make a credible case that it is unsafe for them to return, and, in general, to substantiate the individual risk that they would face in that regard. 60 In the most serious cases, the host State’s non-refoulement obligation is engaged. __________________ 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 10/23 See communication THA 2/2024. See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi -ga80/subm-freedomreligion-belief-cso-21-libya-crimes-watch.pdf. See communication THA 2/2024. Confidential submission. Migration Act of Mexico (2011), art. 107.II. See also www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi-ga80/subm-freedom-religion-belief-nhri-5-comisionderechos-humanos-cui-exico.pdf. See communications OTH 61/2018, OTH 60/2018 and USA 18/2018. Jail Code of Bangladesh, paras. 689, 691 and 698. See also www.mip.gov.cy/mip/asylum/ asylumservice.nsf/All/5BCEA8131FE27233C2258ADA002E8CBA?OpenDocument . According to consultation participants. See www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/echr/2024/en/149119. See https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-165442%22]}, paras. 91–98, 103 and 123. See also Thiago Alves Pinto, “Offence to religious belief and international law”, PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 2020. 25-11829