A/HRC/38/41 expensive than forced removal, and do not require the approval of the country to which the migrant is returned.17 30. In general, the conditions under which migrants request assisted voluntary return do not allow for the return to be qualified as voluntary, as they do not fulfil the requirements of a fully informed decision, free of coercion and backed by the availability of sufficient valid alternatives, such as temporary permits for work, study or humanitarian purposes, or opportunities for permanent residence or citizenship. Some migrants request assisted voluntary return out of despair, to avoid deportation, or because they are held in detention — some indefinitely, because of slow and complicated family reunification and asylum procedures, the risk of becoming destitute, poor reception conditions or withdrawal of social support.18 The Special Rapporteur notes that States and other stakeholders who carry out returns under an assisted voluntary return programme to States that are not safe and in which migrants may face violations of their fundamental human rights may be in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. 2. Readmission agreements 31. Since the 1990s, there has been a proliferation of readmission agreements between destination countries and countries of origin and transit or readmission clauses in cooperation arrangements. These agreements constitute a means to overcome the practical and procedural obstacles to readmission that result when migrants are insufficiently documented and requested States are uncooperative. 19 They specify the obligation of States to readmit their own nationals, and often include conditions to readmit citizens of third countries. They also include a list of means of evidence requiring a requested State to recognize nationality, and an obligation to issue a travel document within a certain time limit. 20 There are concerns, however, that readmission agreements include clauses that facilitate the issuance of documents to returnees in exchange for incentives for third countries, such as visa facilitation, trade facilities and development aid.21 32. New informal deals or arrangements, also known as “flexible cooperative frameworks”, have flourished in recent years as most third countries are reluctant to engage in negotiations on readmission agreements owing to public hostility. Such arrangements have been criticized for increasing the legal uncertainty with regard to the terms of the accords, thereby impeding proper democratic accountability and judicial oversight, and diluting responsibilities and procedural safeguards. 22 33. The recourse to “safe third country” policies is another worrying trend. The aim of these policies is to allow for the rejection of protection of asylum seekers who have allegedly already found protection in a third country or who have travelled through a third country where it would have been possible to seek protection while considered “safe”.23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 many destination countries; for example, 83 per cent of cases of assisted voluntary return and reintegration facilitated by IOM come from the European Economic Area. See IOM, Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration: 2016 Key Highlights, Geneva, 2017. Katie Kuschminder, “Taking Stock of Assisted Voluntary Return from Europe: Decision Making, Reintegration and Sustainable Return – Time for a paradigm shift”. EUI Working Papers, European University Institute, June 2017. For instance, in the case of Australia, the option of remaining in Nauru or Papua New Guinea indefinitely and under conditions that amount to inhumane or degrading treatment, or to resettle in Cambodia through the assisted voluntary return scheme cannot be considered an option free of coercion (see A/HRC/35/25/Add.3). Nils Philip Coleman, European Readmission Policy: Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights, Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, vol. 16, 2008. Ibid. Caritas Europa, “Human rights and human dignity” (see footnote 4). See Jean-Pierre Cassarino and Mariagiulia Giuffré, “Finding its Place in Africa: Why has the EU opted for flexible arrangements on readmission?”, University of Nottingham, Human Rights Law Centre, December 2017. For instance, in the framework of the European Union-Turkey Statement, Greece may reject asylum applications of persons who passed through Turkey as being inadmissible and shift the responsibility of merit assessments to Turkey. See Maybritt Jill Alpes, Sevda Tunaboylu, Orcun Ulusoy and Saima