Phenomenon of migrants going missing or subjected to enforced disappearance: a human rights analysis

The present report is submitted to the fifty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Gehad Madi, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 76/172 and Human Rights Council resolution 52/20.

In the report, the Special Rapporteur addresses the ever-increasing number of migrants who go missing and who face preventable deaths and disappearances, including enforced disappearance, along migratory routes worldwide. In addition, the Special Rapporteur outlines the activities he has undertaken from October 2024 through March 2025.

The phenomenon of preventable deaths and disappearance of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are a tragic and largely underrated and neglected human rights issue. Policies and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation among countries of origin, transit and destination are urgently needed to effectively protect migrants and prevent their disappearance, including enforced disappearance. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) recorded that, between 2014 and 2024, more than 73,000 migrants have died or gone missing while migrating to an international destination, including nearly 4,000 children.¹ Many more such cases remain unrecorded and invisible.

1. See International Organization for Migration (IOM), Missing Migrants Project (https://missingmigrants.iom.int). ↩

Cases of migrants and refugees going missing or being subjected to disappearance, including enforced disappearance, can be attributed to various factors, including the lack of sufficient and accessible safe, orderly and regular migratory pathways because of increasingly restrictive migration policies and quasi-generalized levels of impunity.² The militarization, externalization, securitization and criminalization of migration prevents migrants from reaching their countries of destination in a safe, regular and legal manner, rendering asylum applications and further human rights protections out of reach.³

2. A/72/335, para. 10; and A/HRC/47/30, para. 44. ↩
3. A/72/335, paras. 10–12. See also definition of externalization in A/HRC/23/46, para. 55. ↩

Other factors include the often arduous geographical conditions encountered along remote migratory routes, with limited or no access to humanitarian assistance; lack of basic needs, such as adequate shelter, food and water; lack of access for those in need of medical care; dangerous transportation conditions; and lack of access to means of communication to call for assistance in emergency situations. Moreover, it is not always possible to identify or to repatriate the remains of deceased migrants owing to lack of adequate search and forensic identification mechanisms.

Migrants may also disappear as a result of immigration detention or removal procedures, including through agreements with third countries or through the use of deportation flights that fail to respect applicable procedural safeguards.⁴ Such procedures include: the systematic separation of families at international borders and in detention centres; collective expulsions without individual assessments of protection needs, known as “pushbacks”; and the lack of political will and/or capacity and possible delays in conducting search and rescue operations for migrants in distress, oftentimes at sea and in the desert.⁵ Migrants also disappear as a result of smuggling and/or trafficking, often by criminal groups, including, in some cases, with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State.⁶

4. A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, paras. 20 and 23. ↩
5. For the definition of international borders, see A/69/277, footnote 6. ↩
6. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023), para. 6. ↩

In the report, the term “migrants” includes all individuals who have crossed an international border, regardless of their migration status, to reside in a country for more than 12 months.⁷ It encompasses forcibly displaced persons, including asylum-seekers and refugees, as well as those compelled to move for other reasons, including economic, labour and climatic, whether through regular or irregular channels.⁸ Enforced disappearance “is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons of groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law”.⁹ As stated by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the “principal distinctive element between a migrant going missing and a migrant becoming a victim of disappearance is the commission of a crime against a migrant as provided in articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention”.¹⁰ Missing persons encompass a broader category than enforced disappearances, defined as persons whose whereabouts are unknown to their relatives or who, on the basis of reliable information, have been reported missing in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, a situation of internal violence or disturbances, natural catastrophes or any other situation that may require the intervention of a competent State authority.¹¹ The nature of the policies and frequent and deliberate omissions of State actors to prevent disappearances can, in certain circumstances, be construed as forms of acquiescence, classifying such disappearances as enforced disappearances.¹²

7. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration (Rev.1) (United Nations, 1998). ↩
8. A/HRC/56/54, para. 6. ↩
9. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2. ↩
10. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023), para. 4. ↩
11. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Guiding Principles/Model Law on the Missing: Principles for Legislating the Situation of Persons Missing as a Result of Armed Conflict or International Violence (Geneva, 2009), art. 2 (1). ↩
12. See A. R. Fischer and B. Duhaime, “The Purloined Letter”: Migrant Disappearances, Systematic Impunity, and States’ Risk Awareness”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law (November 2024). ↩

When migrants go missing or are subjected to enforced disappearance, their family members suffer anguish and distress as a result of not knowing their whereabouts or fate. This is documented in all cases of missing persons, not just enforced disappearances. Inadequate or deficient search and identification mechanisms prolong this state of uncertainty and effectively deny family members their right to know the circumstances of the disappearance, the progress or results of investigations and the fate of their relatives.¹³ The xenophobic, nationalist and racist discourses that stigmatize migrants as scapegoats for societal ills exacerbate a climate of fear and frequently prompt migrants not to report the disappearances, including enforced disappearances, of their loved ones or to pursue search operations and investigations, including criminal investigations.¹⁴

13. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), art. 32; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 24; and E/CN.4/1435, para. 187. ↩
14. A/72/335, para. 10. ↩

The report builds on the observations of previous reports by special procedure mandate holders and treaty bodies that have assessed the scope of the situation, namely by the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances in 2017, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances in 2023 and the recommendations submitted by the Secretary-General in 2024.¹⁵ The report further reiterates the objectives of the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, in particular objective 8 on saving lives and establishing coordinated international efforts on missing migrants, aimed at preventing migrant deaths and injuries. The Special Rapporteur welcomes positive changes by States in establishing mechanisms to prevent, investigate and sanction migrant disappearances. He notes, however, that the acuteness and gravity of the phenomenon, in particular the grave situation with regard to missing and disappeared persons, continues to this day.

15. See A/HRC/36/39/Add.2; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023); and A/79/590, annex. ↩

The Special Rapporteur welcomes the written submissions received from Member States, civil society organizations, international organizations, United Nations agencies, family members of the disappeared and victims in response to his call for inputs to the report.16 9 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2. 10 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023), para. 4. 11 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Guiding Principles/Model Law on the Missing: Principles for Legislating the Situation of Persons Missing as a Result of Armed Conflict or International Violence (Geneva, 2009), art. 2 (1). 12 See A. R. Fischer and B. Duhaime, “The Purloined Letter”: Migrant Disappearances, Systematic Impunity, and States’ Risk Awareness”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law (November 2024). 13 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), art. 32; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 24; and E/CN.4/1435, para. 187. 14 A/72/335, para. 10. 15 See A/HRC/36/39/Add.2; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023); and A/79/590, annex. 16 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/call-input-report-phenomenon-missing-migrantshuman-rightsanalysis?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0jlRd3nVy8Gs_Qs8fU1vujyRytcrMSzvyF8WT3JDF xGo--2cClzdc3Np0_aem_YT4YcNGg6dppwYvoRUq0EQ. II. Activities of the Special Rapporteur Country visits

The Special Rapporteur conducted an official back-to-back visit to Colombia and Panama from 6 to 19 February 2025. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Mauritania for agreeing to host his visit in September 2025 and encourages prompt agreement on the exact dates. At present, visits are subject to availability of funds, given the current financial crises at the United Nations owing to the lack of payment of assessed contributions by Member States.

On 12 September, the Special Rapporteur spoke the webinar on the human rights situation of migrants in vulnerable situations in North Africa, organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

On 21 and 22 October, the Special Rapporteur presented his report on protecting child rights in migration contexts to the General Assembly and participated in a side event entitled “Children are children first and foremost: Protecting child rights in migration contexts”.

Also in October, the Special Rapporteur participated as a panellist on a hybrid side-event co-organized by the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva on “Human rights of migrants in transit: the need for independent monitoring”.

In November, the Special Rapporteur participated in two panels at the 2024 conference of the Africa Chapter of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, held in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, on: (a) strengthening protection and solutions in the context of mixed movements of refugees and migrants and (b) legal and physical barriers to refugee protection.

The universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times.¹⁷ These rights are guided by the principle of non-discrimination, which is regarded as a jus cogens norm.¹⁸ Everyone has the non-derogable right to life and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their life.¹⁹ This right entails the duty of States to exercise due diligence to protect individuals from threats to their lives from non-State actors.²⁰ These threats may include dangerous geographical conditions, in circumstances where life-threatening situations may be foreseeable, even when those threats and situations are not caused directly by the State.²¹ The right to life further encompasses the dignity and protection of the dead and the right of families to the remains of their loved ones.²² The disrespectful treatment of human remains may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of the family of the deceased.²³

17. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, para. 4. ↩
18. Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, general comment No. 5 (2021), para. 32. ↩
19. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 6 (1); Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 6; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 10; and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 9. ↩
20. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), paras. 7 and 21; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Hacienda Brasil Verde workers v. Brazil (20 October 2016), para. 323. ↩
21. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), paras. 7 and 62; European Court of Human Rights, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, Application No. 48939/99, Judgment, 30 November 2004, para. 98; and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “‘Lethal disregard’: search and rescue and the protection of migrants in the central Mediterranean Sea” (United Nations, 2021), p. 7. ↩
22. A/HRC/56/56, para. 35. ↩
23. See Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012). ↩

Migrants should not be deprived of liberty for undocumented entry into a country.²⁴ If immigration detention is nonetheless implemented, it should only be used as a measure of last resort and must be continuously reassessed.²⁵ Migrants should be provided with effective communication channels at all times and have the right to obtain information as to the grounds of detention and accessible judicial remedies including to challenge the legality of the detention.²⁶

24. A/71/285, para. 87. ↩
25. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights at International Borders, Guideline 8, para. 1 (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/OHCHR_Recommended_Principles_Guidelines.pdf); see Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1324/2004, Shafiq v. Australia (CCPR/C/88/1324/2004), para. 7.2. ↩
26. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 17. ↩

Secret detention amounts to enforced disappearance, regardless of duration, including during transfer between detention facilities or during deportation, as well as in cases of deprivation of liberty by non-State actors with the support, authorization or acquiescence of the State.²⁷ Moreover, secret detention exposes migrants to the risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.²⁸

27. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 17; A/HRC/13/42, para. 28; Yrusta and Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013), para. 10.3; and Committee on Enforced Disappearances, general comment No. 1 (2023), para. 17. ↩
28. A/61/299, para. 27; and Mojica v. Dominican Republic (CCPR/C/51/D/449/1991), para. 5.7. ↩

The detention of children on the basis of their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interests of the child and is a violation of the rights of the child.²⁹ States must take positive measures to avoid separating families, including during immigration detention, in compliance with the right to family life, and to reunite family members who have been separated.³⁰

29. A/HRC/28/68, para. 80; Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 6 (2005), para. 61. ↩
30. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23 (1); Communication No. 1179/2003, Ngambi and Nébol v. France (CCPR/C/81/D/1179/2003), para. 6.4; Report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on its 2012 Day of General Discussion on the rights of all children in the context of international migration, para. 39 (https://www.refworld.org/reference/themreport/crc/2012/en/95889). ↩

Everyone has the right to be protected from enforced disappearance, regardless of their migratory status. No circumstances, including those based on national security, lack of institutional capacity to expeditiously process large numbers of migrants deprived of liberty or the enforcement of migratory regulations and policies can justify enforced disappearance, no matter the duration.³¹ Enforced disappearance constitutes a multiple human rights violation, including of the rights to life and security of the person, to be protected from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to receive information, to be recognized as a person before the law and to an effective remedy. Cases of persons who are disappeared by non-State actors, notably smugglers and/or traffickers, when they occur with the authorization, support or acquiescence by State actors, constitute enforced disappearance.³² Situations in which migrants drown in the ocean or go missing in the desert when State actors could have prevented such occurrences but refrained from doing so may trigger State responsibility.³³ Finally, immigration-related transnational transfers and deportations that occur within the context or at the margins of regular expulsion procedures can also be considered enforced disappearance if all other constitutive elements of the crime are met.³⁴

31. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 1; Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 7; CED/C/11, paras. 3 and 6. ↩
32. A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, paras. 34 and 43. ↩
33. Ibid. para. 44. ↩
34. A/HRC/48/57, para. 41. ↩

International humanitarian law further entails the obligation to prevent individuals from going missing as a result of an armed conflict, to search and account for them, to facilitate enquiries made by family members and to provide the latter with any information related to the fate of the missing person, which also applies to migrants going missing in conflict situations.³⁵

35. ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume 1: Rules, rule 117; Geneva Convention IV art. 26; Additional Protocol I, art. 3; and ICRC, Missing Persons and their Families: International Legal Framework, 2. ↩

The autonomous right to truth guarantees relatives of forcibly disappeared persons and those missing in connection to armed conflict the right to receive information about the stages and results of investigations, including the circumstances of the disappearances and the fate of the disappeared persons.³⁶ The right to truth in relation to enforced disappearances is both a collective and an individual right, that is, an absolute right that is not subject to any limitation or derogation. In cases of death of a forcibly disappeared person, the right to truth entails the return of remains to the next of kin and/or identification of the place of burial.³⁷ Truth-seeking efforts and reparative measures should also apply to violations of human rights or humanitarian law committed by non-State actors, including corporations, private sector organizations and non-State armed groups, to address specific harms for which they have been responsible.³⁸

36. E/CN.4/2006/91, para. 55; A/HRC/16/48, para. 39; Updated Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, principles 2–5; Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights, principle 24; and Additional Protocol I, arts. 32–33. ↩
37. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39; Guzmán Medina y otros v. Colombia, Judgment, 23 August 2023, paras. 92–93; A/HRC/56/56 paras. 10–11; and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, arts. 15, 17 (3) (g) and 24 (3). ↩
38. A/HRC/51/34, paras. 46, 67 and 84. ↩

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits States from expelling, refusing access, transferring, deporting, extraditing or otherwise removing persons in cases of risk of death, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance or other irreparable harm, extends to every person, regardless of their legal or migratory status.³⁹ International law further prohibits arbitrary or collective expulsion of non-nationals in all circumstances and States are obligated to conduct a reasonable and objective examination of each individual case.⁴⁰

39. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 16; Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Convention), art. 33; International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1); Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 (2001), para. 11; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 30. ↩
40. A/CN.4/581, para. 115; International Law Commission, draft articles on the expulsion of aliens, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II (Part Two), art. 9 (3); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1). ↩

Pushbacks violate these obligations and are incompatible with the search and rescue obligations of States.⁴¹ Pushbacks refer to “all such measures actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees”.42 This extends 33 Ibid. para. 44. 34 A/HRC/48/57, para. 41. 35 ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume 1: Rules, rule 117; Geneva Convention IV art. 26; Additional Protocol I, art. 3; and ICRC, Missing Persons and their Families: International Legal Framework, 2. 36 E/CN.4/2006/91, para. 55; A/HRC/16/48, para. 39; Updated Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, principles 2–5; Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights, principle 24; and Additional Protocol I, arts. 32–33. 37 A/HRC/16/48, para. 39; Guzmán Medina y otros v. Colombia, Judgment, 23 August 2023, paras. 92– 93; A/HRC/56/56 paras. 10–11; and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, arts. 15, 17 (3) (g) and 24 (3). 38 A/HRC/51/34, paras. 46, 67 and 84. 39 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 16; Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Convention), art. 33; International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1); Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 (2001), para. 11; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 30. 40 A/CN.4/581, para. 115; International Law Commission, draft articles on the expulsion of aliens, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II (Part Two), art. 9 (3); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1). 41 A/HRC/47/30, para. 52. 42 Ibid., para. 35. to actions, either before an individual has entered the territory of a State or within State territory, to prevent disembarkation, to curb onward travel or to expel migrants out of its territory.⁴³

41. A/HRC/47/30, para. 52. ↩
43. Ibid. para. 36. ↩

Deaths and disappearances require the State to carry out prompt, effective, thorough, ex officio, transparent, impartial and independent investigations. In the context of enforced disappearance, investigations should start immediately after a disappearance has been reported because the first moments after it occurred are key for establishing the facts, identifying the perpetrators and determining the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person.⁴⁴ States are obliged to continue such investigations for as long as the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons remains unclarified.⁴⁵ It is also critical that States establish mutual cooperation mechanisms, including by facilitating the collection of ante-mortem information necessary to search for the disappeared.⁴⁶ Family members have the rights to take part in these investigations, to obtain available information, to equal and effective access to justice and to adequate, effective and prompt reparation.

44. OHCHR, Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, para. 20; A/HRC/45/13/Add.3, para. 12; Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 13; and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 12. ↩
45. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39. ↩
46. A/HRC/45/13/Add.3, para. 58. ↩

In relation to immigrant detention, States are obligated to guarantee that migrants deprived of their liberty are held solely in officially recognized and supervised places of deprivation of liberty, separately from convicted persons. States should also ensure that they: are informed about their rights from the very outset, in a language that they understand; have effective access to counsel, and, where necessary, to a professional interpreter; and are authorized to communicate without delay with their relatives or any person of their choice, including with their consular or diplomatic authorities, if they so wish.⁴⁷

47. CED/C/NLD/CO/1, para. 29; Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 10; and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 17(1). ↩

In the light of the right to the truth of migrants and their family members, States are obligated to adopt measures to promote truth and facilitate reparations for victims, which is critical to ensure non-repetition of enforced disappearances and to clarify cases.⁴⁸ They are further obligated to provide access to archives and full protection to witnesses, relatives, judges and other participants in any investigation, to recover human remains and to return the remains to the families of the deceased to dispose according to their own tradition, religion or culture.⁴⁹

48. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39. ↩
49. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39; A/HRC/21/46, para. 54; OHCHR, Minnesota Protocol, para. 37; and Nina H. B. Jørgensen, “Missing migrants and the right to identification”, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, vol. 43, No.1 (2025), pp. 51–52. ↩

The Special Rapporteur further recalls that the objectives 7, 8 and 10 of the Global Compact include addressing and reducing vulnerabilities in migration, saving lives and establishing coordinated international efforts on missing migrants and preventing, combating and eradicating trafficking in persons in the context of international migration. States have a further duty to provide adequate and effective search and rescue at sea.⁵⁰ Shipmasters must provide assistance to any person found at sea, regardless of nationality, status or the circumstances in which such persons are found, and any search and rescue unit receiving information about a distress incident is obliged to take immediate action if in a position to assist.⁵¹ Coastal States have the duty to establish national search and rescue zones in cooperation with neighbouring States, to take primary responsibility for responding to search and rescue incidents that occur within their region and for ensuring effective coordination and cooperation.⁵²

50. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 63; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 98; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, regulation 15; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, annex, chap. 2.1.1; and UNHCR, “Distress at sea: a call for a humanitarian and precautionary approach” (https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/joint-statement-on-distress-at-sea.pdf). ↩
51. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 98; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, annex, chap. 2.1.10; and International Convention for the Safety of Human Life at Sea, chap. V, regulation 33 (1). ↩
52. International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, annex 2.1.3. ↩

One of the reasons for the increase in the risk of being subjected to disappearance, including enforced disappearance, is connected to the growing externalization of migration governance and the intensification of border controls, coupled with increasing securitization and deterrence measures.⁵³ The documented use of military and security forces, including by private actors, to manage migration at international borders exacerbates the dangers leading to disappearance, including enforced disappearance.⁵⁴ In Mexico, a recent constitutional reform allows the armed forces, the army and the national guard to take on the dual role of combating organized crime and human trafficking. Such practices could result in a failure to distinguish between migrants in transit and individuals associated with criminal groups.⁵⁵

53. A/72/335, para. 11; and A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 80. ↩
54. A/HRC/45/9, para. 17. ↩
55. See submission by Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático de Derecho. ↩

These forms of border militarization frequently constitute deterrence measures by either purposefully funnelling migrants into more geographically dangerous terrain where the risk of disappearance is heightened or by subjecting them to criminalization. The Italian Government, for example, issued a decree establishing a new criminal offense for “death or injury as a consequence of illegal immigration offences”, punishable by 20 to 30 years in prison.⁵⁶ In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, through the adoption of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government made changes to the 1971 Immigration Act, expanding the range of circumstances in which crossings of the English Channel could be considered criminal.⁵⁷

56. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/02/italy-proposed-new-sea-rescue-law-puts-more-lives-risk-turk; and A/HRC/WG.6/34/ITA/2, para. 62. ↩
57. See communication GBR 11/2021 and Government reply of 8 April 2022. All communications mentioned in the present report and responses thereto are available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMSearch/TMdocuments); and https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/un-rights-chief-urges-revisions-uk-borders-bill. ↩

Furthermore, strategies to combat trafficking, often resulting in the militarization of borders, force migrants to geographically dangerous areas where they can easily disappear because of the absence of humanitarian assistance and basic means of survival. For instance, in 2024, Yemeni authorities launched a joint military campaign aimed at curbing human smuggling and trafficking operations along the coast of the Governorate of Lahj. The deportation practices employed as part of that campaign resulted in individuals being returned to unknown locations, without adequate basic assistance and protection measures, thereby exposing them to greater risk of going missing.⁵⁸

58. Submission by UNHCR; see also Mixed Migration Centre, “Necessity rather than trust: Smuggling dynamics on the Eastern Route through Yemen” (December 2024). ↩

Collaboration between States whose interception practices have reportedly been incompliant with international maritime and human rights law under externalization policies that seek to deter migrants from approaching international borders, thereby denying them access to individualized assessment of protection needs, has resulted in and contributed to migrant disappearances.⁵⁹ For instance, Libya cannot be considered a safe port of disembarkation for migrants rescued in the Mediterranean Sea.⁶⁰ Nevertheless, some member States of the European Union, particularly authorities in Italy and Malta, have strengthened their cooperation with the Libyan authorities since 2017.⁶¹ This approach has reportedly contributed to maritime operations of the Libyan coast guard resulting in the return of migrants to Libya, where they routinely face the risk of disappearance, including enforced disappearance, among other human rights violations.⁶²

59. A/HRC/WG.6/34/ITA/2, para. 69. ↩
60. A/HRC/50/31, para. 65. ↩
61. A/HRC/47/30, para. 73. ↩
62. OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, pp. v and 9–11. ↩

Deportations, including deportation flights, carried out under agreements with third countries, represent another form of cooperation that increases the risk of migrants being subjected to disappearance, including enforced disappearance. During the period of deportation, migrants are often untraceable because their whereabouts are not registered and/or communicated to relatives and legal representation. Following an agreement between El Salvador and the United States of America, there have been deportations of this kind involving the deportation of Salvadoran and Venezuelan nationals to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (known as CECOT) in El Salvador. These actions, which appear to directly contravene judicial orders against unlawful deportation,⁶³ amount to short-term enforced disappearance owing to the concealment of the whereabouts of the migrants during their transfer, which triggers the responsibility of States ordering the deprivation of liberty.⁶⁴

63. See communications USA 15/2025 and SLV 1/2025. ↩
64. CED/C/11, para. 4. ↩

Finally, increased border militarization has led to the excessive use of force by State actors in the context of border management, which is frequently combined with a failure to identify those who die in such circumstances. Deaths and disappearances are reportedly caused by active border patrol tactics, including high-speed motor vehicle pursuits, the use of aggressive methods to apprehend migrants who are travelling on foot and the use of lethal force during apprehension attempts.⁶⁵ On 24 June 2022, approximately 2,000 refugees and migrants attempted to cross the border between Morocco and the Spanish enclave of Melilla. When they reached the border post, Moroccan and Spanish police forces allegedly used excessive force to prevent migrants from entering Spanish territory. As a result, 40 migrants died and 77 remain missing to date.⁶⁶

65. Reineke and Martínez, “Excessive Use of Force and Migrant Death and Disappearance in Southern Arizona” (2024), p. 247. ↩
66. See communication ESP 7/2022 and Government replies of 22 February 2023, 15 July, 4 August and 14 October 2022. ↩

Because of the lack or limited number of safe and regular migration pathways, migrants are often compelled to take unsafe irregular and often perilous migration routes, putting them at heightened risk of disappearance, including enforced disappearance.⁶⁷

67. See submission by IOM. ↩

Discriminatory policies that make it difficult for certain nationalities to obtain visas constitute structural factors that influence the decision of migrants to choose more hazardous migration routes in order to avoid detection and escape immigration enforcement. Over the past 25 years, regular and safe migration pathways for individuals from developing countries and fragile States have been increasingly restricted.⁶⁸ As regular travel has become more difficult, migrants have resorted to irregular and more dangerous routes,⁶⁹ oftentimes falling prey to smugglers and/or human trafficking networks.⁷⁰ For instance, in 2023, visa restrictions that prevent individuals from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador from flying directly to Mexico resulted in a significant increase in the number of migrants crossing the Darién Gap, many of whom are reported missing.⁷¹

68. See IOM, “A decade of documenting migrant deaths: Data analysis and reflection on deaths during migration documented by IOM’s Missing Migrants Project, 2014–2023” (2024), p. 23. ↩
69. Ibid. ↩
70. See A/HRC/59/69/Add.1 and A/HRC/59/69/Add.2 (forthcoming). ↩
71. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2023/09/darien-gap-risky-path-search-safer-life. ↩

Without pathways for admission, migrants are forced onto ever more dangerous migration routes, exposing them into life-threatening geographical locations. Reportedly, the conditions of removal of individuals by Algerian authorities at the border of Niger expose migrants to an increased risk of disappearing in the desert as the nearest town is far from the drop-off site.⁷²

72. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/2018/05/press-briefing-note-algeria-and-libya; and https://www.iom.int/news/un-migration-agency-greatly-concerned-reports-migrants-stranded-algeria-niger-border. ↩

Drowning is a major factor in migrant disappearance,⁷³ with migrant women, girls and boys at a greater risk of drowning or of hypothermia.⁷⁴ Migrants travelling from African countries across the central Mediterranean Sea route are reported to use dangerous, makeshift boats and to embark despite poor weather conditions. In a number of instances, lacking water, food and adequate navigational equipment, boatloads of migrants have run into distress and disappearance at sea.⁷⁵

73. IOM, “A decade of documenting migrant deaths”, pp. 13–16; and A/HRC/47/30, para. 52. ↩
74. Ibid. ↩
75. OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, p. 9. ↩

The ever-increasing number of migrants going missing in extreme geographical locations also result from the increasing impact of climate change. Rising temperatures and severe hazards, including heat waves and flooding, along with a lack of secure housing, are leading to an increase in migrant deaths and disappearances.⁷⁶

76. A/HRC/38/21, paras. 15–16; and https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/OHCHR_slow_onset_of_Climate_Change_ENweb.pdf, para. 112. ↩

Migrants, notably those in irregular situations, are disproportionately vulnerable to stigmatization and discrimination, and often have limited or no access to human rights or basic services.⁷⁷ Some migrants face discrimination during the migration process on the basis of migratory or socioeconomic status or other personal characteristics, such as religion, race, colour, ethnic or national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, depriving them of access to already challenging regular legal pathways to migration. Ethnic, racial or other profiling of migrants further results in the disproportionate use of both criminal and administrative detention.⁷⁸

77. A/79/590, para. 26. ↩
78. A/65/222, paras. 31–34; and A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 53. ↩

For example, organizations have documented concerns with the mandatory use of the “Customs and Border Protection (CBP) One” application for people seeing international protection in the United States, in particular that Black asylum-seekers have been unable to upload photographs in the app, which is required to confirm appointments, resulting in them being unable to register themselves.⁷⁹

79. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/cbp-one-mobile-application-violates-the-rights-of-people-seeking-asylum-in-the-united-states/, pp. 35–65. ↩

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer migrants and migrants from other sexual and gender minorities face distinct and frequently higher risks of being subjected to disappearance or are being forced to migrate due to threats of being disappeared. 70 See A/HRC/59/69/Add.1 and A/HRC/59/69/Add.2 (forthcoming). 71 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2023/09/darien-gap-risky-path-search-safer-life. 72 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/2018/05/press-briefing-note-algeria-and-libya; and https://www.iom.int/news/un-migration-agency-greatly-concerned-reports-migrants-stranded-algerianiger-border. 73 IOM, “A decade of documenting migrant deaths”, pp. 13–16; and A/HRC/47/30, para. 52. 74 Ibid. 75 OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, p. 9. 76 A/HRC/38/21, paras. 15–16; and https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/OHCHR_slow_onset_of_Clim ate_Change_ENweb.pdf, para. 112. 77 A/79/590, para. 26. 78 A/65/222, paras. 31–34; and A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 53. 79 See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/cbp-one-mobile-application-violates-the-rightsof-people-seeking-asylum-in-the-united-states/, pp. 35–65.

Disappearances, including enforced disappearances, stem from the reported widespread practice of migrants being returned or removed, either without due process or in accordance with legal procedures that do not comply with international law.⁸⁰

80. A/HRC/47/30, para. 62. ↩

Along the Mediterranean Sea migration routes, pushback practices,⁸¹ combined with the delay or refusal of coast guard operations to provide timely sea rescue, have led to violations of the human rights of migrants, including the principle of non-refoulement.⁸² Instead, States have reportedly targeted and sometimes criminalized humanitarian actors and human rights defenders providing emergency rescue.⁸³ The Special Rapporteur notes that in situations where States are unwilling or unable to provide humanitarian relief themselves, they must let others provide such services.⁸⁴

81. Ibid., paras. 53–61. ↩
82. OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, pp. 10–11; and Council of Europe, “Pushed beyond the limits: Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders” (2022), p. 26. ↩
83. A/73/314, paras. 25–27; see communication GRC 3/2022. ↩
84. See A/73/314; and A/HRC/37/34, para. 15. ↩

Furthermore, pushback practices and expedited return procedures involve a refusal to duly and expeditiously register incoming migrants in countries of transit or destination, thereby removing them from applicable human rights protections. For example, the systematic refusal to properly and promptly register “arrivals” in Greece was reported to have allowed State authorities to deny that an “irregular” entry and subsequent unlawful removal had occurred, resulting in migrant disappearances.⁸⁵

85. Amnesty International, “Greece: violence, lies, and pushbacks: Refugees and migrants still denied safety and asylum at Europe’s borders”, pp. 18–19; see communication GRC 2/2023. ↩

The disappearance of migrants is also due to the lack of available communication channels. During pushbacks, migrants’ mobile phones, money and identification documents are reportedly often confiscated by State actors, leaving them unable to contact their relatives, lawyers or humanitarian actors, thereby hindering their ability to seek assistance, report human rights violations or ensure that their whereabouts are known.⁸⁶

86. CED/C/GRC/CO/1, para. 28. ↩

Immigration detention is reported to be increasingly used as a border management strategy to prevent irregular migration and enforce deportations, sometimes resulting in temporary incommunicado detention with little or no transparent registration systems. Migrants in such situations lack access to independent monitoring mechanisms and have their procedural safeguards severely curtailed.

Migrants also go missing while being transferred between detention facilities. For example, in Malaysia, migrants are reportedly transferred between detention facilities without being able to inform their families or legal counsel, resulting in situations of enforced disappearance for limited periods of time.⁸⁷ The National Migration Institute carries out forced relocations from northern Mexico to the south along perilous routes and often to dangerous locations with a significant presence of organized crime. During such transfers, which can last for several days, migrants are left incommunicado and are not informed of their destination or properly registered by the authorities.⁸⁸

87. See communication MYS 1/2024 and Government reply of 28 May 2024. ↩
88. Submission by OHCHR Mexico. ↩

Finally, it is reported that some migrants have been kept in secret detention before being deported to third countries. Reportedly, in Greece, migrants were held in unofficial 80 A/HRC/47/30, para. 62. 81 Ibid., paras. 53–61. 82 OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, pp. 10–11; and Council of Europe, “Pushed beyond the limits: Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders” (2022), p. 26. 83 A/73/314, paras. 25–27; see communication GRC 3/2022. 84 See A/73/314; and A/HRC/37/34, para. 15. 85 Amnesty International, “Greece: violence, lies, and pushbacks: Refugees and migrants still denied safety and asylum at Europe’s borders”, pp. 18–19; see communication GRC 2/2023. 86 CED/C/GRC/CO/1, para. 28. 87 See communication MYS 1/2024 and Government reply of 28 May 2024. 88 Submission by OHCHR Mexico. remote buildings guarded by individuals believed to be State agents and later taken to the Evros River to be pushed back into Turkïye.⁸⁹

89. CED/C/GRC/CO/1, para. 30. ↩

Systematic family separations in administrative detention or during interception operations at sea, refusal of State authorities to inform family members of the whereabouts of their relatives, or inability to determine their whereabouts, including of children, because they were not registered at the time of separation, are practices that effectively disappear migrants for short to extended periods of time.⁹⁰ Family separations are further aggravated by the lack of or the delayed registration of newborn children in countries of transit.⁹¹

90. Submission by OHCHR Mexico; and submission by World Organization against Torture. ↩
91. Submission by the World Organization against Torture. ↩

In some reported cases in the United States, detained migrant families are subjected to family separation when one or more family members, including children, are not released but instead transferred into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to continue the removal process. Individuals are often detained incommunicado and without their families being able to locate them.⁹²

92. Submission by Al Otro Lado. ↩

Cases of disappearances at the hands of non-State actors have also been reported in the context of labour migration and forced labour. For example, migrants from the Asia-Pacific region have been coerced into human trafficking networks after falling victim to online scams. In these contexts, migrants have been subjected to abductions or held in incommunicado detention and forced to work in scam operations.⁹³

93. See https://bangkok.ohchr.org/news/2022/online-scam-operations-and-trafficking-forced-criminality-southeast-asia. ↩

A high number of disappearances are attributed to smuggling and trafficking networks operating along the main migratory routes and profiting from the particular vulnerability of migrants stemming from the dependency of migrants on their services due to the lack of safe and regular migratory pathways.⁹⁴ Migrant women and children are reportedly removed from shelters where they were housed after lodging asylum applications and forced into prostitution by human trafficking networks.⁹⁵ These dynamics subject women and children disproportionally to disappearance and enforced disappearance when conducted with State support or acquiescence.

94. A/72/335, paras. 42–43; see submissions by Ecuador, Guatemala, and Morocco. ↩
95. See communication PAN 1/2023 and Government reply of 22 December 2023. ↩

Impunity, including the systemic denial of accountability and transparency by national investigative and judicial authorities, represents a key factor that perpetuates cycles of disappearances, including enforced disappearance. For instance, in Mexico, 17 municipal police officers were involved in the enforced disappearances of 196 migrants whose remains were found in 48 graves. To date, no police officer has been convicted of these crimes.⁹⁶ Quasi-generalized regimes of impunity, collusion in human rights violations by State and non-State actors and corruption deter migrants from reporting disappearances, including enforced disappearance, owing to mistrust in State institutions and in their ability to conduct effective searches, provide redress and protect victims of disappearance from retaliation.97 89 CED/C/GRC/CO/1, para. 30. 90 Submission by OHCHR Mexico; and submission by World Organization against Torture. 91 Submission by the World Organization against Torture. 92 Submission by Al Otro Lado. 93 See https://bangkok.ohchr.org/news/2022/online-scam-operations-and-trafficking-forced-criminalitysoutheast-asia. 94 A/72/335, paras. 42–43; see submissions by Ecuador, Guatemala, and Morocco. 95 See communication PAN 1/2023 and Government reply of 22 December 2023. 96 See communication MEX 5/2021 and Government reply of 15 November 2021. 97 A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 77.

96. See communication MEX 5/2021 and Government reply of 15 November 2021. ↩

Double standards in the prosecution of those allegedly responsible for disappearances maintain cycles of impunity. When serious violations of fundamental rights occur at the external borders of the European Union, including pushbacks, most national court proceedings are significantly delayed or do not lead to the conviction of State agents, for example coast guard personnel, while survivors of shipwrecks are convicted, including in fast-track proceedings, for the same events.⁹⁸

98. See https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2024/guidance-investigating-alleged-ill-treatment-borders?page=8#read-online; see communication GRC 3/2023. ↩

Available statistical data on migrants going missing or being subjected to enforced disappearance remain incomplete and are often considered to be underestimated.⁹⁹ This is partly due to the fact that in the majority of cases the remains of persons who disappear on dangerous, remote and inaccessible migratory routes cannot be located and therefore are not recovered. In addition, because of limited access to detention centres, enforced disappearances in these contexts cannot be comprehensively accounted for.¹⁰⁰ The lack of firewalls between service providers and immigration enforcement authorities further leads to migrants fearing that law enforcement authorities could access data systems or share data-related information as part of immigration enforcement or criminal investigation.¹⁰¹ Compounded by the reluctance of State authorities to adequately and promptly register migrant disappearances, these dynamics account for the high level of underreporting.

99. A/72/335, para. 2. ↩
100. C. E. Bird and A. Shangraw, “The importance of accounting for the dead in migration”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 316. ↩
101. A/HRC/35/25, para. 68. ↩

According to IOM, of 74,072 deaths and disappearances of migrants during the period from 2014 to 2024, two-thirds of migrants remain unidentified. Limitations in data collection further result in a lack of disaggregated data on nationalities/gender.¹⁰²

102. IOM, A decade of documenting migrant deaths: data analysis and reflection on deaths during migration documented by IOM’s Missing Migrants Project 2014–2023 (26 March 2024), p. 3. ↩

The focus of investigations following incidents in which migrants have disappeared is often not on collecting the data necessary for the location and identification of disappeared migrants but is solely aimed at identifying individuals allegedly responsible for human trafficking. Furthermore, data on dead and disappeared persons remains fragmented due to the lack of a comprehensive reporting and data management system along remote migratory routes and across regions.

Certain complaint mechanisms are not accessible to family members due to overly bureaucratic and formalistic procedures, including the requirement of information that remains unavailable to relatives of disappeared migrants, thus halting further search efforts or discouraging them from initiating such procedures.¹⁰³ In Greece, family members of disappeared persons, who oftentimes do not live in the area where their relatives disappeared, reportedly bear the responsibility for finding them; they must indicate the exact location where the disappeared person was last seen in Greece before they can file a complaint. Since this information is generally not available, most inquiries at police stations do not trigger search operations or investigations.¹⁰⁴ Further obstacles include difficulties in accessing consular services for family members of disappeared relatives abroad and, for those who flee political persecution, inability to contact their home country’s consulate.¹⁰⁵

103. R. C. Reineke and D. E. Martinez, “Excessive use of force and migrant death and disappearance in Southern Arizona”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 251. ↩
104. CED/C/GRC/1, paras. 74–75; Government of Greece, Regulatory Order 2/1985, article 12, “Search of disappeared persons”. ↩
105. A/HRC/50/52, para. 8. ↩

Another obstacle to adequate and thorough investigations is the reported practice of State authorities of labelling the cause of death as “natural” in cases of hypothermia and drowning related deaths during border crossings or pushback operations, thereby obscuring the involvement of other factors, including intentional acts by State actors, and thus perpetuating impunity in such cases.¹⁰⁶

106. D. Kerwin and D. E. Martínez, “Forced migration, deterrence, and solutions to the non-natural disaster of migrant deaths along the US-Mexico border and beyond”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 141. ↩

The lack of information in different languages necessary to report disappearances, including enforced disappearances, particularly in languages of indigenous communities, results in limited access to justice, legal support and effective participation in search operations and investigations.¹⁰⁷

107. Submission by Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático de Derecho, 9. ↩

Migrant disappearances are compounded by the impossibility or unwillingness of authorities to carry out adequate and prompt identification procedures. This may be due to the geographical inaccessibility of sites where migrants disappear or to insufficient forensic capacity resulting from limited financial and logistical resources, including the complexity of identification processes owing to the transnational nature of such disappearances.

For example, forensic systems in the United States are decentralized and unregulated.¹⁰⁸ In the State of Texas, the decentralization of reporting and forensic mechanisms reportedly resulted in missing persons reports not being relayed to forensic authorities in Arizona.¹⁰⁹ Oftentimes, local and federal law enforcement agencies either refuse to search for disappeared migrants or delay searches until human remains are highly decomposed. Cremation of unidentified corpses or the burial of human remains in mass and unmarked graves are a significant additional challenge for identification procedures.¹¹⁰

108. C. C. Siegert and others, “The Texas landscape: accounting for migrant mortality and the challenges of a justice of the peace medicolegal system”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 261. ↩
109. Maria Jimenez, Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border (2009). ↩
110. A/HRC/50/34, para. 85. ↩

When human remains of disappeared or deceased migrants are located, they are not properly preserved because of the lack of specific protocols, mechanisms and public policies for the preservation, identification and repatriation of migrants’ remains. The involvement of forensic experts is reportedly rare owing to lack of clear procedural protocols. The recording of post-mortem data and the collection and archiving of personal belongings are carried out haphazardly, often without DNA sampling.¹¹¹ The lack of a centralized database for unidentified corpses, combined with procedural requirements that families of disappeared migrants are structurally unable to fulfil, further complicates identification and repatriation procedures.¹¹²

111. Ibid. ↩
112. See submission by de: border migration justice collective. ↩

The erroneous or careless identification of human remains perpetuate the suffering of family members. In Honduras, families have received the remains of their loved ones who disappeared in Mexico, only to learn, after an independent DNA comparison, that the remains received did not belong to a member of their family.113 105 A/HRC/50/52, para. 8. 106 D. Kerwin and D. E. Martínez, “Forced migration, deterrence, and solutions to the non-natural disaster of migrant deaths along the US-Mexico border and beyond”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 141. 107 Submission by Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático de Derecho, 9. 108 C. C. Siegert and others, “The Texas landscape: accounting for migrant mortality and the challenges of a justice of the peace medicolegal system”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 12, No. 3 (2024), p. 261. 109 Maria Jimenez, Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border (2009). 110 A/HRC/50/34, para. 85. 111 Ibid. 112 See submission by de: border migration justice collective. 113 A/HRC/54/22/Add.2, para. 71.

Insufficient provision of resources for rescue operations at sea and on land, lack of medical assistance and difficulties in obtaining humanitarian visas for family members of disappeared migrants to effectively participate in search and investigation efforts all present obstacles to humanitarian actions. Humanitarian actors and human rights defenders who provide life-saving assistance are also, in many cases, denied access to sites where people have disappeared or are prevented from carrying out their duties independent of political agendas or financial incentives.¹¹⁴

114. OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, p. 25–26. ↩

Lack of unclear State responsibilities in the conduct of sea rescue operations for boats with migrants, even in acute emergency situations, weak compliance and poor coordination between States reportedly result in the death and disappearance of migrants. For example, despite distress calls from a vessel that disembarked from Senegal carrying 150 migrants, including women and children, in an area within the search and rescue zones along the coasts of Mauritania, Morocco and Spain, no country took responsibility for the rescue. Days later, the boat drifted in Mauritania driven by ocean currents with only 122 survivors.¹¹⁵

115. See submission by Caminando Fronteras. ↩

Migrant disappearances destabilize communities and have a profound and lasting impact on families, with negative effects on mental health and well-being and long-term impacts on their economic situation, limiting their access to property, inheritance and parental or social welfare rights.¹¹⁶ Furthermore, family members experience a prolonged state of anguish and sorrow because of lasting uncertainty regarding the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared family member, often exacerbated by the impossibility of accessing the national territory where the disappearance occurred.¹¹⁷

116. A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10; see submission by Switzerland. ↩
117. Submission by Ecuador; and A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10. ↩

Deeply entrenched gender inequalities characterize migration experiences and patterns, including disappearances. Women, who often assume the role of the breadwinner following the disappearance of the family provider, face increased financial and economic hardship, and may be forced to migrate in search of better living conditions.¹¹⁸ Women whose husbands have disappeared are also reportedly subjected to stigmatization and social exclusion.¹¹⁹ Women frequently bear the full burden of searching for their family members abroad, facing the difficulty of understanding complex legal systems without adequate assistance.¹²⁰ Moreover, the toll on children of disappeared family members is especially severe, causing long-term mental health issues, developmental setbacks and behavioural challenges.¹²¹

118. A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10. ↩
119. Submission by World Organization against Torture. ↩
120. Submission by Switzerland. ↩
121. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, “Irregular Migrants”, World Disasters Report (2018), p.149. ↩

In many cases, there are no State-authorized mechanisms responsible for informing family members of disappeared persons of the disappearance or death of their loved ones. Family members generally learn through social networks, the media or from fellow travellers about the location and/or situation of their relatives.¹²² 122 The psychosocial impact of disappearances on families of migrants also stems from the fact that adequate measures leading to effective search and investigation efforts, including criminal investigations, if applicable, to hold perpetrators accountable are systematically denied. In many cases, family members are unable to obtain information from the authorities, complicating their grieving 114 OHCHR, Lethal Disregard, p. 25–26. 115 See submission by Caminando Fronteras. 116 A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10; see submission by Switzerland. 117 Submission by Ecuador; and A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10. 118 A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, para. 10. 119 Submission by World Organization against Torture. 120 Submission by Switzerland. 121 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, “Irregular Migrants”, World Disasters Report (2018), p.149. 122 Submission by La Cimade and others. process and hindering their ability to locate the site of the disappearance and to recover and identify the remains.¹²³

122. Submission by La Cimade and others. ↩
123. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/02/relatives-disappeared-migrants-seek-answers-and-justice. ↩

The lack of effective investigation and identification procedures can also result in family members having difficulty obtaining certificates of absence. In such situations, family members are often unable to access the inheritance of disappeared persons, which leads to economic hardship.¹²⁴

124. Gabriella Citroni, “Practical, legal and psychological issues related to the protection of the dead in cases of enforced disappearance “, International Review of the Red Cross (January 2025), p. 5. ↩

The Special Rapporteur welcomes promising developments in the establishment by States, in cooperation with civil society organizations, families and victims, of national and regional mechanisms aimed at searching for disappeared migrants and preventing and investigating migrant disappearances.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies have an online tool, “Trace the Face”, a website that helps people identify and locate their missing relatives abroad. Thus far, through the website, 300 people who were looking for missing relatives and their families have succeeded in reestablishing contact. Maintaining family links along migratory routes to prevent migrants from going missing is another focus of the collaboration between ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the rescue ship Ocean Viking, as part of Operation Salamat, which facilitates “safe and well” messages from migrants rescued at sea and relays them to their families worldwide.¹²⁵ Since 2014, the IOM, through its Missing Migrants Project, has documented people who die or disappear while migrating to an international destination, regardless of their migratory status. The Border Project (Proyecto Frontera), led by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, has succeeded in identifying hundreds of migrants who have disappeared along the border between Mexico and the United States.¹²⁶

125. See https://missingpersons.icrc.org/news-stories/rescued-sea-sending-safe-and-well-messages-migrants-families-0. ↩
126. See https://eaaf.org/proyecto-frontera/. ↩

Regional mechanisms have been established between a number of States, including the Mechanism for Mexican Support Abroad in Search and Investigation Activities, which operates in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. It facilitates the reporting of disappearances at Mexican consulates in the countries of origin of family members of disappeared migrants in the region.¹²⁷ Since 2013, the Comisión Forense, a non-governmental organization, focuses its work on the identification of the victims of three massacres that involved the disappearance of migrants in Mexico, with the collaboration of experts from the Mexican Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team.¹²⁸ Forensic databases of disappeared migrants, established by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team in cooperation with El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, which contain collected cases of disappeared migrants of various nationalities and genetic profiles of their family members, have led to 392 forensic identifications. The bureau for the search of missing migrants operates as an inter-institutional space for the coordination, exchange and actualization of information on migrant disappearances between Mexican institutions, institutions of countries of origin of migrants and their families and victims, with a transnational focus.¹²⁹ In addition, the trilateral coordination mechanism between Colombia, Panama and the United States seeks the development of the region of the Darién Gap, including the adoption of measures to guarantee the human rights of the migrant population.¹³⁰

127. Foundation for Justice and the Democratic Rule of Law, “Estudio de análisis del mecanismo de Apoyo exterior Mexicano de Búsqueda e Investigación” (June 2024); and OHCHR, “La desaparición en el contexto de la migración en México y América Central”. ↩
128. See https://www.fundacionjusticia.org/ejes/comision-forense/. ↩
129. See https://comisionacionaldebusqueda.gob.mx/acciones-de-busqueda/. ↩
130. Submission by Colombia. ↩

At the national level, Colombia has established its Mecanismo de Búsqueda Urgente to ensure that judicial authorities immediately take the necessary steps to locate disappeared persons, including migrants. The Gambia and Switzerland initiated the Euro-African Dialogue on Migration and Development (Rabat Process), through which a network of national focal points for missing migrants was established in July 2024.¹³¹ Switzerland, in cooperation with the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, also supports the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forensic coordination mechanism to clarify the whereabouts of migrants who go missing along the Africa-Europe western border and to inform their families.¹³²

131. See https://www.rabat-process.org/en/activities/technical-meetings/kick-off-meeting-of-the-network-of-national-focal-points-for-missing-migrants. ↩
132. See submission by Switzerland. ↩

The Special Rapporteur stresses the need to expand such mechanisms in order to: standardize definitions and methodologies for cross-border data collection; improve comparability; establish independent forensic investigation bodies and robust reporting mechanisms in migration centres and transit points for collecting comprehensive and timely data; and ensure effective safeguards for human rights defenders as well as for migrants who face reprisals for their involvement in the search for their loved ones. Emerging technologies are often deployed at borders to enhance surveillance techniques without adequate risk assessment and safeguards.¹³³ Such technologies are also used by migrants themselves to share video footage of their location and live geo-coordinates, which has proven useful in determining their fate and whereabouts.¹³⁴ The Special Rapporteur encourages States and humanitarian and civil society actors to further mobilize these technologies, with a focus on human rights protection, to document and clarify cases of migrant disappearance.

133. OHCHR and University of Essex, “Digital border governance: a human rights-based approach” (2023); and A/72/335, para. 12. ↩
134. A/HRC/50/31, para. 24; and A/HRC/54/22/Add.5, para. 53. ↩

The Special Rapporteur cannot overemphasize the urgency of preventing and investigating all deaths and disappearances, including cases of enforced disappearance, in the context of migration, especially in the light of the increasing militarization, securitization and criminalization of migration. The protection of the right to life, regardless of migration status, is a central tenet of the international human rights system: efforts to save the lives of migrants and to protect their human rights must be rapidly scaled up. Recognizing both the particular vulnerability and agency of migrants themselves and their relatives is the basis for guaranteeing a victim-focused approach while addressing the root causes underlying migrant disappearances, including enforced disappearance.

The transnational nature of migrant disappearances makes efforts towards prevention, search, investigation and sanctioning of perpetrators complex. However, such complexity does not exempt States from fulfilling positive human rights obligations, nor from accountability.¹³⁵ In order to protect migrants and provide them with effective redress, it is imperative that countries of origin, transit and destination live up to their joint responsibility and develop, in cooperation with humanitarian actors, civil society and victims, an effective framework for international cooperation, without delay, to prevent and address such disappearances. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes the need for States to follow the recommendations and measures in achieving the objectives of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which is an invaluable framework for international cooperation in the context of migration.

135. A/HRC/47/30, para. 38. ↩

In the light of the foregoing, the Special Rapporteur submits the following recommendations to States.

In the context of prevention and protection, it is recommended that States:
(a) De-securitize immigration enforcement and eliminate overly rigid and stringent migration policies in favour of rights-based migration and border management, with a view to protecting migrants in vulnerable situations;
(b) Uphold the right to asylum, including by ensuring safe access to the territory and individualized assessment of protection needs under international human rights and refugee law;
(c) Expand safe and regular pathways for admission and stay based on human rights and humanitarian grounds and on regularization of stay/residence status and enhance those pathways by ensuring that they lead to secure status, access to rights and basic services and meaningful avenues to naturalization;
(d) Eliminate bilateral or multilateral migration agreements that foresee deportation practices that do not comply with international law, notably the principle of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsion and the right to seek asylum;
(e) De-criminalize migration and ensure that immigration detention is never used for children and used as last resort for adults and that it complies with applicable international law standards;
(f) Guarantee that all migrants deprived of liberty, without exception and regardless of the place of deprivation of liberty, are afforded, de jure and de facto, all the fundamental legal safeguards accorded to them under international law, including communication channels without delay with their family members or any persons of their choice, including legal counsel and consular and diplomatic services, while being detained;
(g) Adopt specific safeguards against secret detention, including that migrants are held solely in officially recognized and supervised places of deprivation of liberty;
(h) Establish a centralized digital registration system for all detention centres, including for transfers between locations, and ensure prompt notification of family members if any such transfers occur;
(i) Ensure the right to challenge the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty so that any person with a legitimate interest may initiate such procedure, irrespective of the place of deprivation of liberty, and that migrants deprived of liberty have access to appropriate mechanisms to report violations of their rights and that those violations are officially recorded;
(j) Ensure that no family separation occurs, particularly when children are involved, as part of immigration detention and/or deportation procedures or during rescue operations, and that families who have been separated are promptly reunified without delay;
(k) Ensure that migration policies fully comply with international obligations regarding the rights of migrant and refugee children, explicitly prohibit the detention of children solely as a result of their or their guardians’ migration status and ensure that migration policies are guided by the principle of the best interests of the child;
(l) Enable migrants and their families to establish, restore or maintain contact along migratory routes and at their point of destination;
(m) Develop national systems for the collection, centralization and systematization of case data, including disaggregated data on sex, gender and nationalities, migrant deaths and disappearances, including forced disappearances, in line with the right to privacy;
(n) Establish independent review bodies to assess and mitigate the impact of laws, policies and practices on the risk of migrants dying, going missing or being subjected to enforced disappearance in order to tackle the root causes of such phenomena.

With regard to search operations and investigations, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States:
(a) Strengthen coordination and cooperation among the authorities of countries of origin, transit and destination;
(b) Ensure the exchange of information for the search and investigation of disappearances of migrants, the return of human remains, where these can be located and identified, and the provision of appropriate reparation measures;
(c) Facilitate access of family members of migrants to consular or diplomatic assistance from their country of origin and to humanitarian visas to travel to countries of transit or destination where the disappearance of their loved ones occurred for purposes of search and identification;
(d) Guarantee that institutions charged with the search and investigation of disappeared persons immediately accept reports of disappeared persons and initiate search and investigation measures promptly and ex officio;
(e) Establish capacity-building and exchanges of best practices between States of origin, transit and destination, including by appointing national focal points on missing migrants for transnational cooperation on searches and policy;
(f) Scale up State-led humanitarian assistance along migration routes, irrespective of the administrative status of the migrants in need of support;
(g) Provide enhanced financial and logistical resources to carry out prompt and adequate search and rescue operations for disappeared migrants and migrants in distress on both land and sea, including through the use of new digital technologies;
(h) Revise or repeal laws and policies that criminalize or obstruct the provision of humanitarian assistance to migrants and ensure unhindered access and safe operational spaces for humanitarian actors to deliver assistance, in line with humanitarian principles;
(i) Ensure the proactive, effective and prompt coordination of search and rescue actions by countries in shared search and rescue zones;
(j) Establish a national registry for disappeared persons in the context of migration and a unified data system for the exchange of ante-mortem and post-mortem data between countries of origin, transit and destination for the purpose of identification;
(k) Ensure that the unified data system is protected by an effective firewall, separated from access by law enforcement authorities or from any immigration enforcement purposes;
(l) Strengthen location and identification processes of disappeared migrants;
(m) Allocate additional financial and logistical resources for forensic and coroners’ services and ensure sufficient space in morgues pending autopsy, identification, burial or repatriation of the remains of deceased migrants;
(n) Guarantee that the remains of deceased migrants are treated with dignity and respect, that they are properly collected, recorded, documented and preserved, that chain of custody procedures are followed and that the rights of families are always respected during engagement with the search for and the collection, preservation and analysis of the remains of deceased migrants;
(o) Ensure that investigative processes and mechanisms follow the available international standards for their reliable investigation, particularly the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), and that families of disappeared migrants are always able to fully and effectively participate in investigations;
(p) In the event of migrants going missing resulting from natural disasters, ensure the deployment of disaster victim identification teams to ease a standardized cross-border process to identify victims.

With regard to justice, accountability and redress:
(a) Promote and facilitate the establishment of a truth and monitoring mechanism, in collaboration with civil society organizations, victims and families of disappeared migrants, to ensure investigation, accountability, truth and guarantees of non-repetition of disappearances in the context of migration, in line with applicable international obligations;
(b) Ensure coordination, cooperation and exchange of information between all State agencies involved in the criminal investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of migrant disappearances, including enforced disappearance, to fight recurring cycles of impunity;
(c) Establish, in cooperation with civil society organizations, victims and families of disappeared migrants, effective public policies on comprehensive reparation for migrant disappearances and victim-oriented and gender-responsive, culturally, age- and child-sensitive public support programmes, with a special focus on other groups in vulnerable situations, such as LGBTIQ+ migrants, members of indigenous communities, the ill, persons with disabilities, minorities and the elderly, to provide psychosocial and economic support to the families of disappeared persons, irrespective of the context in which the disappearance took place;
(d) Provide families with access to critical legal documentation, such as certificates of absence, that can help to balance adverse effects on the economic and legal status of relatives of disappeared migrants.