Secretary for Legal Affairs
Office of Legal Cooperation
Secretary for Legal Affairs Office of Legal Cooperation Search Espa�ol

WHITE PAPER

Prepared by
The Open Society Institute Forced Migration Projects for the
Conference on Regional Responses to Forced Migration Emergencies
in Central America and the Caribbean
September 30-October 1, 1997

Table of Contents



White Paper

I. Introduction

The general purpose of this document and conference is to assist governments and policy makers in the humane management of refugee and other forced migration emergencies.* The specific objective of the meeting is to explore modalities for the development of a regional approach to refugee and migration emergencies. One possible solution would be the establishment of a regional planning institute. Such an institute could, for example, assist governments in the early identification of possible emergencies, as well as help to plan and implement operations to both assist governments and protect asylum seekers.

A. Regional Approaches

Regional bodies and approaches are likely to play an increasingly significant role in responding to current and future refugee problems around the world. The Cold War and its rigid division of the world often distorted the potential for comprehensive, regional approaches. However, there have been notable exceptions. There is now a precedent for developing regional approaches to solve refugee emergencies.

Several regional organizations and ad hoc regional groupings have already made efforts to intervene in a number of refugee problems. The regional response typically consists of jointly devising a plan of action to deal with the specific displacement. Sometimes, as in Central America and Southeast Asia, regional initiatives have achieved close partnerships with the UN. In other cases, such as Cambodia, Liberia or Rwanda, regional organizations may cooperate with U.N. peacekeeping missions.

Nowhere is the term "regional" precisely defined. The U.N. Charter refers to "Regional Arrangements" without defining them. In 1945, the only regional institutions were the Arab League and the Organization of American States (OAS). The imprecision of the drafters thus permitted a great deal of flexibility for the development of regional approaches to regional problems.

Although "region" is undefined, not just any grouping of a few neighbors can be considered a regional arrangement. While remaining imprecise, some of the characteristics of a region are:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, through its conclusions on the international protection of refugees, provides guidance by stating that:

...In cases of large-scale influx, persons seeking asylum should always receive at least temporary refuge. States which, because of their geographical situation, or otherwise, are faced with large�scale influx should as necessary and at the request of the State concerned receive immediate assistance from other States in accordance with the principle of equitable burden�sharing. ...Other States should take appropriate measures individually, jointly or through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or other international bodies to ensure that the burden of the first asylum country is equitably shared. Conclusions of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme (hereafter referred to as ExCom Conclusions), No. 15 (XXX) 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

B. Specific Examples of Regional Approaches to Refugee Emergencies

C. Regional Planning Institute

Against this backdrop of a comprehensive method of seeking durable solutions, history and reality have shown that often, host governments are forced to act immediately, without time for adequate planning, and without regard for both the interests of their own nationals and persons fleeing and seeking protection.

History has also shown that a mass influx may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries; thus a satisfactory solution of a problem, international in scope and nature, cannot be achieved without international co�operation. When governments take action the international community recommends that:

... Such action should be taken bilaterally or multilaterally at the regional or at the universal levels and that ...primary consideration should be given to the possibility of finding suitable solutions within the regional context. (4) The measures to be taken within the context of such burden�sharing arrangements should be adapted to the particular situation. They should include, as necessary, emergency, financial and technical assistance, assistance in kind and advance pledging of further financial or other assistance beyond the emergency phase until durable solutions are found, and where voluntary repatriation or local settlement cannot be envisaged, the provision for asylum seekers of resettlement possibilities in a cultural environment appropriate for their well�being. ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII), 1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

Therefore, a possible solution to assisting governments in contingency planning for migration or refugee emergencies in the Central American and Caribbean region would be the establishment of a regional planning institute. Such an agency could have a variety of responsibilities in the context of emergency forced migrations. Its mandate could cover some of the following topics:

  1. Developing early warning mechanisms
  2. Providing training and undertaking preparedness exercises, in conjunction with UNHCR
  3. Suggesting formulae for responsible sharing of costs
  4. Monitoring compliance with international human rights standards
  5. Assisting governments with managing emergencies.

This regional planning institute should be non-political in nature and staffed by qualified experts. An advisory committee consisting of scholars and non-governmental representatives should work with the institute to establish guidelines for averting potential disasters and responding humanely to emergencies. The institute should have formal relations with concerned international organizations such as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Organization of American States, the International Organization for Migration, the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Executive Committee of the UNHCR has recognized that:

...there is a need for the international community to address these causes in a concerted and holistic manner, Aware that involuntary displacement, in addition to the human suffering involved, can impose significant intra�regional burdens, and may also affect security and stability at the regional level, Acknowledging the desirability of comprehensive approaches by the international community to the problems of refugees and displaced persons, including addressing root causes, strengthening emergency preparedness and response, providing effective protection, and achieving durable solutions, ... (c) Underlines the value of regional cooperation, as illustrated by these approaches, in addressing involuntary displacement in a manner which encompasses the political dimension of causes; (d) Recalls that, while there is no blueprint for such approaches, protection considerations should govern the entire process towards solutions, and standards should be applied consistently; (e) Encourages States, in coordination and cooperation with each other, and with international organizations, if applicable, to consider the adoption of protection�based comprehensive approaches to particular problems of displacement, and identifies, as the principal elements of such approaches. ExCom Conclusions, No. 80 (XLVII), 1996: Comprehensive and Regional Approaches Within a Protection Framework.

The absence of a comprehensive arrangement in the Caribbean and Central America has resulted in inadequate responses to past refugee and migration emergencies. Crises will arise again. Nearby countries will be adversely affected.

In order to be prepared for sudden displacements and to minimize the risks of disproportionate impacts and costs, the nations of the Americas should expand upon earlier regional efforts and conclude a temporary refuge agreement. This would provide a rapid, efficient, and humane response to refugee and migration emergencies, while ensuring that no one nation will be left to deal with a crisis alone. Such an agreement would provide a genuine measure of security for both individuals and States.

II. Background on Relevant International and Regional Instruments

A. Working Definitions

This section will explore and attempt to clarify the differences between persons seeking to migrate for economic and related reasons and those forced to migrate due to persecution or war. Fundamental distinctions exist between such categories of people, which have broad implications for state responsibility and respect for human rights. This includes the protection of refugees, including first asylum and non�refoulement.

1. Migrants

Migrants are persons who leave their country of origin for various reasons, often to be reunited with family members in the receiving State; or who leave due to other reasons such as employment or studies, etc. Migrants may enter the receiving State temporarily or permanently, and enter with formal authorizing documents or enter without proper documentation.

     a. Undocumented Migrants: At times, migrants will enter a State without permission and without proper documents, either temporarily (e.g. to work for a time and send remittances home), or with the intention to remain permanently.

     b. Documented Temporary Migrants: In other situations, migrants enter the receiving State with permission and proper documents, but only for a short period, e.g. to visit as a tourist, to study, to work for a season as an agricultural worker or in another profession, to provide services as a health provider, or to conduct missionary work as a member of the clergy. After temporary documented migrants complete their task, they are expected to return to their country of origin.

     c. Documented Permanent Migrants: Receiving States grant admission to migrants on various grounds, for example, to allow the migrant to reside with a close family member (e.g. a migrant marries a citizen of the receiving State and the State grants residency documents to the migrant). In another example, the migrant enters the State with permission and proper documents to work and thereby fulfills a need in the receiving State's labor market economy (e.g. agricultural labor).

2. Refugees

Refugees are persons who are outside of their country of origin, and fear persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In Central America, the definition of refugees has been expanded to include those people who have been forced to flee persecution, war, disorder or massive human rights abuses in their home country.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are more than 14 million refugees around the world, and at least 30 million people displaced within the borders of their own countries. Thus, one in every 122 people on earth has been forced into flight. If the precipitating conditions are not addressed, then those forced to flee may depart again, leading to more refugees and more tension. This can affect neighboring States. Hence it is important to identify a regional approach that can manage in a humane fashion the unnecessary and tragic flight.

3. Internally Displaced Persons

Displaced persons are people who are still within the borders of their country of origin, and who, like refugees, fear persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. They may also be displaced as a result of natural disasters such as floods or famine. ExCom Conclusions, No. 75 (XLV), 1994: Internally Displaced Persons.

B. International and Regional Documents

A variety of international and regional conventions, declarations and resolutions define the term "refugee" and provide for the protection of persons defined as refugees. The majority of State members of the OAS are signatories to these human rights instruments. A list of such documents with full citations appears in the appendix.

III. History of Emergency Refugee Situations in Central America and Caribbean

A. Refugees and Displaced Persons in Central America: General Introduction

In the 1970s and 1980s, Central America was rocked by war, civil strife and widespread human rights abuses that forced nearly 2 million people from Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua to leave their homes. By the mid�1980s, nearly all sides had grown weary of conflict and were beginning to search for a solution that would encompass the whole region �� asylum countries as well as those ravaged by war.

In 1987, the Central American presidents took matters into their own hands with the signing of the Arias Peace Plan. The plan called for cease�fires, coexistence between Nicaragua and its neighbors, guarantees of U.S. security concerns, and an end to interventions in the internal affairs of other nations.

In 1989, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua adopted a five�year plan (1989�1994) to find solutions to the problems of uprooted people in the strife�torn region. The adoption of this plan was made possible because of the political agreement toward peace that was signed by the five Central American presidents in Esquipulas in 1987 (Esquipulas II). The plan is known as CIREFCA, the Spanish acronym for Conference on Central American Refugees.

More than 1.9 million people were targeted for help, including 146,400 refugees, 61,500 returnees, 893,000 undocumented Central American aliens and 872,000 internally displaced persons. By the end of its five�year life, the program had helped more than 118,000 refugees (70,000 Nicaraguans, 30,000 Salvadorans and 18,000 Guatemalans) return voluntarily to their homelands. Thousands more who decided not to go home were integrated in asylum countries. Closed refugee camps were eliminated.

The International Conference on Central American Refugees (CIREFCA) in May 1989 was both a remarkable capstone in a regional peace process that began in the early 1980s, and a notable milestone in a continuing search for peace and development. The Cartagena Declaration in 1984, the Contadora Act for Peace and Cooperation in 1986, and the Esquipulas II in 1987 (the Arias Peace Plan), are other important landmarks in a region�wide, coordinated process to promote peace, assist uprooted peoples, repatriate refugees, and strengthen democracy and human rights.

Moreover, the agreement recognized that there could be no lasting peace without initiatives to resolve the problem of refugees, returnees and displaced persons, and appealed for international aid for these efforts. Thus, solutions in this region included peace treaties, elections, U.N. peacekeeping and peace�building efforts. CIREFCA in turn, played an important humanitarian piece of this larger regional process.

CIREFCA's operations, jointly implemented by specialized agencies of the UN - UNHCR and UNDP, are an interesting attempt by the international community to support States engaged in post�conflict peace�building, and to contribute to the consolidation of peace. CIREFCA integrated repatriation to Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and acceptance of some of the uprooted for permanent local settlement in Costa Rica, Belize and Mexico, with short� and long�term development in the context of a regional peace process.

Meanwhile in the Caribbean, in the early 1990s, thousands of Haitians fled Haiti as a result of the military coup that ousted democratically elected President, Jean Bertrand Aristide. On an ad hoc basis several States in Central America agreed to assist in granting temporary refuge. In addition, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Cubans fled Cuba on boats and planes, like their Haitian neighbors. Again, on an ad hoc basis, several States in the Americas agreed to accept the Cubans.

B. Specific States' Responses

In the absence of a fully coordinated, regional system, many States have taken upon themselves the humanitarian responsibility of providing protection and assistance to individuals in need. Below are some recent examples:

1. Bahamas - protection of Cubans and Haitians

In 1995, the government of Bahamas concluded an agreement with Haiti which included the legalization of the status of Haitians who had been living in the Bahamas for at least ten years. The agreement also provided that children born in the Bahamas to Haitian parents could be accorded the benefits of its laws and institutions. There have, however, been reports by some human rights monitors of the repatriation of numerous Haitians by the Bahamas without screening for possible refugee claims prior to return.

As to Cuban asylum seekers in the Bahamas, Bahamas provided Cubans arriving in the island the ability to reside in temporary refugee camps with assistance or aid from Cuban Americans in Miami and the Bahamas.

2. Belize - protection of Salvadorans and Guatemalans

Due to the peace process, progress is being made with the continuing return of Guatemalan refugees from Mexico �� 9,500 in 1995. There are still about 40,000 refugees in Mexico and Belize; however, it is hoped that an appropriate durable solution will be found for these refugees within the region.

In 1995, the documented refugee population in Belize totaled 8,754 (Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans and refugees from other countries). In addition to the recognized and registered refugee population (8,800), it is estimated that some 10,000 to 20,000 Central Americans are in a refugee�like situation, many of whom benefit, together with the refugees, from UNHCR assistance in the form of community�based quick impact projects (QIPs). Belize also provides refuge to persons from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America.

Prior to 1994, the government distributed indefinite refugee residence permits to persons granted asylum, who could apply for permanent resident status after one year. In 1994, the government changed the permit to a renewable one-year card.

3. Canada

In 1995, more than 26,000 asylum claims were referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The recognition rate stood at about 70 percent, one of the highest rates in the Americas. Most of the refugees are from Sri Lanka, Somalia, Iran, India and Pakistan. In addition, Canada maintains an annual resettlement quota, taking refugees directly from other countries where they face acute difficulties. In 1995, 7,600 refugees were resettled in Canada. More than 55 percent were from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Canada has taken a lead role on protection issues concerning refugee women. It is the first country to have developed specific guidelines to determine asylum claims relating to gender�based persecution. Canada is also the only country ever to have received the Nansen Medal, which is awarded by UNHCR's High Commissioner for particular service to refugees. Canada was awarded the medal in November 1986 in recognition of its generous asylum procedures.

4. Cayman Islands - protection of Cubans *

For the past several years, Cuban balseros have arrived in this UK administered territory. Interior Ministry officials release them temporarily into the custody of the local Cuban community and assist in searching for a third country to accept them permanently. All Cubans who arrive in the Cayman Islands are screened using procedures approved and observed by UNHCR, in accordance with the terms of the 1951 Convention. The Cayman Islands and Cuba entered into an agreement to implement an "orderly repatriation program" for unauthorized Cubans remaining in the Cayman Island. Under this agreement, some have been repatriated to Cuba, and others have been transferred to the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

5. Costa Rica - protection of Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Cubans

A large majority of refugees residing in Costa Rica consist of persons from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Peru and various other nationalities. Costa Rica has granted residency to thousands of Nicaraguans, including former refugees. There are also some refugees from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America, especially in Belize. During 1995, Costa Rican border officials attended UN-sponsored training on refugee law and other human rights issues.

A November 1992 government decree in Costa Rica gave all refugees an opportunity to obtain permanent residency. Some 10,000 of them � out of 25,000 remaining refugees and 80,000 uprooted people � have taken advantage of the offer. By 31 May 1995 a total of 10,200 refugees had been granted resident status in Costa Rica. Even though the decree expired in November 1993, refugees continue to be able to apply for and obtain residence status.

6. Cuba - protection of Haitians and Africans **

Although Cuba has produced asylum seekers, it has also been a country of asylum for Haitians (though in an unexpected development, all but 20 of the 440 Haitian refugees in Cuba repatriated in November 1994). Cuba also protects persons fleeing persecution from Africa: for its part, Cuba hosts most of the African refugees in the region, who are principally Western Saharans and Sudanese, and in the past, Namibians.

Following a formal request from the Cuban Government to the High Commissioner in 1994, UNHCR started a program of assistance for 1,493 Western Saharan and 278 Sudanese male refugee students. Student beneficiaries in the academic year 1994�1995 are 1,133 Western Saharans and 89 Sudanese at the secondary level, with an additional 550 students �� 360 Western Saharans, 189 Sudanese and 1 refugee from Swaziland �� at a tertiary level under the Albert Einstein German Refugee Academic Initiative (DAFI) program.

7. Dominican Republic - protection of Haitians

The Dominican Republic has allowed Haitians to reside in its territory. It is estimated that up to 500,000 Haitians work in sugar plantations. Some are registered with the authorities and are awaiting approval of their application for asylum. With President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's return and the change in government, the number of Haitians fleeing to the Dominican Republic has diminished.

Following the military coup that overthrew President Aristide in September 1991, an estimated 35,000 Haitians entered the Dominican Republic under circumstances that would suggest refugee�like motivations. However, few requested refugee status, and 3,100 were recognized by the Dominican government as refugees.

Since 1995, 850 Haitian refugees have voluntarily repatriated under UNHCR auspices. Of the 35,000 Haitians who illegally entered the Dominican Republic in the early 1990s, approximately 20,000 have returned to their country.

Of the former Haitian refugees who remained in the Dominican Republic, about 40 percent are women and 30 percent are children. The majority live in the outskirts of the capital, Santo Domingo, and are integrated into Dominican society, albeit sometimes under difficult conditions.

Asylum seekers are granted a temporary permit to stay in the country while their cases are being considered. Recognized refugees are granted renewable one�year residence permits, and are allowed to work. Through a local non�governmental organization specialized in refugee matters, UNHCR provides asylum seekers and refugees with legal assistance, material assistance, basic medical expenses and education to promote self�sufficiency. UNHCR has established a border "antenna" network with humanitarian NGOs, government authorities and churches to monitor new arrivals, ensure early warning of forced movements of people and identify conditions that may cause displacement. The office also monitors local integration.

8. El Salvador - protection of Nicaraguans

Although El Salvador has produced asylum seekers, it has also granted protection to Nicaraguans in the past. With the various peace accords, Salvadorans have repatriated to El Salvador, as have Nicaraguans to Nicaragua.

9. Jamaica - protection of Haitians and Cubans

Jamaica has offered its land and territorial waters for the protection of refugees. The largest single group are Haitians and to a smaller extent, Cubans. In the past, Jamaica has established camps near Montego Bay for Haitians. It has also allowed the US government to screen Haitian asylum seekers in Jamaican territorial waters. Jamaica has further allowed Cuban asylum seekers to land and reside throughout the land, pending adjudication of their requests for refuge in third countries.

10. Mexico - protection of Guatemalans, Salvadorans

In 1990, Mexico adopted legislation which distinguishes between refugee status (granted to persons who fled internal conflict or generalized violence) and political asylum (granted to persons who fled political persecution). By the end of 1995, only 32,000 registered Guatemalan refugees remained in Mexico. In addition, as of 1995, Mexico had granted approximately 500 persons political asylum (most had been recognized prior to the enactment of the 1990 legislation).

As an asylum country, Mexico's objectives under CIREFCA have included the promotion of voluntary repatriation to Guatemala as a priority solution, as well as self�sufficiency oriented toward integration for those refugees who do not wish to repatriate. Due to the peace process, there is a continuing return of Guatemalan refugees from Mexico �� 9,500 in 1995. There are still about 40,000 refugees in Mexico and Belize; however, it is hoped that an appropriate durable solution will be found for those remaining.

By the end of 1995, 32,000 registered Guatemalans remained in Mexico. Since the Guatemalan peace accords were signed, more Guatemalans have begun the process of voluntarily repatriating.

11. Nicaragua - protection of Salvadoran

Although Nicaragua has, in the past, produced refugees, it has also served as a country of refuge. Again, with peace and civil war coming to an end, both Salvadorans and Nicaraguans are voluntarily repatriating.

12. Panama - protection of Chinese

In the past few years, Panama has served as a country of refuge for a numbers of persons, especially Cubans and Chinese, who were in transit to other countries. The government of Panama has allowed Cubans to reside temporarily in its territories, pending their resettlement to third countries, mainly the US. In addition, Panama has served as a country of temporary asylum for people from the People's Republic of China who claim persecution based on China's family planning rules which allow families a maximum of one child. The majority of other asylum seekers in Panama are of Nicaraguan, Salvadoran and Guatemalan origin. Others come from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America, especially Belize.

13. United States of America - protection of Central Americans and people from the Caribbean (Cubans, Haitians, and others)

The 1980 US Refugee Act provides refugee status for persons who can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. In addition, the US has laws which provide for the temporary protection of people fleeing civil war. From time to time, certain nationalities are added to (and later removed from) this list of countries undergoing turmoil. El Salvador was the first country on the list and its nationals residing in the US were permitted to remain temporarily. The US has also established procedures the for screening of asylum seekers outside of the US, e.g. at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo, Jamaica, and on the high seas.

IV. Principles of Permanent Protection or Solutions to Refugee Situations

UNHCR Executive Committee and Conclusions of the Executive Committee

After World War II, nations gathered and founded the United Nations, whose mission was, in part, to ensure peace and to prevent the atrocities of World War II from happening again. In 1950, the UN General Assembly established a specialized agency, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with a special mandate to protect refugees and to assist governments in the search for solutions for refugees. In 1957, the UN General Assembly further established within UNHCR, the Executive Committee (ExCom) of the High Commissioner's Programme.

The Executive Committee of UNHCR is comprised of over fifty governments which meet annually to advise UNHCR on the fulfillment of its mandate to protect refugees and to assist governments. During the annual meetings, the Executive Committee's Subcommittee of the Whole on International Protection (established in 1975), reviews and discusses particular problems of refugee protection. At the end of the annual meeting, the Executive Committee adopts, usually by consensus, recommendations called "Conclusions". These Conclusions are strong indices of the standards internationally agreed upon which States should employ in addressing particular issues of refugee protection. The Conclusions are both general in scope, as well as specific, dealing with topics such as repatriation, asylum and resettlement.

In their most recent conclusions, the Executive Committee urged governments to explore comprehensive approaches to refugee protections. Specifically, it encouraged regional bodies or groupings more actively to contribute to the positive resolution of problems in their respective regions. ExCom Conclusions, No. 62 (XLI), 1990: Note on International Protection. A comprehensive approach is one in which a variety of different but concerted measures are brought to bear on a refugee situation. The "package" of measures needed to achieve a solution can include voluntary repatriation with monitoring in the country of origin, as well as assistance for reintegration and perhaps local integration; asylum, temporary or permanent in the neighboring State to which the refugees have fled, or resettlement to a third country, sometimes in the region, sometimes far from the refugee's original country of origin, for those refugees who refuse to repatriate and whose stay in the host country is only temporary. Below are further definitions of the various types of solutions:

A. Voluntary Repatriation

As the term states, repatriation must be absolutely voluntary, otherwise, the return is actually deportation. The return must be safe and dignified. The UNHCR Executive Committee states that:

(b) The repatriation of refugees should only take place at their freely expressed wish; the voluntary and individual character of repatriation of refugees and the need for it to be carried out under conditions of absolute safety, preferably to the place of residence of the refugee in his country of origin, should always be respected. ExCom Conclusions, No.40 (XXXVI), 1985: Voluntary Repatriation.

Voluntary Repatriation is usually accompanied by preparations for departure to the country of origin which include: transportation, assistance for integration in terms of financial, housing as well as legal integration (i.e. monitoring by an objective source to ensure respect for human rights). In this regard the UNHCR Executive Committee:

...Called upon governments of countries of origin to provide formal guarantees for the safety of returning refugees and stressed the importance of such guarantees being fully respected and of returning refugees not being penalized for having left their country of origin for reasons giving rise to refugee situations. ExCom Conclusions, No. 18 (XXXI), 1980: Voluntary Repatriation.

In many cases, voluntary repatriation also involves activities in the country of origin, including organizing reception facilities and assistance during the initial phase of reintegration. The development of small�scale community based quick�impact projects (QIPs) for returnee communities in sectors such as transportation, health, infrastructure, agricultural production and income generation usually accompany repatriation. The community�based QIPs have benefited hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons.

B. Asylum

1. Permanent Asylum

Asylum has been defined as: "Protection granted by a State on its territory against the exercise of jurisdiction by the State of origin, based on the principle of non�refoulement and characterized by the enjoyment of internationally recognized refugee rights, and generally accorded without limit of time". Various international and regional legal instruments recognize the right to enjoy asylum. Many members of the OAS are signatories to these instruments:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 14.

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967

United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 14 December 1967

Cartagena Declaration on Refugees of 19�22 November 1984

Protection afforded by asylum is not bound by time, but by an evaluation of the factors that gave rise in the first place to the refugee's need to flee from the country of his or her origin. In most instances, asylum is temporary as refugees remain in the host country only until they are able to return home once conditions there become safe. In other instances, asylum turns into a permanent stay where, after a passage of time, refugees are allowed to become wholly integrated into their host communities and are granted the same rights as citizens of the host country (e.g. the right to education, housing, employment, health care, travel and identity documents, and eventually naturalization).

Absent the possibility of refugees returning voluntarily to their country of origin, the international community urges host States to grant asylum. Early in the establishment of the Executive Committee of UNHCR, the governments who were members of the Committee appealed to the international community to:

...follow, or continue to follow, liberal practices in granting permanent or at least temporary asylum to refugees who have come directly to their territory. ExCom Conclusions, No. 5 (XXVIII), 1977: Asylum.

Generally, refuge is granted based on whether, after an interview, the individual meets the internationally recognized standard: a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. In the Americas, the standard for protecting persons has been expanded to include as refugees, in addition to those persons covered under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, such

persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights, or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order. Cartagena Declaration.

Where it becomes necessary to establish which state should have the responsibility for interviewing an individual asylum-seeker and examining his or her asylum claim, the Executive Committee recommends that:

... An effort should be made to resolve the problem of identifying the country responsible for examining an asylum request by the adoption of common criteria. In elaborating such criteria the following principles should be observed:

(i) The criteria should make it possible to identify in a positive manner the country which is responsible for examining an asylum request and to whose authorities the asylum�seeker should have the possibility of addressing himself;

(ii) The criteria should be of such a character as to avoid possible disagreement between States as to which of them should be responsible for examining an asylum request and should take into account the duration and nature of any sojourn of the asylum�seeker in other countries;

(iii) The intentions of the asylum�seeker as regards the country in which he wishes to request asylum should, as far as possible, be taken into account;

(iv) Regard should be given to the concept that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could be sought from another State. Where, however, it appears that a person, before requesting asylum, already has a connection or close links with another State, he may, if it appears fair and reasonable, be called upon first to request asylum from that State;

(v) Re-establishment of criteria should be accompanied by arrangements for regular consultation between concerned Governments for dealing with cases for which no solution has been found and for consultation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as appropriate;

(vi) Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum�seekers with due regard to their special situation. ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

a. Group Determination of Refugee Status

Sometimes, because of a sudden and massive influx of persons fleeing their country of origin, it is impossible to conduct individual interviews to determine whether persons are indeed deserving of protection as refugees. In those situations, the international community recommends that host governments make a group determination that an entire group of persons are in need of protection.

The UN Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states:

While refugee status must normally be determined on an individual basis, situations have also arisen in which entire groups have been displaced under circumstances indicating that members of the group could be considered individually as refugees. In such situations the need to provide assistance is often extremely urgent and it may not be possible for purely practical reasons to carry out an individual determination of refugee status for each member of the group. Recourse has therefore been had to so�called "group determination" of refugee status, whereby each member of the group is regarded prima facie (i.e. in the absence of evidence to the contrary) as a refugee. (Handbook, paragraph 44, p.13)

(At the request of governments, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees developed the Handbook to assist governments in the determination of refugee status and is used by the executive and judicial branches of governments in helping to shed light on the interpretation of the term, "refugee.")

In it's report to the UN General Assembly dealing with protection of persons in mass influx, the Executive Committee recognized that even when States are not party to the relevant international conventions, they have generally accepted the need to provide protection to refugees fleeing armed conflict and civil strife, whether or not such persons are deemed to fall within the terms of the Convention. (A/AC.96/850, 1 September 1995 Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme Forty�sixth session: Note on International Protection in Mass Influx)

In it's Conclusion on Situations of Large Scale Influx, the Executive Committee has stated:

It is therefore imperative to ensure that asylum seekers are fully protected in large�scale influx situations, to reaffirm the basic minimum standards for their treatment pending arrangements for a durable solution, and to establish effective arrangements in the context of international solidarity and burden�sharing for assisting countries which receive large numbers of asylum seekers. ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII), 1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

b. Individual Determination of Refugee Status

When individual interviews to determine refugee status do occur, the authorities of the State conducting the interview can then assess whether the individual is a refugee. Only after an assessment is made that the individual does not meet the internationally recognized standard, may the individual be returned. Thus, an individual interview must be considered a pre-condition to deportation. In conducting interviews, the Executive Committee suggests the following as guidance:

i) The competent official (e.g. immigration officer or border police officer) to whom the applicant addresses himself at the border or in the territory of a Contracting State, should have clear instructions for dealing with cases which might be within the purview of the relevant international instruments. He should be required to act in accordance with the principle of non�refoulement and to refer such cases to a higher authority.

(ii) The applicant should receive the necessary guidance as to the procedure to be followed.

(iii) There should be a clearly identified authority �� wherever possible a single central authority �� with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and making a decision in the first instance.

(iv) The applicant should be given the necessary facilities, including the services of a competent interpreter, for submitting his case to the authorities concerned. Applicants should also be given the opportunity, of which they should be duly informed, to contact a representative of UNHCR.

(v) If the applicant is recognized as a refugee, he should be informed accordingly and issued with documentation certifying his refugee status.

(vi) If the applicant is not recognized, he should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of the decision, either to the same or to a different authority, whether administrative or judicial, according to the prevailing system.

(vii) The applicant should be permitted to remain in the country pending a decision on his initial request by the competent authority referred to in paragraph (iii) above, unless it has been established by that authority that his request is clearly abusive. He should also be permitted to remain in the country while an appeal to a higher administrative authority or to the courts is pending. ExCom Conclusions, No. 8 (XXVIII), 1977: Determination of Refugee Status

2. Temporary Asylum

In the event that persons forced to flee cannot voluntarily return, receiving countries have permitted persons to remain, either temporarily or permanently. If receiving States grant only temporary asylum, sometimes called local integration, certain factors need to be considered, such as preparing for the forced migration (early warning), group vs. individual determinations of refugee status, temporary protection, individual interviews as a pre-condition to return, and other issues. Below are further explanations.

In general, as noted above, the UN urges governments that

... In cases of large�scale influx, persons seeking asylum should always receive at least temporary refuge. States which, because of their geographical situation, or otherwise, are faced with a large�scale influx should as necessary and at the request of the State concerned receive immediate assistance from other States in accordance with the principle of equitable burden�sharing. Such States should consult with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as soon as possible to ensure that the persons involved are fully protected, are given emergency assistance, and that durable solutions are sought. ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

a. Early Warning

At times, receiving States either ignore, or are not sensitive to, warning signs that there may be a situation of forced migration about to occur. When the mass influx of persons does occur, then receiving States are forced to operate in crisis. To avoid this situation, the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, recommends the development of an international or regional mechanism to deal exclusively with issues of early warning, so as to assist States in protecting persons who flee. As will be discussed below in greater detail, a regional planning institute or agency could assist in this endeavor. The Executive Committee of the UNHCR urges States to consider, "prevention and early warning of developing situations, and mediation as an effective method to contain problems." ExCom Conclusions, No. 62 (XLI), 1990: Note on International Protection.

A regional planning institute could assist States with forced migration by undertaking, as one of its mandates, research on early warning issues, including the development of indicators of impending displacements of population, with access to all existing information. Such a regional focal point could develop guidelines for States on gathering and reporting relevant information. The focal point could coordinate its activities with the focal points of other OAS departments or United Nations agencies, such as newly instituted consultations mechanism on early warning concerning mass movement of populations, under the aegis of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. (cf. E/AC.51/1993/2, para. 26)A/AC.96/847. 7 August 1995 ExCom Reports � Follow�up to the CPC evaluation of UNHCR: Final Report (Aug 95).

b. Group Determination

In some instances, as mentioned above in the section on Permanent Asylum, situations have also arisen in which entire groups have been displaced under circumstances indicating that members of the group could be considered individually as refugees. In order to address the often urgent and immediate need for protection and assistance, status determination based on individual interviews may not be feasible from a logistical or economic perspective. In such cases, States have resorted to collective conferral of refugee status on a group of people, whereby each member of the group is regarded prima facie as a refugee. The international standards which provide guidance on this issue are listed in the previous section.

c. Temporary Protection

In situations of large�scale influx, asylum seekers "should be admitted to the State in which they first seek refuge and if that State is unable to admit them on a durable basis, it should always admit them at least on a temporary basis and provide them with protection according to the principles set out below. They should be admitted without any discrimination as to race, religion, political opinion, nationality, country of origin or physical incapacity". ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII), 1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

In another Conclusion, the Executive Committee of UNHCR stated that in the case of large�scale influx, persons seeking asylum should always receive at least temporary refuge; and

...(e) Stressed the exceptional character of temporary refuge and the essential need for persons to whom temporary refuge has been granted to enjoy basic humanitarian standards of treatment; (f) Recognized the need to define the nature, function and implications of the grant of temporary refuge; (g) Considered that the practice of temporary refuge had not been sufficiently examined and should be further studied, particularly in regard to (i) procedures for the admission of refugees, (ii) their status pending a durable solution, (iii) the implications of temporary refuge for international solidarity, including burden sharing; ExCom Conclusions, No. 19 (XXXI), 1980: Temporary Refuge.

In the specific situation where refugees arrive by sea, the Executive Committee states that:

... It is the humanitarian obligation of all coastal States to allow vessels in distress to seek haven in their waters and to grant asylum, or at least temporary refuge, to persons on board wishing to seek asylum; ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

d. Individual Interviews as a Pre-Condition to Removal

International law, both through binding treaties and through the customary law principle of non-refoulement, supports the principle of protection of refugees. Therefore, no person should be turned away without receiving the benefit of a full hearing of his or her request for asylum. In order to determine whether a claim of fear of persecution upon return is valid, each claimant should have the right to an individual interview as well as an appropriate level of review of the determination. Only if it has been determined that such a person would not be subject to persecution upon return, is return to the country of origin acceptable.

At the international treaty level, the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33 states in part:

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

At the regional treaty level, the American Convention of Human Rights, Art. 22 states in pertinent part:

7. Every person has the right to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the state and international conventions, in the event he is being pursued for political offenses or related crimes.

8. In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.

In addition to the binding contractual obligations on States mentioned above, customary law also espouses the principle of guarantees or safety measures for refugees. For example, the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967, Article 3.1 states in pertinent part:

1. No person referred to in article 1, paragraph 1 (the right to seek and enjoy asylum), shall be subjected to measures such as rejection at the frontier or, if he has already entered the territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any State where he may be subjected to persecution.

Finally, Conclusions of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme detail the need for safeguarding the rights of refugees and for conducting interviews as a pre-condition to deportation.

In one Conclusion, the Executive Committee noted that:

...(b) Action whereby a refugee is obliged to return or is sent to a country where he has reason to fear persecution constitutes a grave violation of the recognized principle of non-refoulement. ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

However, the Executive Committee recognized that in some situations, there will be those persons claiming refuge, but whose claim is unfounded. In those situations, the Executive Committee recognized the need to deal with those situations stating:

A decision that an application is manifestly unfounded or abusive should only be taken by or after reference to the authority competent to determine refugee status. Consideration should be given to the establishment of procedural safeguards to ensure that such decisions are taken only if the application is fraudulent or not related to the criteria for the granting of refugee status laid down in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. ExCom Conclusions, No. 28 (XXXIII), 1982: Follow-up on Earlier Conclusions of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection on the Determination of Refugee Status, Inter Alia, with Reference to the Role of UNHCR in National Refugee Status Determination.

If, however, the receiving States finds it necessary to expel a refugee, (those persons deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution), the Executive Committee urges governments to consider the grave consequences of such expulsion and:

(a) Recognized that, according to the 1951 Convention, refugees lawfully in the territory of a Contracting State are generally protected against expulsion...

(b) Recognized that a measure of expulsion may have very serious consequences for a refugee and his immediate family members residing with him; ExCom Conclusions, No. 7 (XXVIII), 1977: Expulsion.

And regardless of whether the person has been formally recognized as a refugee, the Executive Committee reaffirmed:

...the fundamental importance of the observance of the principle of non-refoulement- both at the border and within the territory of a State of persons who may be subjected to persecution if returned to their country of origin irrespective of whether or not they have been formally recognized as refugees. ExCom Conclusions, No. 6 (XXVIII), 1977: Non-Refoulement.

e. Reception

In a Conclusion dealing with large scale influx, the Executive Committee noted that:

... It is therefore essential that asylum seekers who have been temporarily admitted pending arrangements for a durable solution should be treated in accordance with the following minimum basic human standards:

(a) they should not be penalized or exposed to any unfavorable treatment solely on the ground that their presence in the country is considered unlawful; they should not be subjected to restrictions on their movements other than those which are necessary in the interest of public health and public order. ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII),1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

Further, the Executive Committee urges governments not to detain refugees and asylum seekers. In its Conclusion on detention, the Executive Committee expressed the opinion that:

...in view of the hardship which it involves, detention should normally be avoided. If necessary, detention may be resorted to only on grounds prescribed by law to verify identity; to determine the elements on which the claim to refugee status or asylum is based; to deal with cases where refugees or asylum�seekers have destroyed their travel and/or identity documents, or have used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend to claim asylum; or to protect national security or public order;

(e) Recommended that detention measures taken in respect of refugees and asylum�seekers should be subject to judicial or administrative review;

(f) Stressed that conditions of detention of refugees and asylum seekers must be humane. In particular, refugees and asylum�seekers shall, whenever possible, not be accommodated with persons detained as common criminals, and shall not be located in areas where their physical safety is endangered. ExCom Conclusions, No. 44 (XXXVII), 1986: Detention of Refugees and Asylum�Seekers.

In addition, female refugees are particularly vulnerable to violence, sexual abuse and discrimination. Unaccompanied women and female heads of households are to be treated with equal respect and dignity as their male counterparts. UNHCR's Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women provides protocols as to the treatment of refugee women.

f. Ceilings


Some States have developed limits or quotas on the number of persons it admits within their borders, and other States have offered unlimited humanitarian protection to persons forced to migrate. In situations where States are forced to set ceilings, the Executive Committee provides the following guidance, requesting States:

...when setting refugee admission ceilings to include an adequate contingency provision which could be available depending on the need to address rapidly evolving situations;

(c) Recognizes that rapidly evolving situations can result in fluctuating resettlement requirements from one year to another and that admission ceilings should be adaptable to such developments. ExCom Conclusions, No. 67 (XLII), 1991: Resettlement as an Instrument of Protection.

The Executive Committee continues to urge governments to work together in a regional approach so as to develop durable solutions for persons in need:

(4) The measures to be taken within the context of such burden�sharing arrangements should be adapted to the particular situation. They should include, as necessary, emergency, financial and technical assistance, assistance in kind and advance pledging of further financial or other assistance beyond the emergency phase until durable solutions are found, and where voluntary repatriation or local settlement cannot be envisaged, the provision for asylum seekers of resettlement possibilities in a cultural environment appropriate for their well�being.

(5) Consideration should be given to the strengthening of existing mechanisms and, if appropriate, the setting up of new arrangements, if possible on a permanent basis, to ensure that the necessary funds and other material and technical assistance are immediately made available. ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII), 1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

A possible responsibility of a regional planning institute, would be to assist governments in the regulation of burdens experienced by particular countries. The regional center could assist in the development of a system designed to quickly and efficiently respond to refugee and migration emergencies, and spread the risks of impacts and costs. Given such arrangements, the nations bordering the countries of origin should find such emergencies more manageable. This system may be considered a kind of insurance policy for governments that must cope with refugee and migration emergencies.

g. Conditions of Stay

Governments providing temporary refuge should ensure that asylum seekers are treated with respect and dignity. In some situations, asylum seekers are housed in open camps where persons are allowed to enter and exit freely; or are allowed to integrate locally. In other situations, asylum seekers must remain in closed camps.

While in camps, the internationally community recognizes the need for safety and dignity. In that context, the Executive Committee states that asylum seekers should:

... receive all necessary assistance and be provided with the basic necessities of life including food, shelter and basic sanitary and health facilities; in this respect the international community should conform with the principles of international solidarity and burden�sharing

(g) the location of asylum seekers should be determined by their safety and well�being as well as by the security needs of the receiving State. Asylum seekers should, as far as possible, be located at a reasonable distance from the frontier of their country of origin. They should not become involved in subversive activities against their country of origin or any other State. ExCom Conclusions, No. 22 (XXXII), 1981: Protection of Asylum�Seekers in Situations of Large�Scale Influx.

In addition, the Executive Committee states that:

(e) In the interest of family reunification and for humanitarian reasons, States should facilitate the admission to their territory of at least the spouse and minor or dependent children of any person to whom temporary refuge or durable asylum has been granted. ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

h. Duration of Stay/Orderly Processing

The asylum seeker's duration of temporary stay in a host country will depend on many factors. The international community provides the following guidance:

...The criteria should be of such a character as to avoid possible disagreement between States as to which of them should be responsible for examining an asylum request and should take into account the duration and nature of any sojourn of the asylum�seeker in other countries. ExCom Conclusions, No. 15 (XXX), 1979: Refugees Without an Asylum Country.

Other issues to consider are identity documents and family reunification. In the context of orderly processing, the international community has stated that as to persons formally recognized as refugees, there is:

...the need for refugees to have documentation enabling them to establish their identity and noted that Article 27 of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention requires Contracting States to issue identity papers to any refugee in their territory who does not have a valid travel document. ExCom Conclusions, No. 35 (XXXV), 1984: Identity Documents for Refugees.

As to asylum seekers, not yet formally recognized as refugees, the Executive Committee recommended that:

... asylum applicants whose applications cannot be decided without delay be provided with provisional documentation sufficient to ensure that they are protected against expulsion or refoulement until a decision has been taken by the competent authorities with regard to their application;

(f) Recognized the value of registering and issuing appropriate documentation to refugees in large�scale influx situations, and recommended that States which have not yet done so should undertake such registration and documentation programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with UNHCR. ExCom Conclusions, No. 35 (XXXV), 1984: Identity Documents for Refugees.

On the issue of family reunification, the international community states:

5. It is hoped that countries of asylum will apply liberal criteria in identifying those family members who can be admitted with a view to promoting a comprehensive reunification of the family.

6. When deciding on family reunification, the absence of documentary proof of the formal validity of a marriage or of the filiation of children should not per se be considered as an impediment.

7. The separation of refugee families has, in certain regions of the world, given rise to a number of particularly delicate problems relating to unaccompanied minors. Every effort should be made to trace the parents or other close relatives of unaccompanied minors before their resettlement. Efforts to clarify their family situation with sufficient certainty should also be continued after resettlement. Such efforts are of particular importance before an adoption �� involving a severance of links with the natural family �� is decided upon.

8. In order to promote the rapid integration of refugee families in the country of settlement, joining close family members should in principle be granted the same legal status and facilities as the head of the family who has been formally recognized as a refugee.

9. In appropriate cases family reunification should be facilitated by special measures of assistance to the head of family so that economic and housing difficulties in the country of asylum do not unduly delay the granting of permission for the entry of the family members. ExCom Conclusions, No. 24 (XXXII), 1981: Family Reunification.


C. Resettlement

Resettlement is a final solution which States resort to when all else fails. Resettlement may be offered to refugees who are admitted temporarily in a country of asylum, and who cannot return to their home country because they face persecution. Such an approach, valuable in and of itself, could make a very important contribution to burden-sharing, particularly by States in the region with long immigration traditions.

International organizations and resettling host governments facilitate permanent settlement in a third country. Procedures for resettlement include interviews to determine refugee status, medical screening, arranging for travel, measures to facilitate the integration of the refugee in the country of resettlement, etc. This solution involves transferring or resettling refugees who fled from the country of origin, to the country of first asylum, to yet a third country. In the Americas, some examples include Cubans who fled to Panama or Mexico, and then were resettled to the US; Haitians who fled to Jamaica, and then were resettled to the US; Salvadorans who fled to Mexico and then were resettled to Canada.

The international community views resettlement to a third country as the last possible solution. The Executive Committee emphasizes that resettlement should be viewed:

...only as a last resort, when neither voluntary repatriation nor local integration is possible, when it is in the best interests of the refugees and where appropriate. ExCom Conclusions, No. 67 (XLII), 1991: Resettlement as an Instrument of Protection.

A comprehensive response cannot, by definition, be implemented entirely by one country. A comprehensive response involves concerted measures on behalf of sending countries, host countries and third countries of resettlement, as well as refugees, returnees, displaced persons, residents, demobilized soldiers, and affected communities. And indeed, regional approaches are likely to be comprehensive responses because of the interdependence of the concerted measures. For example, refugee camps in the country of asylum cannot be closed unless the country of origin is willing to remove the causes of flight and accept the returnees. However, the removal of the causes of flight may be partially dependent on neighboring countries restricting the flow of political and military aid to insurgent groups.

Comprehensive, interrelated approaches are inherent in regionalism because unilateral actions, which can be easily implemented, are likely to lead to retaliatory actions that block solutions and leave all parties worse off. Reflecting the complex causation of refugee problems, regional responses often are not limited to dealing with the refugee issue � nor, indeed, do they treat refugees as the central issue. Regional efforts are centered on dealing with the country of origin. The concern is to end conflict and build peace, to avoid flight, prevent the loss of homeland, or to bring refugees home. If conditions in the homeland are not addressed, then the internal situation that caused the flight or expulsion may deteriorate, leading to more refugees, tension and instability. This can also affect neighboring states.

* The Cayman Islands is not an OAS member state.

** Cuba has been suspended from OAS membership since February 14, 1962.

V. Appendix

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PROTOCOLS

INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

REGIONAL CONVENTIONS

REGIONAL DECLARATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

OAS RESOLUTIONS (1994-1996)

1996 Resolutions

1995 Resolutions

1994 Resolutions

Home Page of the OAS Espa�ol Search Secretary for Legal Affairs Penitentiary & Prison Policies Cyber Crime Mutual Legal Assistance Meetings of Ministers of Justice Weapons (CIFTA) International Humanitarian Law Anti-Corruption