By Vivi Paschalidou

The project titled “InteGRation: Tackling chronic challenges in the field of integration of refugees in Greece” was funded by the Oxford Policy Engagement Network (OPEN) at the University of Oxford and supported the partnership of the Border Criminologies research network with the Greek Council for Refugees. The present report is one of the outputs of the above project. In response to requests from refugee participants for information about state funded free legal aid in Greece, we created a new leaflet that provides practical information on the topic. It includes essential guidance on how to navigate the free legal aid system and a list of contact points for requesting aid at the courthouses in Athens and Thessaloniki. This leaflet has been distributed in the two major Greek cities’ Courts of Law in four languages: English, French, Arabic and Farsi. This builds on an ongoing collaboration between the two organisations. Together they have contributed to a number of key developments in the field of academic and policy inquiry into border control and immigration detention in Greece, including increasing public access to knowledge about immigration and creating a leaflet on access to rights in immigration detention. Greek Council for Refugees is a specialized Non-Governmental Organization that has been leading efforts to protect asylum and human rights in Greece since 1989. It provides free legal and social services to refugees and individuals from third countries who are entitled to international protection, with special emphasis on the most vulnerable cases, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking. Border Criminologies is an international research network and website based at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford, which showcases original research from a range of perspectives, supports advocacy work and creates practical resources to help those working in the migration field. This report examines a specific aspect of the integration of applicants and recipients of international protection in Greece: The effectiveness of their access to the Greek justice system. We undertook thirty interviews with respondents from fourteen countries. Our questions focused on the refugees’ experience with the Greek justice system, the difficulties they faced and their recommendations for its amelioration. We also interviewed members of two key stakeholders, namely the judiciary and legal professionals handling asylum and migration law.

Athens: Greek Council for Refugees, 2024. 40p.

By Australian Human Rights Commission

In April and May 2024, the Commission visited the Broadmeadows Residential Precinct (BRP) and parts of the Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre (MIDC), the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC), and the Perth Immigration Detention Centre (PIDC), all facilities where women are held. This Report documents the key observations arising from the Commission’s inspection of these facilities. Some of the issues that the Commission identifies are specific to individual facilities and others are systemic in nature. The Report finds that in an overwhelmingly male system, women in immigration detention are often an afterthought when it comes to detention infrastructure, the provision of programs and activities, equitable access to services and the delivery of staff training. Women’s experiences of detention differ substantially from men’s, not only because they are minorities, but because they have particular needs and vulnerabilities that are often unrecognised and unmet. For many of the women, the negative impacts of detention are compounded by histories of abuse and trauma and heightened risk of exposure to violence and sexual harassment. The Report finds that these impacts are exacerbated by the continued use of operational quarantine (separation from the main population without medical symptoms) and the probable separation from family supports owing to the limited accommodation available for women close to their families and the inadequacy of visiting facilities for those with children. The Report finds that women have fewer opportunities for meaningful self-development, and the programs and activities offered are often unresponsive to their needs or not age appropriate. Staff working in these facilities often have no specific training on the vulnerabilities and needs of women in their care, which can result in routine activities being undertaken insensitively or exposing women to further trauma. The Report emphasises concern about women being routinely exposed to the possibility of harassment and violence because many of the services that are available to them are located in male compounds or adjacent to them. In particular, the Report highlights concern about the co-location of men and women in the Broadmeadows Residential Precinct and, the safety of women at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, who are housed next to a compound with registered sexual offenders. The recommendations made in this Report are designed to assist the Department to improve the situation for women in immigration detention, ensuring they are managed safely, while also protecting their human rights.

Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 93p.

By The Mixed Migration Centre

  Drawing on more than 1,000 surveys with refugees and migrants, this infographic examines their perceptions of dangerous locations, direct experiences of abuse and harsh conditions and their interactions with and perceptions of smugglers. Additionally, it explores the sources of information that refugees and migrants relied on before and during their journey, as well as their access to assistance.  

London/Denmark: Mixed Migration Centre, 2024. 6p.

By Human Rights Watch

This has been a year of elections, resistance, and conflict, testing the integrity of democratic institutions and the principles of international human rights and humanitarian law. Whether in response to heightened repression in Russia, India, and Venezuela, or catastrophic armed conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine, governments around the world are being called upon to demonstrate their commitment to human rights, democracy, and humanitarian action. Many have failed the test. But even outspoken and action-oriented governments have invoked human rights standards weakly or inconsistently, feeding global perceptions that human rights lack legitimacy. That is an irresponsible and dangerous conclusion, and conveniently absolves governments of their legal obligations to uphold international human rights law both at home and in their actions abroad. Reflecting on the events of 2024, this is not a moment to retreat from the protections needed by everyone everywhere. Instead, governments should respect and defend universal human rights with more rigor and urgency than ever, and people and civil society need to remain steadfast in holding them accountable. The Power of Popular Resistance Elections need to abide by human rights standards, but elections are never an end in themselves. While rigged and otherwise unfair elections are a sign of more rights violations to come, even free and fair elections don’t necessarily mean a rights-respecting future. Although over 70 countries conducted national elections in 2024, their full impact on human rights will only be felt in what follows. Racism, hate, and discrimination drove many elections in the past year. In the United States, Donald Trump won the presidency for a second time, raising concerns that his new administration would repeat and even magnify the serious rights violations of his first term. Likewise, in the European Parliament elections of 2024, far-right parties made significant gains, exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment and nationalist rhetoric to advance policies that threaten minority communities and undermine democratic norms. Yet elsewhere, there was meaningful democratic resilience, as voters proved unwilling to accept populist agendas and held leaders and their parties accountable. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hate speech on the campaign trail did not win him the electoral majority he craved, showing that even in the face of systemic challenges, democracy can still put a check on power. Authoritarian leaders tightened their grip on power in countries such as Russia, El Salvador and the Sahel nations of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, leveraging fear and misinformation to stifle dissent.

Our Annual Review Of Human Rights HumanRights Watch, 2025. 554p

By Marcin Rojszczak

This book discusses contemporary standards of legal safeguards in the area of bulk electronic surveillance from the perspective of the European legal model. Bulk, or untargeted, surveillance, although traditionally associated with the interception of electronic communications, is increasingly used as a convenient tool for collecting information on large groups of society. The collection of redundant information, which is intrinsic to bulk surveillance, is no longer a side effect but an important objective of the use of bulk powers. As a result, untargeted surveillance is everywhere increasingly being implemented, and without any clear link to state security or crime-fighting objectives. This work examines the origins of untargeted measures, explores their mechanics and key concepts, and defines what distinguishes them from other forms of surveillance. The various elements of the legal safeguards in place, which are fundamental to protecting individuals from the risks of abuse of power, are analysed in detail. The book discusses not only the different standards of legal safeguards, but also gives examples of their implementation in individual European countries. It also examines the relationship between the development of the global data market and untargeted surveillance powers, in particular in the context of the risks associated with algorithmic surveillance, client-side scanning, the privatisation of surveillance – or surveillance as a service – and the increasingly widespread use of preventive content filtering mechanisms. The book will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers working in the areas of law, international relations, public policy, engineering and sociology. It will also appeal to professionals dealing with various aspects of the use of surveillance measures, such as experts, members of the legislature and law enforcement agencies.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 290p.

Edited by Jens Boel, Perrine Canavaggio and Antonio González Quintana

Why and how can records serve as evidence of human rights violations, in particular crimes against humanity, and help the fight against impunity? Archives and Human Rights shows the close relationship between archives and human rights and discusses the emergence, at the international level, of the principles of the right to truth, justice and reparation. Through a historical overview and topical case studies from different regions of the world the book discusses how records can concretely support these principles. The current examples also demonstrate how the perception of the role of the archivist has undergone a metamorphosis in recent decades, towards the idea that archivists can and must play an active role in defending basic human rights, first and foremost by enabling access to documentation on human rights violations. Confronting painful memories of the past is a way to make the ghosts disappear and begin building a brighter, more serene future. The establishment of international justice mechanisms and the creation of truth commissions are important elements of this process. The healing begins with the acknowledgment that painful chapters are essential parts of history; archives then play a crucial role by providing evidence. This book is both a tool and an inspiration to use archives in defence of human rights.

Routledge, 2021. 353p

By Denise Gilman

The United States treats asylum as exceptional, meaning that asylum is presumptively unavailable and is offered only in rare cases. This exceptionality conceit, combined with an exclusionary apparatus, creates a problematic cycle. The claims of asylum seekers arriving as part of wide-scale refugee flows are discounted, and restrictive policies are adopted to block these claims. When asylum claims nonetheless continue to mount, the United States asserts “crisis” and deploys new exclusionary measures. The problems created by the asylum system are not addressed but are instead deepened. This Article encourages a turn away from policies that have led down the same paths once and again. This Article first describes the development of the modern U.S. asylum system, highlighting data that demonstrates the extent to which exceptionality is a basic feature of the system. In doing so, this Article reconsiders an assumption underlying much scholarship and commentary—that the U.S. asylum system is fundamentally generous even if it has sometimes failed to live up to its promise. This Article then establishes that the emphasis on exceptionality has led to an exclusionary asylum process. Most asylum claims are adjudicated within deportation proceedings, and policymakers have imposed layers of additional procedural barriers. Next, this Article presents the problems created by the system. It documents how the system places genuine asylees in danger while causing violence at the border. Further, embedded bias in the system, resulting from the focus on exceptionality, favors asylum claims from far-flung nations such as China over commonly arising claims from nearby troubled countries. This bias creates a legitimacy problem. The system also violates U.S. law and international human rights and refugee law  This Article concludes by offering suggestions for more stable, effective, and humane policies to address asylum seekers in the United States. In addition to eliminating many existing substantive restrictions on asylum, the system should incorporate group-based eligibility for applicants from designated nations or situations that are sending significant refugee flows. Finally, the United States should adopt a specialiZed non-adversarial asylum system for all cases, apart from the deportation system and with genuine independent review of denials of asylum.

  Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2023.

By Victoria A. Greenfield, Tobias Sytsma, Amanda Kerrigan, Maya Buen

Forced labor—work performed involuntarily and under menace of penalty—occurs globally, with reports of abuses in all countries. About 28 million people—one in every 300 people worldwide—work against their will, bound through physical violence, threats, debt bondage, and other exploitative means. The United States has long imposed prohibitions on imports of goods made with forced labor—notably, under the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2021 (UFLPA). The UFLPA targets China's extensive use of forced labor as a state-sponsored, coercive policy tool in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), by barring U.S. imports of goods made in the XUAR or sourced from entities connected to it. Still, such goods flow through global supply chains. In 2021, the United States accounted for over one-fifth of the world's imports of goods that were at risk of being made with forced labor.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which leads trade enforcement under these laws, requested an analysis of trade enforcement and its impact. Researchers set out to (1) assist DHS in developing analytical capabilities for assessing the impact of its efforts to combat forced labor through trade enforcement and (2) evaluate the impact that DHS's actions and investments have had on meeting the goals of eliminating U.S. imports of goods made with forced labor and eliminating the use of forced labor globally. This report outlines the

researchers' methods for evaluating DHS's impact and presents findings on efforts and recommendations for strengthening enforcement.

Key Findings

DHS's impact in trade enforcement depends on stakeholders.

Trade enforcement is making measurable progress, but stakeholders are encountering impediments that DHS cannot address entirely on its own. U.S. businesses—and consumers—remain exposed to goods made with forced labor through indirect supply chain linkages with limited visibility.

Trade enforcement still holds value even if it, alone, cannot change China's policy on forced labor in the XUAR. Economic sanctions face inherent obstacles, but trade enforcement can help limit U.S. imports of goods made with forced labor, prevent U.S. complicity in other countries' labor abuses, and send a strong policy signal.

Trade enforcement comes with costs that can undermine its aims. U.S. businesses can incur costs from tracing supply chains, switching suppliers, and mitigating commercial disruptions; the environment could experience related harms; and China could retaliate and obfuscate.

DHS can track trade enforcement progress and unintended consequences, but it might be unable to know whether it is meeting its ultimate aims. Capturing broad effects on U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers; the environment; and global working conditions might be harder than capturing those on immediate goals for enforcement efforts.

DHS needs enough of the right resources and information to do its job, but stakeholders have suggested that it does not have them. Concerns about staffing included hiring, skills, burnout, and retention.

DHS and its stakeholders would benefit from more and higher-quality information. Better visibility into global working conditions, supply chain composition, the content of goods, and enforcement processes could strengthen trade enforcement.

Recommendations

Look for opportunities to encourage robust stakeholder participation by improving the flow and quality of information through greater transparency and improvements in tools, technology, and methods of data analysis.

Consider a more comprehensive approach to combating forced labor in global supply chains by working with other U.S. agencies and other countries to better leverage potential complementarities of economic sanctions and other types of measures.

Consider options for mitigating unintended consequences in concert with other U.S. agencies and with input from nongovernmental stakeholders, either by reducing them or responding to them, depending on their severity and likely prevalence.

Work with other U.S. agencies to monitor indicators of progress and unintended consequences over time to better understand how conditions are evolving.

Develop evidence with stakeholders to inform public debates on trade enforcement, including those on concerns about de minimis entries and environmental initiatives.

Continue to make the case for funding and staffing, which are critical resources for trade enforcement and are likely to need to increase.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025. 196p.

By Amnesty International
Tens of thousands of migrant workers travel every year to Canada in the hope of providing a better life for their families. They are promised labour opportunities and working conditions that very often they cannot enjoy in their countries of origin. Yet, many find a different reality upon arrival. This report investigates the human rights impact of Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), a temporary migration scheme that allows employers to hire migrant workers, primarily in low-pay occupations.

London: Amnesty International, 2025. 71p.

By International Organization for Migration (IOM)

This publication entitled "Detention and Migration in West and Central Africa: A Comparative Study" provides a comprehensive analysis of the detention situation in the context of migration across the West and Central African region. Through the Network of Legal Experts on Migration for West and Central Africa (Nolem), an in-depth research is conducted analyzing how 13 countries in the region regulate and enforce detention of migrants in both law and practice. The study delves into whether current laws and practices of migrant detention are consistent with international and regional human rights law and discusses the gaps or violations and identifies good practices. The study also examines the alternatives to detention that are proposed by states. Finally, recommendations are made to states, regional bodies and other stakeholders. The study gives specific attention to providing a gender responsive and child sensitive approach. The study contains country-specific papers drafted by the legal experts shaping the Nolem Network, as well as articles providing and international and regional overview and a comparative analysis. The Nolem Network aims to reshape the migration policy and law landscape in West and Central Africa by strengthening and promoting evidence-based, rights-based and gender-responsive national and regional migration laws and policies throughout the region for lasting positive change.

Geneva, SWIT: International Organization for Migration, 2024. 124p.

By Kanishka Bhowmick Indraneel Dasgupta Sarmistha Pal 

We examine how within-group inequality, by influencing the group bias of state institutions, affects the cost-benefit calculus of individuals engaging in identity-assertive behaviour, that results in police complaints regarding hate crimes. We develop a two-stage contest model of between-group conflict, where the relative influence of a group over institutions, determined by an initial contest, affects subsequent hierarchy-establishing interaction between individuals belonging to opposing groups. Applying this model to caste conflict in India, we find that greater inequality among non-Scheduled Caste (non-SC) Hindus reduces the registered rate of crimes against SCs by non-SC Hindus, as well as the conviction rate for these crimes. Greater inequality among SCs increases both rates. Using state-level annual crime and household consumption data over 2005-2021, we find empirical support for these hypotheses. Between-group inequality does not appear to matter for either the rate of crimes against SCs or the conviction rate. Our analysis suggests that greater inequality within marginalized groups might increase reporting and punishment of aggression against them, thereby serving a protective function.

Bonn:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 43p.

By Carme COLOMINA, Héctor SÁNCHEZ MARGALEF, Richard YOUNGS

Around the world, disinformation is spreading and becoming a more complex phenomenon based on emerging techniques of deception. Disinformation undermines human rights and many elements of good quality democracy; but counter-disinformation measures can also have a prejudicial impact on human rights and democracy. COVID-19 compounds both these dynamics and has unleashed more intense waves of disinformation, allied to human rights and democracy setbacks. Effective responses to disinformation are needed at multiple levels, including formal laws and regulations, corporate measures and civil society action. While the EU has begun to tackle disinformation in its external actions, it has scope to place greater stress on the human rights dimension of this challenge. In doing so, the EU can draw upon best practice examples from around the world that tackle disinformation through a human rights lens. This study proposes steps the EU can take to build counter-disinformation more seamlessly into its global human rights and democracy policies.

Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, 2021. 84p.

By Alexandra Flynn, Estair van Wagner, Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark

Encampments are a vivid illustration of the failure of governments in Canada to meet their human rights obligations to ensure everyone has access to adequate housing. The 2020-2022 point-in-time count showed a 20% increase in homelessness overall and an 88% increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2018. The right to housing is inherently linked with the fulfillment of other human rights and with basic human dignity. Thus, where the right to housing is violated, other human rights are often violated. Advocacy for the human rights of encampment residents then necessarily implicates a wider set of human rights. Legal advocacy is therefore a necessary part of a broader movement to realize human rights for all people. Canadian jurisprudence has centered on the right to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, interpreted as freedom from government actions such as encampment removals. However, the rights involved draw from other sources of laws, including Indigenous and international legal frameworks. In this report we focus on the existing case law and legal strategies. Our objective is to identify arguments used to date, as well as opportunities for future legal advocacy on the issue of encampments.

Given the context of colonial dispossession and the vast overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the unhoused population we highlight the relationship between the right to housing and Indigenous rights, both from a colonial Canadian legal perspective and from an Indigenous legal perspective. While we point to opportunities to engage with legal tools within the Canadian colonial legal system where they may be strategic and useful, we acknowledge the limitations of these tools. Therefore, we also highlight opportunities to connect advocacy about encampments with Indigenous legal orders and jurisdiction, including work being done by groups engaged in or considering litigation or advocacy on encampments. While there is limited research on the role of Indigenous law in encampments at present, in our view, this is an urgent area of advocacy to find long-term, sustainable, and human rights-compliant solutions to homelessness.

This report starts from the recognition that encampment residents are rights-bearers and must be centered in discussions on how to move forward. While it does not include testimony from those with lived experience it is informed by the long history of advocacy inside and outside of courtrooms by people unhoused people themselves and in partnership. This is critical in the context of encampments: when unhoused people claim public or private space to meet their basic needs it is essential that we acknowledge and respect their dignity and agency. Encampment residents are experts in their own lives. As we explain, meaningful engagement is the foundation of any human rights-based response. This includes respecting the structures of decision making that emerge in encampments, the trusted advocacy relationships developed with those around them, and principles of fairness that guarantee particular rights.

This report has been drafted to help inform legal practitioners and advocates about the state of jurisprudence in Canada relevant to homeless encampments. It highlights some of the limitations of jurisprudence to date and points to opportunities for future legal advocacy, highlighting the need to integrate Indigenous legal traditions.

Part One provides a background on the meaning of a human rights approach and the regulation of encampments in Canada.

First, we detail the connections between the right to housing and encampments in the Canadian context. We define what we mean by adequate housing, where the progressive realization of the right to housing comes from under Canadian and Indigenous legal frameworks, and provide a three-part framework for considering the right to adequate housing.

Second, we outline the current system of regulation of encampments in Canada. We explore the regulation of encampments based on international and domestic laws, highlighting that jurisdictionally fractured set of rules each seek to govern encampment residents, exacerbating their vulnerability. In this section, we distinguish between constitutional protections, legislation and bylaws that protect encampment residents, and those that seek to displace them.

Part Two sets out advocacy and litigation strategies in relation to encampments.

Third, we outline advocacy efforts in relation to encampments. In this section we explain the many ways in which advocates are seeking change in local policy-making, law reform, and enforcement. These efforts may - but do not always - rely on court decisions, and legal challenges are but one tactic used to advance the interests of encampment residents.

Next, we set out the case law concerning encampments, explaining the different approaches that have been taken since the seminal case, Adams v Victoria, was decided in 2009 setting out the current framework used by the courts. We explain court decisions in relation to injunction applications mainly brought by municipalities, Charter arguments, judicial review applications, shelter standards, public private property distinctions, and challenging enforcement. These cases were all decided between Adams and 2022.

We conclude by summarizing the legal framework related to encampments, with the gaps and opportunities for realizing a right to housing for those experiencing the most profound violation of that right, homelessness.

Ottawa: Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 56p.

By Elizabeth Such and Habiba Aminu

This report, titled “The prevention of Adult Exploitation and Trafficking: A Synthesis of Research Commissioned by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC)”, offers a comprehensive synthesis of studies commissioned by the Centre on adult exploitation and trafficking, identifying the profile of prevention in its research, the characteristics of studies, the themes of prevention-relevant research and the gaps in the evidence base.

The synthesis draws on research conducted between 2020 and 2024, organised into a public health model with prevention strategies at multiple stages: primary (before harm occurs), secondary (early intervention), and tertiary (after harm occurs) and preventing re-trafficking). This framework, known as the BETR continuum, serves as a guiding structure for categorising research findings and gaps across various studies in the PEC portfolio. The report emphasises the need for a multi-agency, system-level approach and highlights areas where prevention is under-researched, notably in primary and secondary prevention and systemic responses to prevent re-trafficking.

Nottingham, UK: Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, 2024. 32p.

The Australian Human Rights Commission

The treatment of children in the criminal justice system, some as young as 10 years old, is one of the most urgent human rights issues facing Australia today. Numerous inquiries and reviews, including Royal Commissions, as well as UN Committees, have highlighted serious breaches of rights and systemic problems with our child justice and related systems over many years. However, Australia continually fails to implement evidence-based reforms to our child justice systems which would reduce offending behaviour and make our communities safer. This report investigates opportunities for reform of child justice and related systems across Australia, based on evidence and the protection of human rights. It is the result of a project undertaken by the National Children’s Commissioner (NCC) in 2023–24. The project included a submissions process, consultations with children and young people, families, community members, and interviews and roundtables with government and non government stakeholders across Australia.

Canberra: The Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 195p.

Edited by Vishanthie Sewpaul, Linda Kreitzer, and Tanusha Raniga   

Cultural practices have the potential to cause human suffering. The Tensions between Culture and Human Rights critically interrogates the relationship between culture and human rights across Africa and offers strategies for pedagogy and practice that social workers and educators may use. Drawing on Afrocentricity and emancipatory social work as antidotes to colonial power and dehumanization, this collection challenges cultural practices that violate human rights, and the dichotomous and taken-for-granted assumptions in the cultural representations between the West and the Rest of the world. Engaging critically with cultural traditions while affirming Indigenous knowledge and practices, it is unafraid to deal frankly with uncomfortable truths. Each chapter explores a specific aspect of African cultural norms and practices and their impacts on human rights and human dignity, paying special attention to the intersections of politics, economics, race, class, gender, and cultural expression. Going beyond analysis, this collection offers a range of practical approaches to understanding and intervention rooted in emancipatory social work. It offers a pathway to develop critical reflexivity and to reframe epistemologies for education and practice. This is essential reading not only for students and practitioners of social work, but for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of African cultures and practices.

Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2021. 323p.

Edited by Angela Di Stasi, Ida Caracciolo, Giovanni Cellamare, Pietro Gargiulo

This book discusses existing and future trends concerning the development of migratory policies between local and global levels, to understand the challenges and gaps in the protection of migrants. The collection explores international migration and its impact on sovereignty, international cooperation, security, and human rights. In particular, it takes into account the composite framework of international and national rules, and the role of judicial and monitoring bodies in protecting the rights of migrants, with the aim of assessing the state of the art, identifying the gaps, and formulating possible remedies. The work of some international organizations such as the UN and its specialized agencies and the European Union is investigated, together with a set of regional practices such as those of Latin America and South-East Asia, and countries, such as Mexico, Georgia, Tunisia, Italy, and the United States. The issues of the fundamental rights of migrants in the European legal order are also addressed, including the emerging scenarios related to recent crises like the one generated by the war in Ukraine. This timely collection will be essential reading for academics, researchers, and policy-makers working in the areas of Migration Law, Asylum and Refugee Law, International Law, International Organizations, EU Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, Comparative Law and Socio-Legal Studies.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 705p.

By Sarah Decker and Anthony Enrique, et al.

“When they took us from the border, we were shackled, head to toe. Then they told us we were going to Louisiana. We all started shaking with fear. We knew we were about to lose our freedom, our rights, even our humanity. We knew we were going to the Black Hole.”

The United States maintains the world’s largest immigrant incarceration regime, imprisoning an average of over 35,000 people a day undergoing administrative proceedings to determine if they will be deported.2 Over 6,000 of those people, a mix of recently-arrived asylum seekers and long-term U.S. residents, are detained in Louisiana, the second-largest state for immigrant detention behind Texas.3 The explosion of immigrant incarceration in Louisiana occurred in the late 2010s and largely benefitted private prison companies, which run eight of the nine immigration jails in the state, profiting off of the abuses described in this report.4

This report documents systemic human rights abuses carried out by or under the supervision of the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office (“NOLA ICE”), the federal office that oversees immigration detention in Louisiana. NOLA ICE contracts with two private prison companies and a local sheriff’s office to operate Louisiana’s nine immigration jails.5 Inside those jails, officials rampantly violate detained peoples’ human and civil rights, locking them away in punitive conditions indistinguishable from those in criminal jails and prisons, in some cases for prolonged periods lasting years.6 In some instances, the abuses that detained people describe firsthand in this report meet the definitions of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.7

The information contained in this report comes from two years of visits to nine immigration jails in Louisiana beginning in April 2022, all told comprising interviews with 6,384 people from 59 jail visits and information from seven jail tours conducted by NOLA ICE officials. During these visits, attorneys and legal workers gave Know Your Rights presentations and conducted legal interviews with detained people. Their testimony reveals that NOLA ICE officials routinely violate ICE’s own minimum standards of care and state, federal, and international law and legal standards. Abuses inflicted include:

• DENIAL OF LANGUAGE ACCESS: including interpretation and translation access, resulting in language-related denials of medical and mental health care; due process in preparation of legal materials; and protection against abusive treatment and coercion.

• DEPRIVATION OF HUMAN NECESSITIES: including minimally nutritious food and potable drinking water; sanitary conditions of confinement; access to basic hygiene supplies; protection from extreme temperatures; and access to sunlight and outdoor time.

• ABUSIVE & DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT: including physical abuse; sexual abuse; torturous solitary confinement; humiliating and degrading speech; and retaliation against and suppression of speech and religious worship protected by the First Amendment.

• MEDICAL ABUSE & NEGLECT: including denial of medical care for chronic, urgent, and emergency conditions; provision of ineffective or non-responsive care for serious health conditions; denial of the right to informed consent to treatment; disruption of ongoing care due to sudden transfers in custody; denial of dental care; denial of reproductive health care; mental health neglect; medical neglect of people with disabilities; and fatal deficiencies in medical care.

Taken together, the abuses inflicted by NOLA ICE officials deprive detained people of due process in their immigration proceedings. In NOLA ICE detention, officials isolate people with viable defenses to deportation from the legal and language resources needed to fairly present their claims. And they use abusive treatment in punitive conditions to coerce people into renouncing those claims and accepting deportation to escape the misery of detention.

The record of documented abuses in NOLA ICE jails predating this report is so extensive that in December 2021, the Department of Homeland Security’s oversight agency, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, opened an investigation into the entire network of NOLA ICE jails, the first-ever field-office wide investigation.8 But as the findings of this report show, oversight bodies have failed to hold NOLA ICE accountable, permitting the continued abuse of detained people with impunity

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2024. 108p.

By Human Rights Watch

Adequate housing is an internationally protected human right. But the United States, which has been treating housing primarily as a commodity, is failing to protect this right for large numbers of people, with houselessness a pervasive problem. In the US city of Los Angeles, California, where the monetary value of property has risen to extreme heights while wages at the lower end of the economic spectrum have stagnated for decades, houselessness has exploded into public view. Policymakers addressing the issue publicly acknowledge the necessity of increased housing to solve houselessness, but their primary response on the ground has been criminalization of those without it. The criminalization of houselessness means treating people who live on the streets as criminals and directing resources towards arresting and citing them, institutionalizing them, removing them from visible public spaces, denying them basic services and sanitation, confiscating and destroying their property, and pressuring them into substandard shelter situations that share some characteristics with jails. Criminalization is expensive, but temporarily removes signs of houselessness and extreme poverty from the view of the housed public. Criminalization is ineffective because it punishes people for living in poverty while ignoring and even reaffirming the causes of that poverty embedded in the economic system and the incentives that drive housing development and underdevelopment. Criminalization is cruel. Criminalization effectively destroys lives and property based on race and economic class. It is a set of policies that prioritizes the needs and values of the wealthy, property owners, and business elites, at the expense of the rights of people living in poverty to an adequate standard of living. As a consequence of historical and present policies and practices that discriminate against Black and other BIPOC people, these groups receive the brunt of criminalization. Arrests and citations as the direct mode of criminalization have decreased substantially over the past several years in Los Angeles. But authorities use the threat of arrest to support the relentless taking and destruction of unhoused people’s property through sanitation “sweeps” and people’s removal from certain public spaces. Criminalization has simply taken a different primary form, though punitive criminal enforcement always looms.

Criminalization responds in destructive and ineffective ways to legitimize concerns about the impact of houselessness on individuals and their communities. Rather than improving conditions and leading towards a solution, criminalization diverts vast public resources into moving people from one place to another without addressing the underlying problem. In contrast to criminalization, housing solves houselessness. Policies that have proven effective include the development of affordable housing—with services for those who need them—preserving existing tenancies and providing government subsidies that help people maintain their housing. This report takes an in-depth look at houselessness in Los Angeles and at city policies towards unhoused people in recent years, with reference to historical practices. It looks at criminalization enforced by police and the sanitation department and explores how homeless services agencies and the interim housing and shelter systems sometimes support and cover for that criminalization. The report features the perspectives of people with lived experience on the streets and have directly experienced criminalization in all its forms. Human Rights Watch spoke to over 100 unhoused or formerly unhoused people, whose stories and insights inform every aspect of this report. The report features analysis of data obtained from various city agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (LASAN), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and the Mayor’s office, that exposes the extent and futility of policies of criminalization. The report looks at the underlying causes of Los Angeles’ large scale houselessness, primarily the lack of affordable housing. It explains how racist policies over the decades have created a houselessness crisis in the Black community. The report also discusses the proven effectiveness of preserving and providing housing as a solution to houselessness, including examples of people who faced criminalization on the streets and whose lives have dramatically improved once housed. Finally, the report makes recommendations for policies that end criminalization and that move towards solving the crisis and realizing the international human right to housing in Los Angeles.

New York; HRW, 2024. 344p.

By Peter Nagle and Richard Summerrell

On 10 August 1987 the then Prime Minister, the Honourable R J L Hawke, announced the formation of a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of deaths of Aboriginals while held in State and Territory jails. The Royal Commission was established in response to a growing public concern that deaths in custody of Aboriginal people were too common and poorly explained. This Commonwealth Royal Commission was the 108th since Federation. The establishment of the Commission and the appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Muirhead as Royal Commissioner had the support of all State and Territory governments….Access to records collected or created by government has always been subject to opposing pressures. Access to records is seen as providing a check on arbitrary government power, but privacy considerations and other sensitivities also need to be protected….”

National Archives of Australia. 1996. 85p.