El Salvador

1,229

Immigration detainees

2009

Not Available

Detained children

2017

29

New asylum applications

2019

48

Refugees

2019

42,617

International migrants

2019

Overview

El Salvador, a small and densely populated country that has been wracked by poverty and violence for decades, has long been primarily a country of emigration. Increasingly, however, it has served as a critical transit country on migration journeys connecting North and South America. As a result, border apprehensions have been on the rise for many years as have the country's effort to deport undocumented travelers. Although immigration detention is not properly regulated in Salvadoran law, the country has established specialised detention facilities and detained more than a thousand people annually.

Types of facilities used for migration-related detention
Administrative Ad Hoc Criminal Unknown

04 June 2020

Inside a Temporary Quarantine Centre, Gimnasio Adolfo Pineda, (El Faro,
Inside a Temporary Quarantine Centre, Gimnasio Adolfo Pineda, (El Faro, "Cuatro Deportados por Estados Unidos Dieron Positivo al Covid-19 en El Salvador," 29 May 2020, https://elfaro.net/es/202005/el_salvador/24467/Cuatro-deportados-por-Estados-Unidos-dieron-positivo-al-covid-19-en-El-Salvador.htm)

Responding to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 Survey, the UN Human Rights regional office in Panama (ROCA) reported that El Salvador has not established a moratorium on new immigration detention orders and that the country is not contemplating the measure. ROCA also explained that no immigration detainees have been released and that there are no “alternatives to detention” programmes employed in the country. As regards deportations and expulsions, the UN office said that while these have been temporarily suspended, there is no specific measure prohibiting them. ROCA also stated that returned migrants who are detained in quarantine centres are tested for Covid-19. According to IOM, more than 1,100 people have been returned to El Salvador, mostly from the United States (more than 95 percent) during 11 March - 30 April.

On 7 April, 70 Salvadoran nationals were returned from the United States on a flight from Houston airport. Upon arrival, they were transferred to one of the 11 quarantine centres in the country for a duration of 30 days. Five days after their arrival, one returnee developed symptoms of Covid-19, but medical authorities only provided him paracetamol and did not test him for the disease. A month later, when around 100 people were in the quarantine centre, the government decided to test all detainees. A week later, it was confirmed that a few had been infected. El Faro reported that these Salvadoran detainees had been detained in different detention centres in the United States and none of them had been tested upon entry to the centres or prior to deportation. On 22 May, the country’s Ombudsman (Procuraduría para Derechos Humanos or PDDH) announced that they had received complaints from people detained in one of the quarantine centres, the Gimnasio Nacional centre, regarding three positive Covid-19 cases. However, the Ombudsman said that relevant authorities had not communicated the exact number of Covid-19 cases within the centre and that the director of the Salvadoran immigration authority, Ricardo Cucalon, had violated the PDDH law as he had refused to provide information to the ombudsman. The director did not respond to two requests sent on 27 April and 11 May and requested his personnel not to collaborate with the PDDH.
As of 29 May, there remained 108 Salvadoran nationals in the Gimnasio Nacional quarantine centre.

On 14 May 2020, a habeas corpus action was presented to the Supreme Court by twenty-two returnees urging authorities to allow them to return to their homes as they have been detained for forty-five days and have been tested for Covid-19 twice. The returnees’ legal representative said that another reason such a request is being made are the poor hygienic conditions within the centre. Social distancing is not being implemented and when it rains, mattresses get wet and the centre floods. On 20 May, the Ministry of Health informed detainees that they would be transferred to their homes. Nonetheless, there are still migrants in the Gimnasio Nacional that are waiting for a third Covid-19 test and have not yet been released.

As regards the country’s prisons, on 26 May, health authorities in the country announced that there have been at least 36 positive cases of Covid-19. Twenty five were detected in a prison in San Vincente and 11 in the Quezaltepeque prison. The news comes after reports indicating an extreme toughening of detention conditions following violence in the past few weeks. Photographs showing detainees grouped together and wearing only underwear and without adequate protection or physical distancing have been published (see 2 May El Salvador update on this platform).


02 May 2020

Prisoners Handcuffed and Stacked Together as Punishment for Spate of Violence Within Prisons, (Jose Cabezas, Reuters,
Prisoners Handcuffed and Stacked Together as Punishment for Spate of Violence Within Prisons, (Jose Cabezas, Reuters, "Harrowing Photos Show Prisoners Stacked Together as Punishment for a Spate of Violence in El Salvador," Insider, 30 April 2020, https://www.insider.com/harrowing-photos-show-prisoners-stacked-together-in-el-salvador-2020-4)

In early March, El Salvador introduced a strict quarantine lock-down, despite authorities announcing that there were no confirmed cases of Covid-19. The country’s measures—which have included the use of the armed forces and national police to enforce quarantine, and the detention of people in forced confinement for breaching the lock-down—have prompted concerns that President Bukele is utilising the pandemic to consolidate his power. On 30 April, a network of NGOs including Amnesty International published an open letter to the President, expressing concern regarding the government’s actions. “The authorities have detained thousands of people and taken them to holding centres that often lack measures to ensure a minimum level of sanitation and physical separation. With this strategy, the government only increases the risk of contagion instead of protecting people from the virus.”

Particular concerns have arisen regarding conditions in the country’s penitentiary establishments, which are notorious for their degrading and inhumane conditions. Following reports of a spate of homicides across the country on 24 April, authorities initiated collective punishment by locking down prisons. President Bukele tweeted that gang members would be isolated, inmates would be denied all contact with the outside world, and activities would be suspended until further notice. Images shared online depict prisoners stripped and stacked together while the police searched their cells. Only some are seen as wearing facemasks, and no efforts to follow social-distancing measures are in place. Reportedly, the emergency declaration in detention facilities would be extended indefinitely.

Amidst news of Mexico emptying its detention centres and returning detainees to countries of origin, El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Relations confirmed that 41 Salvadorian migrants had been returned on 23 April. The capital’s airport reportedly remains open to receive flights with deportees who, upon arrival, are transferred to one of the nine quarantine facilities setup in San Salvador.


Last updated: September 2015

El Salvador Immigration Detention Profile

    While almost 40 percent of El Salvador’s population lives abroad, it is also a transit and destination country. Migrants apprehended without proper documents are detained as they await deportation. Although immigration detention is not properly regulated in law, in practice El Salvador tends to confine more than 1,000 migrants per year (1,200 in 2009) and operates a dedicated immigration detention centre called the Centro de Atención Integral para el Migrante (CAMI).

    A small and densely populated country, El Salvador has long been a country of emigration. However, mass emigration from the country has attracted people from nearby countries in search of jobs, particularly in the agriculture and construction sectors. El Salvador also serves as an important transit state for people migrating north. In 2004 border guards apprehended 2,332 persons without documents, and 2,255 in 2005.[1]

    El Salvador’s immigration regime is established in a series of long-standing pieces of legislation: the 1958 Migration Law (Ley de Migración), and its accompanying 1959 Regulation of the Migration Law, as well as the 1986 Foreigners’ Law (Ley de Extranjería). A draft of a new migration and foreigners’ law, intended to consolidate and replace the existing legislation, has been in negotiations for several years. The 2002 Refugees Law (Ley para la Determinación de la Condición de Personas Refugiadas) and the 2005 Regulation of the Refugees Law provide the legal framework for the country’s asylum and refugee regime.[2]

    The Refugee Law provides for the detention of persons seeking asylum for a maximum of three days during the initial screening procedures (articles 15-16). However, the Migration Law and the Foreigners’ Law do not provide for administrative detention. The only provision mentioning detention is article 60 of the Migration Law, in the section titled “Sanctions.” Accordingly, a foreigner who enters El Salvador in an undocumented manner can be punished with a fine, which can be replaced by a detention (arresto) of up to 30 days. In 2003, the Supreme Court of El Salvador declared such deprivation of liberty as unconstitutional because under article 14 of the country’s constitution deprivation of liberty ordered by administrative organ can last only up to five days. In 2011 the Supreme Court found that Salvadorian legislation does not provide for detention as part of expulsion procedures.[3]

    Despites this legal vacuum, in practice migrants who are apprehended without papers are detained to prepare their deportation.[4] As observed by civil society organisations, like Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala, in El Salvador authorities systematically apply immigration detention and there are no alternatives to detention. The majority of detainees are not from Central America.[5]

    According to statistics from the Migration Directorate, 372 persons were detained in 2006, 1,645 in 2007, 1,527 in 2008, and 1,229 in 2009.[6] As of 23 October 2008, there were five people in detention.[7]

    A handbook produced by the Salvadoran border guards division of the Migration Directorate states that the maximum time migrants can be held in a detention centre is five days. Governmental sources reported in 2008 that the average time period people spend in immigration detention was roughly five days.[8] However, in 2007 non-governmental organizations observed that detention typically lasted between 45 days and 3 months.[9] According to information provided by advocacy organisation, in 2014 the average length of detention was 30 days though some cases reportedly lasted considerably longer.[10]

    There is no automatic review of detention. Civil society organisations, such as Programa de Atención a Personas Refugiadas en El Salvador (IAES PARES), offer legal assistance to detainees.[11]

    In July 2008 the country opened a dedicated immigration detention facility, called the Centro de Atención Integral para el Migrante (CAIM). It appears to be the only long-term immigration facility used in El Salvador. The centre is managed by the Migration Directorate (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) and is located at the premises of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security in San Salvador. Before opening the centre, migrants were generally detained in police facilities, particularly those located in border areas (División de Fronteras de la Policía Nacional Civil).[12]

    According to a 2008 report from the Salvadoran government, the CAIM facility has a maximum capacity of 80. The building has three floors and a basement. There is a kitchen and an eating room, alongside a visiting, entertainment, and recreation room. The centre is divided in four sections for men, women, families, and vulnerable persons, each equipped with a bathroom. The government reportedly spent almost 190,000 USD for the renovation and reconstruction of the building to set up the centre.[13] According to the government, detainees receive adequate food and medical, psychological, and social assistance. The National Civil Police and the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance signed an agreement under which the latter is to ensure prompt medical assistance for detainees.[14]

    Unaccompanied minors are taken into charge by the Salvadoran Institute for the Integral Development of Children and Adolescents (Instituto Salvadoreño para el Desarrollo Integral de la Niñez y la Adolescencia).[15] However, children who migrate with their parents or guardians are have been with their families at the CAIM facility.[16]

     

    [1] Government of El Salvador. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 73 OF THE CONVENTION: Initial reports of States parties due in 2004: EL SALVADOR. OHCHR. 20 August 2007. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/436/47/PDF/G0743647.pdf?OpenElement, p. 11-20.

    [2] Government of El Salvador. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 73 OF THE CONVENTION: Initial reports of States parties due in 2004: EL SALVADOR. OHCHR. 20 August 2007. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/436/47/PDF/G0743647.pdf?OpenElement, p. 8.

    [3] International Detention Coalition (IDC). INFORME REGIONAL DETENCIÓN MIGRATORIA Y ALTERNATIVAS A LA DETENCIÓN EN LAS AMÉRICAS. October 2014, p. 21 and 35. Norma Verónica Ardón. “Estudio Migratorio de el Salvador”. In Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo (INCEDES) and Sin Fronteras (Eds.). Estudio comparativo de la legislación y políticas migratorias en Centroamérica, México y República, November 2011. Dominicana. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/index.php/es/publicaciones/de-sin-fronteras/informes-anuales-2/380-estudio-comparativo-de-la-legislacion-y-politicas-migratorias-en-centroamerica-mexico-y-republica-dominicana. P. 195.

    [4] Norma Verónica Ardón. “Estudio Migratorio de el Salvador”. In Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo (INCEDES) and Sin Fronteras (Eds.). Estudio comparativo de la legislación y políticas migratorias en Centroamérica, México y República, November 2011. Dominicana. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/index.php/es/publicaciones/de-sin-fronteras/informes-anuales-2/380-estudio-comparativo-de-la-legislacion-y-politicas-migratorias-en-centroamerica-mexico-y-republica-dominicana. P. 197.

    [5] International Detention Coalition (IDC). INFORME REGIONAL DETENCIÓN MIGRATORIA Y ALTERNATIVAS A LA DETENCIÓN EN LAS AMÉRICAS. October 2014, p. 5. Undisclosed source. Interview with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2013.

    [6] Norma Verónica Ardón. “Estudio Migratorio de el Salvador”. In Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo (INCEDES) and Sin Fronteras (Eds.). Estudio comparativo de la legislación y políticas migratorias en Centroamérica, México y República, November 2011. Dominicana. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/index.php/es/publicaciones/de-sin-fronteras/informes-anuales-2/380-estudio-comparativo-de-la-legislacion-y-politicas-migratorias-en-centroamerica-mexico-y-republica-dominicana. P. 200

    [7] Government of El Salvador. 2008. RESPUESTAS ESCRITAS DEL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR EN RELACIÓN CON LA LISTA DE CUESTIONES (CMW/C/SLV/Q/1) RECIBIDAS POR EL COMITÉ PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DE TODOS LOS TRABAJADORES MIGRATORIOS Y DE SUS FAMILIARES EN RELACIÓN CON EL EXAMEN DEL INFORME INICIAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR (CMW/C/SLV/1). CMW/C/SLV/Q/1/Add.1. 24 October 2008. OHCHR. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/CMW-C-SLV-Q1-Add1_sp.doc, p. 11.

    [8] Government of El Salvador. 2008. RESPUESTAS ESCRITAS DEL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR EN RELACIÓN CON LA LISTA DE CUESTIONES (CMW/C/SLV/Q/1) RECIBIDAS POR EL COMITÉ PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DE TODOS LOS TRABAJADORES MIGRATORIOS Y DE SUS FAMILIARES EN RELACIÓN CON EL EXAMEN DEL INFORME INICIAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR (CMW/C/SLV/1). CMW/C/SLV/Q/1/Add.1. 24 October 2008. OHCHR. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/CMW-C-SLV-Q1-Add1_sp.doc, p. 11.

    [9] Instituto de Estudios Políticos para América Latina y África and Médicos Sin Fronteras. Informacion comparada sobre detencion de solicitantes de asilo en Centroamerica y Caribe. 2007. http://www.gloobal.net/iepala/gloobal/fichas/ficha.php?entidad=Textos&id=4303&opcion=documento#ficha_gloobal.

    [10] International Detention Coalition (IDC). INFORME REGIONAL DETENCIÓN MIGRATORIA Y ALTERNATIVAS A LA DETENCIÓN EN LAS AMÉRICAS. October 2014, p. 23.

    [11] International Detention Coalition (IDC). INFORME REGIONAL DETENCIÓN MIGRATORIA Y ALTERNATIVAS A LA DETENCIÓN EN LAS AMÉRICAS. October 2014, p. 33 and 69.

    [12] Norma Verónica Ardón. “Estudio Migratorio de el Salvador”. In Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo (INCEDES) and Sin Fronteras (Eds.). Estudio comparativo de la legislación y políticas migratorias en Centroamérica, México y República, November 2011. Dominicana. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/index.php/es/publicaciones/de-sin-fronteras/informes-anuales-2/380-estudio-comparativo-de-la-legislacion-y-politicas-migratorias-en-centroamerica-mexico-y-republica-dominicana. P. 199. See also: Michael Flynn. 2002. “Donde Esta la Frontera?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. July/August 2012. .

    [13] Government of El Salvador. 2008. RESPUESTAS ESCRITAS DEL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR EN RELACIÓN CON LA LISTA DE CUESTIONES (CMW/C/SLV/Q/1) RECIBIDAS POR EL COMITÉ PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DE TODOS LOS TRABAJADORES MIGRATORIOS Y DE SUS FAMILIARES EN RELACIÓN CON EL EXAMEN DEL INFORME INICIAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR (CMW/C/SLV/1). CMW/C/SLV/Q/1/Add.1. 24 October 2008. OHCHR. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/CMW-C-SLV-Q1-Add1_sp.doc, p. 9-10.

    [14] Government of El Salvador. 2008. RESPUESTAS ESCRITAS DEL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR EN RELACIÓN CON LA LISTA DE CUESTIONES (CMW/C/SLV/Q/1) RECIBIDAS POR EL COMITÉ PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DE TODOS LOS TRABAJADORES MIGRATORIOS Y DE SUS FAMILIARES EN RELACIÓN CON EL EXAMEN DEL INFORME INICIAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR (CMW/C/SLV/1). CMW/C/SLV/Q/1/Add.1. 24 October 2008. OHCHR. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/CMW-C-SLV-Q1-Add1_sp.doc, p. 9-10.

    [15] Norma Verónica Ardón. “Estudio Migratorio de el Salvador”. In Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo (INCEDES) and Sin Fronteras (Eds.). Estudio comparativo de la legislación y políticas migratorias en Centroamérica, México y República, November 2011. Dominicana. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/index.php/es/publicaciones/de-sin-fronteras/informes-anuales-2/380-estudio-comparativo-de-la-legislacion-y-politicas-migratorias-en-centroamerica-mexico-y-republica-dominicana. P. 199.

    [16] FESPAD. 2º Examen Periódico Universal de El Salvador: informes official y alternativos. December 2014. http://www.lwfcamerica.org/uploaded/content/article/1828638740.pdf, p. 20. 

    IMMIGRATION AND DETENTION-RELATED STATISTICS

    Total number of immigration detainees by year
    1,229
    2009
    1,527
    2008
    1,645
    2007
    372
    2006
    Total number of detained minors
    Not Available
    2017
    Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population
    3
    2009
    Estimated total immigration detention capacity
    80
    2008
    Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
    1
    2015
    Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
    80
    2008
    Number of dedicated medium-term immigration detention centres
    0
    2015
    Number of immigration offices
    0
    2015
    Number of transit facilities
    0
    2015
    Number of criminal facilities
    0
    2015
    Number of ad hoc facilities
    0
    2015
    Criminal prison population
    38,007
    2017
    26,796
    2014
    24,283
    2010
    16,786
    2007
    12,073
    2004
    9,471
    2001
    8,173
    1998
    7,013
    1995
    5,348
    1992
    Percentage of foreign prisoners
    1.3
    2017
    1.7
    2014
    Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
    585
    2017
    424
    2014
    391
    2010
    274
    2007
    200
    2004
    158
    2001
    139
    1998
    123
    1995
    97
    1992
    Population
    6,500,000
    2020
    6,127,000
    2015
    6,300,000
    2012
    International migrants
    42,617
    2019
    42,000
    2015
    41,600
    2013
    International migrants as a percentage of the population
    0.7
    2015
    0.7
    2013
    Refugees
    48
    2019
    48
    2018
    44
    2017
    36
    2016
    48
    2015
    44
    2014
    Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants
    0.01
    2016
    0.01
    2014
    0.01
    2012
    Total number of new asylum applications
    29
    2019
    5
    2016
    12
    2014
    4
    2012
    Refugee recognition rate
    61.5
    2014
    Stateless persons
    0
    2016
    0
    2014
    Number of immigration detainees on a given day
    Top nationalities of detainees
    Number of persons granted alternatives to immigration detention
    Number of detained asylum seekers
    Number of detained unaccompanied minors
    Number of detained accompanied minors
    Number of detained stateless persons
    Number of apprehensions of non-citizens
    Number of persons removed/returned (voluntary returns and deportations)
    Number of deportations/forced returns only
    Percentage of persons removed in relation to total number of people placed in removal procedures
    Estimated number of undocumented migrants

    SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

    Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD)
    4,120
    2014
    3,826
    2013
    Remittances to the country
    4,236
    2014
    3,636
    2011
    Remittances from the country
    23
    2010
    Unemployment Rate
    2014
    Net official development assistance (ODA) (in millions USD)
    97.9
    2014
    Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)
    116 (Medium)
    2015
    115 (Medium)
    2014
    Unemployment rate amongst migrants
    Detention for deterrence
    Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Immigration
    Immigration Index Score
    World Bank Rule of Law Index
    Domestic Opinion Polls on Immigration

    DOMESTIC LAWS AND POLICIES

    Legal tradition
    Civil law
    Constitutional guarantees?
    Yes (Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, article 13) 1983 1983
    1983
    Core pieces of national legislation
    Ley de extranjería, Decreto Legislativo No. 299 de 1986 (1986)
    1986
    Ley para la determinación de la condición de personas refugiadas, Decreto No. 918 de 2002 (2002)
    2002
    Ley de migración, Decreto Legislativo No. 2772 de 1958 (1958)
    1958
    Regulations, standards, guidelines
    Reglamento de la ley de migración, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33 de 1959 (1959)
    1959
    Does the country provide specific criminal penalties for immigration-related violations?
    Yes ()
    2014
    Average length of detention
    30
    2014
    70
    2007
    Maximum length of detention for asylum-seekers
    3
    2015
    Provision of basic procedural standards
    Access to free interpretation services (No)
    2015
    Complaints mechanism regarding detention conditions (No)
    2015
    Compensation for unlawful detention (No)
    2015
    Information to detainees (No)
    2015
    Independent review of detention (No) No
    2014
    Impact of alternatives
    Not applicable (There are no alternatives to detention)
    2013
    Is the detention of vulnerable persons provided in law? Are they detained in practice?
    Accompanied minors (Not mentioned) Yes
    2014
    Unaccompanied minors (Not mentioned) No
    2011
    Additional legislation
    Immigration-status-related grounds
    Non-immigration-status-related grounds providing for administrative detention in immigration legislation.
    Grounds for criminal immigration-related detention/incarceration and maximum potential duration of incarceration
    Has the country decriminalized immigration-related violations?
    Maximum length for administrative immigration detention in law.
    Longest recorded instance of immigration detention.
    Maximum length of time in custody prior to issuance of a detention order
    Maximum length of detention for persons detained upon arrival at ports of entry
    Types of non-custodial measures
    Mandatory detention
    Expedited/fast track removal
    Re-entry ban

    INTERNATIONAL LAW

    Individual complaints procedure
    Acceptance Year
    ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008 2011
    2011
    CRPD, Optional Protocol to o the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2007
    2007
    ICCPR, First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 1995
    1995
    Ratio of complaints procedures accepted
    Observation Date
    3/8
    3/8
    Relevant recommendations issued by treaty bodies
    Recommendation Year
    Committee on Migrant Workers §49. The Committee encourages the State party to continue focusing on the situation of unaccompanied migrant children and to respect the principle of the best interests of the child. In particular, the State party should: (a) Focus on developing policies to address the difficulties faced by unaccompanied migrant children and on setting up mechanisms for their identification and protection; (b) Strengthen cooperation with transit and destination countries in order to ensure that unaccompanied migrant children who have been the victims of crime are properly protected and that they receive individual care tailored to the specific needs of each case; (c) Strengthen cooperation with transit and destination countries in order to ensure that unaccompanied migrant children are not detained for having entered transit or destination countries in an irregular fashion, that minors who are accompanied by family members are not separated from them and that families are housed in protection centres; (d) Strengthen cooperation with transit and destination countries so that unaccompanied minors are repatriated to the State party only if it is in the best interests of the child and when it has been established that the child, upon his or her return, will be safe and provided with proper care and custody, under a procedure with proper safeguards; (e) Take the necessary steps to ensure that repatriated minors are taken in by family members and resettled and reintegrated in a lasting fashion in their home communities; (f) Develop policies on support, protection and family reunification for Salvadoran children whose parents have emigrated. §50.The Committee views with concern the systematic detention of Salvadoran migrant workers, prior to repatriation, in destination and transit countries because of their irregular status. §51. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen cooperation with transit and destination countries in order to ensure that the detention of Salvadoran migrant workers in an irregular situation in such countries is used only as a last resort. 2014
    2014
    Regional legal instruments
    Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
    ACHR, American Convention on Human Rights 1978
    1978
    IACPPT, Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 1994
    1994
    CBDP, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem do Para) 1995
    1995
    APACHR, Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1995
    1995
    Visits by special procedures of the Human Rights Council
    Year of Visit
    Observation Date
    Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences 2004
    2004
    2015
    Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences 2010
    2010
    2015
    Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography 2010
    2010
    2015
    Working Group on arbitrary detention 2012
    2012
    2015
    Relevant recommendations of the UN Universal Periodic Review
    Observation Date
    No 2010
    2017
    No 2014
    Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
    International treaty reservations
    Treaty bodies decisions on individual complaints
    Regional treaty reservations
    Regional judicial decisions on individual complaints
    Recommendations issued by regional human rights mechanisms
    Bilateral/multilateral agreements linked to readmission
    Relevant recommendations by UN Special Procedures

    INSTITUTIONAL INDICATORS

    Federal or centralized governing system
    Centralized system
    2015
    Centralized or decentralized immigration authority
    Centralized immigration authority
    2008
    Custodial authority
    Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública) Justice
    2011
    Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y Justicia) Internal or Public Security
    2008
    Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública) Justice
    2008
    Detention Facility Management
    Migration Directorate (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) (Governmental)
    2011
    Formally designated detention estate?
    No ()
    2015
    Types of detention facilities used in practice
    Yes ()
    2015
    Authorized monitoring institutions
    Programa de Atención a Personas Refugiadas en El Salvador (IAES PARES) (Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO))
    2014
    Apprehending authorities
    Is the national human rights institution (NHRI) recognized as independent?
    Does NHRI carry out visits?
    Does NHRI have capacity to receive complaints?
    Does NHRI publicly release reports on immigration detention?
    Does national preventive mechanism (NPM) carry out visits?
    Does NPM have capacity to receive complaints?
    Does NPM publicly release reports on immigration detention?
    Do NGOs carry out visits?
    NGO capacity to receive complaints?
    Do NGOs publish reports on immigration detention?
    Do parliamentary organs carry out visits?
    Do parliamentary organs have capacity to receive complaints?
    Do parliamentary organs publicly report on their detention findings?
    Do internal inspection agencies (IIAs) carry out visits?
    Do IIAs have capacity to receive complaints?
    Do IIAs publicly report their findings from detention inspections?
    Do international and/or regional bodies (IRBs) visit immigration-related detention facilities?
    Do IRBs publicly report their findings from inspections?
    Types of privatisation/outsourcing
    Detention contractors and other non-state entities
    Estimated annual budget for detention operations
    Estimated annual budgets for particular detention-related activities
    Estimated cost per detainees day (in USD)
    Estimated annual budget for non-custodial measures (in USD)
    Estimated costs of non-custodial measures (in USD)
    Does the country receive external sources of funding?
    Description of foreign assistance