OHCHR Press Conference 08 February 2021

I think we seem to have quite a few people already here.

I would suggest we could we could more or less start straight away.

I will also I'll briefly introduce the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism for NOLA and the island.

She's joining us today.

You will have all just received a news release.

This is also available online at ohchr.org.

If it's not online, it will be there imminently.

Without further ado, I think I'll just hand the floor to the rapporteur.

Then, after she has delivered her few words, we will take some questions from the media.

Special reporter.

Good.

Morning, good afternoon, good evening.

Thank you all for joining us.

And so I'm really pleased.

It's a, it's a busy day in Geneva to be giving a press conference with some other news this morning about states joining.

But the matter that I'm bringing before you this morning is one of particular urgency and importance.

Along with 12 of my special rapporteur colleagues and two working groups, we have issued A comprehensive communication to 57 States and you have the press release relating to that, to that communication today.

The matter is one of extreme urgency.

As I said, it relates to the ongoing detention and conditions of women and children in Alcohol and Raj camps in North East Syria.

It states the obvious that many, many commentators have urged states to repatriate women and children, most recently the UN **** Commissioner for Human Rights.

But this is the very first time that such a large group of special rapporteurs have come together to be clear about the scale and the extent of human rights violations that are occurring in those camps and to_the specific obligations of the states whose third country nationals are being held there.

I just want to briefly say some things about the conditions in those camps, which some of you will be familiar with.

The camps hold over 64,000 people, mostly women and children.

Many of them are highly vulnerable.

Many of them are experiencing a range of human rights concerns that urge and require states to act expediently.

As we have communicated with states today in the in the letters that we have sent all 57 named states, these children and women are living in what can only be described as horrific subhuman conditions.

And we offer our concerns that the conditions in these camps may reach the threshold of torture in human and degrading treatment under international law.

The structures are poor and flimsy.

The risk of pneumonia and serious illness for children in particular is ****.

Water conditions and scarcity is a fact of life.

Latrine and other other basic human necessities are under severe stress.

It is also the case that there has been increased violence in that camp, in those camps reported in recent weeks, further compounding the misery of the women and children who live there.

It's also important to_that there have been 4 as, far as we're aware COVID-19, CASES identified in the camps and.

It states the very obvious to note that should COVID-19 TAKE hold in those conditions where there is such a scarcity of resources and capacity, then we would face an extraordinarily difficult challenge in managing it.

The other thing that really affirms the the importance of this particular communication to states is the fact that it was, it's been, it's been communicated to those 4057 states at this time.

I think this is also the very first time that all of the states in question have been made aware of the fact in one group that their nationals are present in alcohol and Raj and that they in fact need to take some action to, to to make sure that they're they're they're the women and children associated with them are repatriated home.

Let me also_a couple of other matters that are addressed in this in this press statement last.

Year the mandate I HOLD became aware that a large scale exercise which involved the taking of sensitive biometric data was undertaken in these camps that.

Exercise involved women and children from all of the third country national states who are identified here as far as we are aware.

And the communication makes clear that we are deeply concerned about this exercise of data collection from this very vulnerable group.

First of all, it's entirely obvious that none of these people could give meaningful consent to the data that was being collected for them from them.

Second, it should also be obvious that it's really unclear why a large scale data exercise might be taken in these circumstances and what that data would be used for.

We have real concerns that this exercise, which was aimed at third country nationals and may in fact be, may be communicated to states of origin and used as a basis for courses of action that would further deprive them of their rights.

We accept entirely that there may be conditions in which data will be collected to further the humanitarian best interests of persons concerned.

That does not appear to be the case here.

Let me conclude by saying that in the case, particularly the cases that we're looking at, we want to_that all of the children and we believe many of the women involved who are who, are being held in the camps are victims the.

Children had very little no, say in what brought them there they.

Continue to subsist in these dire humanitarian conditions and.

It is it, is I THINK of deep concern that we've been unable to find a comprehensive resolution it.

Stands to these 57 states to work together and to work with other states to ensure we do find such a resolution.

It's important also in that context to note that we have a significant number of states who have made significant and positive efforts to return their nationals, and I do want to name some of them.

For example, Kazakhstan has repatriated large numbers of its nationals over the course of the past two years, including as recently as last week, where it returned 7 nationals to home.

Other countries have done the same.

And so where states will say that they are unable to repatriate due to the current COVID conditions, that is simply belied by the fact that other states are managing to repatriate their nationals during this challenging time.

So all of the rapporteurs who have signed the letters to States and who have, who have issued this press communication would_the urgency of action, the necessity of these 57 States to focus on their specific obligations to their women and children and to, without undue delay, ensure their return and repatriation, which is both in the best human rights interests of all those concerned, but also, in our view, prolongs and ensures the security interests of these States.

Thank you.

Thanks, Special reporter.

I think what we can do now we've got a few hands raised could we'll start with the Catherine, you had your hand up first.

You can go first.

Can you just identify who you work with so the rapporteur knows?

Thank you.

Yes.

Of course.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam, for being with us.

My name is Catherine Fioncon Bukonga.

I work for the French international channel France van Catra.

I'd like to to know a bit more how you plan to put pressure on certain of the those 57 countries, because among that list, you have a lot of Western countries and that have no financial or environment problem due to COVID-19 to bring their people back.

So what are you expecting from the international community to do?

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Kathleen.

So I do think it's important to see to have all of these states, which is I believe the first time with with the work that we have undertaken over the past year to verify all of the information available to us.

It is the first time that these 57 states have been named together.

In general, I don't think this is a club that states want to belong to.

And some states are making fairly heroic efforts not to be in this club.

I again would_countries like Kazakhstan, like the Russian Federation, who have been returning consistently throughout and have made stellar efforts to return those nationals who wish to be returned back to to their countries of origin.

So the first thing is just exposure.

I think it it, it underscores the scale of the problem we have.

It's not a handful of small of a couple of states that need to act here.

This is a collective action problem and by naming it as a collective action problem, it might concentrate the minds on what work needs to be done.

The second thing is we want to_states are returning their nationals.

We've had some really not just Kazakhstan, but in the since the COVID-19 pandemic has broken out, Finland has returned some nationals.

Canada returned one child, 15 year old orphan, although I will_that there are scores of Canadian nationals still remaining in the camp.

Ireland has returned a a national and and its mother.

So countries have been able to return.

The issue here is not not that they cannot return, it is the political will in many states to do that.

And I think particularly those states who define their foreign policy and a values LED approach to their work at the Human Rights Council as well as their work elsewhere.

And that simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny when we have large numbers of vulnerable children in these kinds of conditions and states simply unwilling to lay the political ground at home to to ensure their return.

So I think the special procedures by highlighting and I think it's just important to note how many special procedures and the two working groups who have signed this communication and press statement will continue to put collective pressure on these states, underscoring their specific obligations.

And as I said, this isn't a club you want to belong to you, you should be getting your nationals home and, and, and get out of this club because for many of these states, the numbers of nationals in question are quite small.

For others, there are many more.

OK.

Thanks, Jeremy.

Yes, I think.

You can hear me now.

Well, I can't hear you, Jeremy, but I've.

Yeah.

I can hear you now, Jeremy.

Thank you.

OK, thanks.

Thanks a lot.

My name is Jeremy Lawrence.

I'm working for the French Public Radio.

That was my question is mostly a follow up of Catherine's action.

I was wondering what, what, what is your opinion about the if there should be any legal action from the families that go and try to seek justice in France of the court in order to put more pressure on those states.

Do you support those legal action?

Thanks.

Thanks, Jeremy.

So the short answer is yes, many, many families have no other choice at this point but to seek redress through the courts and that occurred in Canada to ensure the return of the national concerned.

As you may know, there are a number of cases, combined cases, pending at the European Court of Human Rights in the United Kingdom.

There has been legal proceedings in the case of Shamima Begum, and I should note that the mandate I hold has been a party to all of those proceedings as an amicus, and we will continue to engage in that way.

Families have no other choice.

And it's important to note that families are are in a complete in a Hobson's choice.

I, I think of the many grandmothers I have spoken to over the course of the last couple of years, many who are literally watching their grandchildren starve on cell phones in in Western countries that refuse to return their their the mothers and the children.

Many are watching illness, Many are watching malnutrition in in in real time.

And uh, will, if they send money or support to their family members, be prosecuted for supporting terrorism?

They often have no choice but to go to the courts and I would urge governments again that we need a speedy and practical resolution and many countries are showing the way on how to do this.

So it's not that we don't have, we don't have examples.

I would urge those countries to bring back their nationals.

The SDF, certainly the de facto authorities in the region do not want these individuals in their camps.

They are pleading for them to be taken home, and we have other countries, including the United States, which has offered and supported many of these returns.

So we have other countries prepared to help.

There is no viable excuse other than political will that explains the lack of return in these cases.

OK.

Thanks.

KL Jansen.

Yes, I'm here.

My name is Carl Jansen.

I work for work as a reporter with the Swedish Television Company in Stockholm.

Good afternoon.

Do you hear me?

Do you hear you?

OK.

Let me be specific.

Do you think that the Sweden, the Swedish government have fulfilled their obligations when it comes to Swedish citizens in the prison camps in Syria?

The short answer is no.

If your women and children are still in the camps in Syria, then you have not fulfilled your obligations under international law set out really clearly.

You have an obligation to take positive action to ensure that your women and children are not subject to risks, to the right to life, risk to the experience of torture in human and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention and a whole host of other rights, including, for children, the right to educate.

None of these children are getting any education or any access to the most basic of entitlements under international law.

All of these states, including Sweden, are in a position to return their nationals if they need to be prosecuted.

If the adults need to be prosecuted, then there is capacity and will.

There should be capacity and will to do so, and the children have to be treated as victims and reunited with families, reintegrated and supported to return in their in in into their societies.

Thank you, Peter, and just remember to identify who you're working with.

Good afternoon.

My name is Peter Kenny.

I'm a freelance journalist, but I also work for the Anadulu Agency of Turkey.

I would just like to know who is running what camps and also if the fact that some of these camps are run by non state actors is that complicating the situation?

Thanks, Miss Nolan.

Thank you, Peter.

So as we're aware and we have not had access on the ground.

So and that poses a difficulty of verification.

And one of the reasons just to_this exercise took place last summer.

But my team and I were very clear that we needed to ensure that we verified as much of the information as has been laid before government before we issued the statements we've issued.

So I just want to_that, yes.

And that the camps are run non state actor the Syrian Democratic Forces.

They are the de facto authorities.

As the communication to governments make clear, however, we raise a number of concerns about the presence of and engagement with foreign security agents and agencies in the area and in the detention conditions in which nationals are being held.

We_that the the the known information about the presence of intelligence and security actors from third country national countries in that region_in our in our, eyes a degree, of concern about the degree of cooperation between the non state and state actors in this space it would.

Also_and further affirm the obligations of third country states in respect of their nationals so it.

Certainly complicates it Peter but It, complicates it in ways that I think_the obligations of States and maybe.

Let me say one more thing in that regard the SDF.

Have MADE very clear that they want to return nationals and they have made very clear that they will cooperate with states who want to have their nationals returned and the states who have returned.

And again, I would call out countries like Indonesia, like Tajikistan who have returned sizeable numbers of their nationals, have affirmed that they have had positive cooperation with the non state actor to that end.

So no country is in a position to say that the third state that the non state actor will not cooperate in, in respect of their third country nationals.

It is very evident that the de facto authorities, the non state actors, are entirely cooperative and entirely willing to return nationals.

Thank you Belongo.

We bonjour.

Proper facility.

The facility.

The Farm.

OK, Shakumosa Veklu, COVID.

So just to say in respect of COVID, it's clear that COVID is a complicating factor here in the sense that travel, as we all know we're all online is more difficult.

The operationalisation of returns would require a greater degree of sensitivity in planning.

But let me be clear, we have had ongoing a trickle of returns from states through COVID that includes one child to Canada.

It includes some returns to France.

It has include a small number of returns to France.

It has included returnees to Kazakhstan last week.

The trickle is happening.

So it's very clear states can make this happen if they have the political will to do it.

And of course, if it can happen for some states, it can happen for all.

And to_the comment that someone made earlier, many of the states in this list are the states who are best placed to take those precautions.

They have the medical and the medical capacity and the infrastructure to return.

So the, the states on the list are not the states who can say we do not have the capacity to manage this during COVID-19.

Your second question, where are the men?

It's, it's a really good question and I, it's one that this communication is not one that we focused upon.

There are a separate set of extremely complex questions about the detention of many men by the by the de facto authorities.

There is no legal process.

Bear in mind the the the tension here is not through law.

There's no legal process.

These people are being held and are unable to leave without the permission of the de facto authorities.

And so that raises many questions about the men who are being held.

That is not the subject of this communication, but it is certainly a matter that my mandate will continue to engage directly with governments upon.

But we also would just state the obvious.

It is impossible to say and it's it's inappropriate and unacceptable to say that these children are cannot be treated as children.

And so the focus on children is to_that states have obligations under the convention On the rights Of the child and that has no relationship to who the parents of these children are and.

It it that that's really one of the reasons why we've had this laser focus on women and children, precisely because states who want to find ways around their obligations should be reminded that their obligations here are are are crystal clear and and therefore have to be, have to be implemented in terms of states who have returned.

I we have had a significant response from states.

Many states, I would say, are very uncomfortable being on this list and they should be because this is not a list you want to be on.

This is a list.

And the states who are working to get off this list are to be commended.

And I've named a number of those states already, but there are many other states who who have been hiding in the shadows, frankly, who have been unwilling to be, who have, who have watched other states take a lot of the heat for having their third country nationals known to be in Syria and have have hidden in the shadows of that.

And I think this list makes really crystal clear who the states are who have the responsibilities, that all of them share it, and that all of them have to address the situation of their nationals and that they are no longer in the shadows.

OK.

Thank you.

Catherine Floor's yours.

Yes, thank you so much.

Lawrence, I have another question regarding the states that are withdrawing the nationality of the people to avoid their obligation and responsibility to bring them back to the country.

What is your position on that move?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So this is an issue that is one that is is we've seen an uptick in citizenship stripping, meaning a number of states are moving pre emptively to strip their nationals of their nationality in order to be to avoid the responsibility of their return.

The mandate is clear that first of all, there is a prohibition on statelessness under international law.

So if you are stripping nationality and you are rendering a person stateless, you are acting in not in compliance with international law.

The second issue is one of Nora Fulmor, which is in a number of cases involving nationality stripping the second country to which a person might have access to nationality is not accessible because of risks of non reformal.

And again, the mandate, my mandate is clear that you individuals just citizens stripping which renders persons subject to non reformal is is is is clearly not best practise under international law and creates a cascade of vulnerability for individuals.

And the third, which is probably the most significant issue here is arbitrary deprivation of nationality.

In most cases, if a person is to be deprived of their nationality, they need to have a reasonable opportunity to engage in legal proceedings to rebut any evidence that is the basis for stripping them of their nationality.

If you are living in a tent, in alcohol, without access to food or water or any of the basic and fundamentals of need for a dignified human life, you are not in a position to engage in a meaningful way with the stripping of your nationality.

And I will stress that in the legal proceedings that the mandate has been involved in, in the Shamima Begum case, our position has been that the the stripping of nationality has been arbitrary under international law and that that is inconsistent with international law.

So in these cases where women in the camps and that and thus their children in many cases effectively are being deprived of a right of meaningful access to exercise their citizenship, it would appear to us that that is in effect arbitrary deprivation because there's no meaningful way for any of these women and their and their children to engage in any legal proceedings to challenge that deprivation.

OK.

Thank you, Robin, you're next.

Yes, thank you.

Just following up on that.

Really.

So there's, there's obviously these.

Cases of people where the country's the original countries have effectively disowned them or, or they try to what happens to to those individuals who do get returned to their home countries and are are they, you know, treated with suspicion?

Are they subject to restrictions?

You know, are they seen as hostile actors?

What, what future do they face when they when they actually get returned?

Thank you.

Thanks, Robin.

So I've had the opportunity thankfully to visit a number of countries where returnees have returned and we've been able to assess first hand what's happening to those individuals.

And I would say of course there's there, there's variance, but we're also seeing some good practise.

What does good practise mean?

Well, good practise means first of all prosecuting.

If you have evidence that a person has committed serious war crimes, crimes against humanity or or genocide and you return them, then you should prosecute them under the law in a free and in a, in a fair trial.

Again, that's mandate would take the view that's your obligation.

And in fact, the best way for us to see some kind of accountability for what's happened in Syria and Iraq will be through returns, because the capacity for both Iraq and Syria to run trials is is is limited to state the obvious.

And I, I think we are, we're not suggesting, I hope that non state actors would be running these trials for us because again, the whole, the whole set of issues that raises are, are quite extraordinary.

So the first thing is if they return or prosecute them, if you have the evidence and if it's appropriate in a fair trial.

The second is rehabilitation and reintegration.

And in a number of countries we've seen first hand how that's being operationalized.

I'm going to use the example of Kazakhstan again.

I was there last year when they returned 500 of their nationals, women and children home.

And we're able to assess first hand the integration of those individuals.

And it's clear, you're absolutely right.

The test of how human rights compliant the returns will be will not just be in the return but will be in the ensuring that these individuals can return to a normal and dignified life on return.

And I view it as our obligations and the special rapporteurs and the working group signing this communication have made clear that they will be watching these states closely on return to make sure that the integration is human rights compliant and that states are doing their best to ensure that these individuals can return to normal life.

It certainly would not be helpful if you further stigmatise and securitize these individuals, many of them children, babies, for the rest of their lives.

That would neither be human rights compliant nor often in many cases, security wise.

OK.

Thank you, Stephanie from Reuters.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Stephanie, never here.

Reuters.

I came up slightly late and I'm just looking at the list of countries on your list.

Could you just explain, you know Iraq in this, a lot of some of these are Iraqi nationals, are they not or is that more, more than men?

Does that apply more to the men and do you have any sorry and do you have any figure at the moment for for example, USUS nationals?

Yes, good thanks.

Thanks Stephanie.

So Iraq is not on this list.

I do want to say a word about both Iraq and Syria.

You will notice that the Syrian Arab Republic is listed and we sent a copy of this of these letters, all, all of them, all 57 of them to the Syrian Arab Republic has noticed in in both the cases of Iraq and Syria, which are extremely complex.

The largest number of returns are in fact to those two countries currently.

And let me just check my own numbers.

But we know that really the, the, the most significant classes or largest classes of groups are.

So we have, let me just give you the figures that I have that are up to date.

As of October, we have 64,619 individuals and a whole, for example, of which 48% are Iraqi nationals and 37% are Syrians.

The issues of return to their countries are extremely complex and they are not dealt with in this letter because the issues of Nora Fulmore and and the issues of Fair trial and capacity are specific and unique to those countries.

And the mandate I hold will be addressing those issues separately from this communication, which only deals with the listed third country nationals.

And we do have approximate numbers for the nationalities that are the countries that are listed.

But I'm not giving out numbers today, partly because and I, I say, and I'll, I'll explain why, partly as you know, the issues with the small number of countries, there are issues around the privacy of the individuals concerned, but more than that without access, these are approximate numbers that the mandates sending this communication are holding.

They are approximate because we don't have access to the camps in a way that would allow us to do a number count.

But we are certainly encouraging States and so we're communicating.

We're certainly happy to communicate numbers with the states concerned, but for now we're not communicating country by country numbers more publicly.

OK.

Thank you, Moussa.

You're next.

Well here bonjour Mesaboco Macistian concern Nancy swestern cat milk person who parted swestern cat milk person on phone.

If if if I'm esque some to the the family, the combatante transit, the combatante nomi terrorist.

Thank you.

So this is the the question you ask.

Are they all connected to combatants?

Are they all are they all effectively the the associated so they have been deemed as such, right.

So the, the, the nomenclature that is used by states is is is a nomenclature that suggests their connection to non state actor groups and therefore the that's the rationale given for their detention.

I do want to be clear that the circumstances of all of these women and children are extremely complex.

That is to say that we are aware of women who came to Syria because they were groomed online, women who were we would use the term trafficked.

You will notice that the Special Rapporteur on trafficking and the Special Rapporteur on sale of children has has signed this communication.

We have significant concerns about the degrees of consent for sizeable portions of the women in this population who ended up there.

The second is the idea that by virtue of being associated with or married to or connected by a family, a member by usually a male family member, automatically puts you in a category of suspicion.

So in most countries, I think we've got to the point where we don't assume that a woman holds exactly the views of her spouse or the person or the father or the brother that she's connected to.

We have moved, I think, far beyond that kind of narrow thinking in so many other places.

But it is quite extraordinary that 64,000 people, women and children have been condemned to this status by the presumption of their connection and with no proof as of yet that if we, if we look at them one by one as to what they have specifically done to hold them in these kinds of contexts.

So I do think it is really important that both we as special rapporteurs, you as journalists, that we interrogate the kind of language that we're using around these individuals.

It's also extraordinary to me if we think of these children that we have condemned thousands and thousands of children to the status of being non child by virtue of the family that they were born into.

So we see countries drawing arbitrary lines on what age of children they will bring back.

We see countries saying, oh, these children are not really children because they were born into that family.

We don't say that anywhere else.

We have dealt with, as many of the seasoned journalists on this call will know, we have dealt with armed conflicts in multi multiple parts of the world where children have been associated with armed groups, have been born in armed groups, have been have been accompanied by virtue of what their parents are doing to being part of groups.

We have never to find those children as non children for the purposes of international law protection.

But it appears highly convenient, particularly as you said, for Western states to deem these children as non children.

And I think that's extraordinarily regrettable and I think those states will live to regret it.

You cannot hold your own children in your country of nationality to be of of higher status per the the rights of the child and then then deem these children, your other children as not having the state the same status.

So it seems to me extraordinarily morally bankrupt for want of a better word to treat children in this way.

And your question also and thank you.

For which is what reasons are states giving special rapporteurs and others for non return?

Well, one is they say we should try people close to where the crimes occurred.

And in general, as many of the human rights actors will tell you, we generally do think that we think it's better if you can provide fair trial where atrocities occurred, then that's the place to have the trial.

But let's be clear, there are no trials happening to address systemic torture in human degrading treatment, crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes in northeast Syria.

No, none.

And there is no likelihood of such trials.

So the idea that we're holding 64,000 in alcohol and and more in in Raj camp for the illusionary prospect of the trial at some future date is again, it's actually not real.

It's, it's clearly an excuse to avoid bringing people home.

The second is the argument of security risk, that these individuals pose security risks and therefore we cannot bring them home.

And let me answer that one.

So if there's a security risk, assess it.

And if a person needs to be prosecuted on return, then prosecute them because you have the capacity to do that.

And countries have done that already with returnees.

But the idea that you condemn hundreds, hundreds of children, thousands of children on the idea that they they are some form of loose security risk and not bring them home again seems to me to be a misuse of the nomenclature of security as numerous intelligence services.

And the mandate speaks and works closely with intelligence services in many parts of the world.

And many of them continue to tell us that the long term security risk is in leaving those children there.

That if you condemn children to a life in which there is no dignity and none of their rights protected in this extreme way, you create the conditions conducive for further violence.

So I think here the issue of security has to be looked at holistically and not in this narrow frame.

And and the third has been more recently has been COVID, as I think that one of the previous speaker questioners asked me.

And I would just_COVID is a challenge, but many countries are showing us the way on how to do returns with COVID.

COVID is not an excuse not to bring these children home.

These children will die from COVID in these conditions if it runs through the camps.

OK.

Thank you, Christina.

And please identify who you work with.

Yes, thank you.

I work for Sweden's biggest daily, Noggins New York, and you said earlier this is not a list you want to be on.

Could you?

Do you have a label for the list?

Is it a blacklist?

Is it a list of shame?

How would you label it?

Thank you.

So I don't think this is a list you want to be on.

I think this is a list countries should be actively seeking to come off.

A recent report described this, the situation in alcohol and and Raj referring to in particular to European nationals as Europe's Guantanamo.

This is a place where people are being held without any process indefinitely, with no prospect of being freed.

None of us, particularly democracies, states who abide by the rule of law, want to have their nationals being held with their support in those conditions.

So I think this is for many of these states, this is a list of shame for some countries.

And I do want to be clear.

There are some countries on this list making extraordinary efforts to get their nationals home, and those states should be commended.

But the states who are not bringing large numbers of their nationals home, or states who literally have a handful of nationals on this list, those states are on a list of shame because they can do better.

Thank you, Catherine.

Yes, I have a question regarding sanctions.

Do you think that the next.

Step should be sanctions toward countries, I mean states that refuse to bring their national backs back.

Thank you.

So thanks for the question.

Sanctions is a really complicated space.

I want to say the mandate engages with the use of sanctions against designated UN actors.

By and large we use sanctions in those ways where we either target non state groups.

We do have a dash Al Qaeda sanctions process at the UN, and we also have sanctions that we use against states whom we deem to be in systematic violation of international law, whether that's through the UN under Chapter 7.

The EU uses sanctions measures and countries use them bilaterally.

I suspect that there's not the political will for sanctions, but I don't think we have to get to sanctions here.

States have long experience on dealing with.

We just take children.

Many states have highly sophisticated, highly competent juvenile justice systems which deal with children with a whole spectre of challenges.

They also have highly competent, highly effective state welfare systems that deal with families who need support.

None of this is new and states, many states on this list have dealt with situations of armed conflict over decades where they have had to deal with returning fighters, with people who need to be demobilised and reintegrated.

So this is not new to them I either.

And so I look at, I'm going to give you the example of Ireland who brought back it's woman and child national.

Ireland has had 30 years of conflict and also of post to peace agreement reintegrating persons back into ordinary life.

The UK has too because it has has done that in Northern Ireland.

So these states have the we do not need to get to sanctions and I suspect we do not have the political will to get to sanctions.

We need states to use the systems they have to, to learn from the other states who have brought back their nationals in systematic ways and who are doing the hard work of rehabilitating and re engaging them.

And that is the most effective security work states can be doing right now.

So I, I think that's what I would encourage us all to be to, to, to, to remind, to remind ourselves that the, the means to do these returns exist within states.

They are not exceptional means.

And they simply need, states really need to focus their political will and their capacity on creating the conditions that will allow return, which is a political issue, not neither a legal nor a capacity issue.

OK.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Yeah, sorry, at the risk of getting back into the numbers, sorry, you you gave me very **** percentages for the people in those camps who are of Iraqi or Syrian nationality, how many concretely are of the 57 or 56 nationals of those 56 governments or so that are not Iraqi or how many are not Iraqi?

Sure.

Yeah, I'm happy to give you that number.

Total number.

We we're not a Syrian either.

Yes.

So the total, I'm going to give you the numbers for Al Hall because these are what I have to hand.

And I'm just asking my team here to to remind me of the numbers for Raj, if we have them.

So on Al Hall, we have, as I said, we have 48% Iraqis 30,824, we have 37% Syrian 24,325 and we have 15% third country nationals 9462.

That's our whole.

Let me see if my team can get me numbers on Raj because I don't have them right in front of me.

I just have the whole numbers.

But we can get back to you, Stephanie off this call.

So third country nationals in alcohol alone, we're talking about 9462 individuals and we'll see if you can, we can get you a number for Raj.

OK.

Thank you, Peter.

Yes, thank you.

Nolan, I wanted to ask you about the you mentioned the sort of analogy of Guantanamo Bay.

And if you look at the history of concentration camps, I mean, these are called refugee camps, but are they concentration camps?

So I don't make that analogy.

I, I think that I think it's not one to be made lightly.

I'm not.

I think, I think the scale of the Holocaust, the, the focus on a particular ethnic group, Jews is not one that we, we make that comparison Willy nilly.

But I do think that the analogy to Guantanamo is not, I'll placed I say that because bear in mind, we're now in the 19th official year when persons have been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

There's still 40 men being held there.

The youngest is 38, the eldest is 73.

Only one of them has been convicted of an offence in a trial that women would think of as not fair by any international law standards.

Many of them have never been charged with any crime and they still remain detained in this camp.

No one has been through a legal process that defines their being there and they can't leave.

So there's no process.

This is in a in a refugee camp, there is a modicum of choice for those who are there.

It's, it's Hobson's choice, but it is not a condition in which one is held with armed cards on the outside where the separation.

And one of the things I, I, I want to note is that one of our major concerns in the context of these camps is the, the ways in which families are being separated.

We have raised particular concerns as about what happens to young boys when they hit the age of 12 or 13 in the camps in our communications to government.

And so these are, this is a, this is a secure, this is not a refugee camp.

This is a, this is a camp in which people are being held without legal process, with no choice, in conditions that are inhumane.

So I think the analogy to other camps of prolonged indefinite detention, the most egregious of which is of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are appropriate.

OK.

Thank you.

I think we've got one last question.

Oh no, another one's popped in Steena.

Hello, my name is Tina Blomgren, I work for Swedish Public Service Television.

I would like to ask because you a list of of shame here, what do you see reasons for these states not to repatriate their citizens?

Can you elaborate?

So I will say that, you know, I've talked a little bit already about the arguments that they won't return because there's some illusionary idea that there might be trials somewhere in North East Syria at some point.

The, the, the, the argument from security has been made.

And again, I've underscored how illusionary also that argument is when you leave, when you condemn hundreds of children either to death or to an inhumane life in the middle of an arid desert in North East Syria.

If if one thinks those do not produce conditions conducive to violence in the future, I think that I can only say that is naive thinking.

I think the other thing I would stress, and this is what my team and I have seen when we have travelled to countries who have done returns, countries who decide to return lay the political ground for return.

They make a clear decision that they are going to speak about children as if they are children.

They make the clear point that they protect all families, even families who have transgressed or families who are problematic.

They use the language of inclusiveness and kindness and solidarity, not the language of fear, exclusion and othering.

And so if you're saying why aren't states bringing them back, states aren't these.

These women and children are a convenient battering ram on all the fears of the state and of the public.

They are made objects of hate, of ridicule, of shame.

And that's easy to do, That is easy to do.

What's hard and moral for states to do is to to demonstrate that they cherish all the children of their nations equally, that they can show compassion to women, many of whom were children when they travelled to Syria, what now seems like decades ago, but only in the last, in the last decade, and they can lay the political ground.

We've seen this in countries where, for example, the grandmothers of these children and their mothers are are brought into the public domain and they talk about their daughters and their grandchildren and remind the public and politicians that these are children and that they deserve the chance to live a dignified life.

So the advice for governments is behave like these children are children, speak about them like they are children and give them the dignity that you give to other children and the same opportunity you give to every child in your society.

OK.

Thank you, Jasper.

Yes, hello, My name is Jasper Sutton.

I'm from.

Swedish daily, I said.

Oh, goddet.

And I'd like to ask you, you say that you see no need for sanctions for states who do not bring home their citizens.

But but still, if, if well, if the the states doesn't act, don't act urgently to to bring home their citizens and, and well, nothing happens in the near future.

Do you have any plans to follow this this follow up to this call of urgency and and action?

Thanks, Jasper.

So I think the first thing I would say is I'm a often as well as an optimist.

I'm a realist.

I think the chances sanctions given the list of names on this list is is low that that.

That said, we have a number of states who are prominent advocates for return, including states on this list.

So, for example, this is an unusual situation in which both the United States and Russia are on the same page, where these two governments have consistently said they think repatriation is important and they will engage and support repatriation.

And so I think that's politically really significant where both of those countries are telling other countries and encouraging other countries to follow their example.

We had a **** level area formula meeting in New York last week led by the Russian Federation, which was particularly positive in showing I think leadership to other countries, particularly in the New York Security Council arena and elevating the importance of this issue of return on to the Security Council.

So I think that's, that's a really strong signal to states on this list who are not on the Security Council about the importance of return.

I think the other thing is that this is a, a really, if you think about this as a list of, of shame in some ways are a list that you don't want to be on.

Then the Human Rights Council has a list of 757 countries before it now for whom we're really clear that in in a very strong voice.

As many of you who, who follow special procedures will know, it's hard to get a lot of special rapporteurs to talk in one voice.

Well, here you have 12 special rapporteurs and two of the two working groups, a formidable set of voices speaking in one voice across a whole range of human rights issues, telling the Council really clearly that this is a matter of extreme urgency.

And this is a place if the Human Rights Council means what it says.

And we, we know that, that this is a, a complex political space in its own right.

But nonetheless, it's very clear that you have a group of states who have a collective action problem and they have the support of other states to stop their collective action problem.

And there are many resources available to them, including from within the UN system, to help them address this collective action problem.

So I would strongly encourage those states, you don't want to be on this list.

You want to get off this list.

You want to show that you can, in fact, deliver on the most basic promises to your most vulnerable systems.

And there's a lot of resources.

And in the next couple of weeks, I will be speaking to many of these governments, many of them we are in contact with already, and we will be reminding them of those resources.

We will be connecting them to those resources and we will be telling them, as we have done to countries who have returned.

You get accolades for bringing your citizens back.

You get the recognition from the human rights system that you are taking hard and challenging action, but you're doing what you're supposed to do, and you will get an acknowledgement of doing the right thing.

So we're encouraging states to do the right thing and not be on this list.

OK, Anne, we have one more from Catherine.

We've we've been going for an hour, so I think this will be our last one.

Thank you, reporter, all yours.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Jeremy, my question is related to the form you did issued official letters to those 57 governments in the case of France or Switzerland to whom where those letters addressed to?

Thank you, thank you.

I will double check with my team but the letters generally go to the to the embassy.

Thank you.

Sorry, we the muting and unmuting eludes us for 30 seconds.

So in the first instance, the letter is transferred to the ambassador in Geneva and it is then generally forwarded to the foreign, to the to the foreign minister or or equivalent in the state concern.

So in the case of the United States, it will be on Anthony Blinken's desk to think about as the United States returns to the Human Rights Council.

In, in France and Switzerland, it will be with, in the first instance with the, with the ambassador in Geneva and then with the foreign ministry.

We have very good dialogue with many of these States and we recognise that this is hard, It is hard.

These are this is a complicated situation, but it only gets harder staying on this list for the long term puts puts states in a category they do not want to be in.

So I mean, part of this is a plea to states to say make your own life easy.

Get off this list.

OK, thank you special reporter and thank you journalist.

Just to for those who aren't familiar how the special procedure system works, this was a communication.

So it's, it's a confidential document and will remain so for 60 days.

Then it's posted online.

So that will be on the 27th of March.

Yeah, correct.

So.

Michelle can confirm that, but but I would encourage these letters are very long and very detailed.

So some special procedure letters for those of you who are familiar with them are very short, but this is an extremely detailed letter relevant to all of the countries.

And so those of you who have interest in data collection, biometrics, what's happening in these camps, the material conditions of your nationals, then I encourage you to look at the letters in 60 days time because the letters themselves I think are particularly revealing in the detail they provide on the conditions in the camps and on the obligations of states.

OK.

Thank you.

And if you have any issues trying to find that letter, you can send myself an e-mail or Michelle at the bottom of the news release.

We'll be able to.

It can be a little difficult to find these documents, but otherwise, thank you.

Thank you, special reporter.

I'll stay on for a couple of minutes if there's any follow up.

So it's early morning where I am so.

OK, Thank you.

Thank you, journalists.