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 […]
02 May 2020 – El Salvador
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 […]
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.
DETENTION STATISTICS
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
LENGTH OF DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
Custodial Authorities
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria
(Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública)
Justice
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria
(Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y Justicia)
Internal or Public Security
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
COSTS & OUTSOURCING
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL DETENTION MONITORING
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
OP ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
2011
2011
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2004
2004
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2004
2004
ICRMW, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
2003
2003
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1996
1996
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 17/19
Individual Complaints Procedures
Acceptance Year
ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008
2011
2011
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Committee on Migrant Workers
36. Committee urges the State party to:
(a) Guarantee migrants’ right to liberty in the context of migration
procedures and, if necessary, adopt alternatives to administrative detention for the
benefit of migrant workers and members of their families in the context of procedures
for entry into the country or deportation or expulsion from the national territory;
(b) In the event that migration detention is resorted to as an exceptional
measure of last resort, ensure adequate and decent conditions in the places where it is
served, for the shortest possible period of time and, where relevant, the effective
separation of migrants in administrative detention from those who are under criminal
investigation.
2023
2023
2023
Committee on the Rights of the Child
§ 46. "The Committee welcomes the creation of the comprehensive migrant care centre and the child, adolescent and family care centres, and the adoption in 2017 of the protocol for the protection and care of Salvadoran migrant children and adolescents. With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee r ecommends that the State party:
(a) Strengthen the identification system in Salvadoran consulates in transit or destination countries for children awaiting deportation, and in the assistance centres in the State party for children who have been deported;
(b) Improve access to care centres and shelters and step up measures to expand family-based alternative care for unaccompanied children who have returned or been deported;
(c) Strengthen the implementation of the protocol for the care of unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents through improved inter-institutional coordination at the municipal level, in particular for children leaving the comprehensive migrant care centre, and extend the protocol to include migrant children who are non-nationals of the State party;
(d) Strengthen the technical capacity of the protection boards of the National Council for Children and Adolescents to process and follow up the cases of children in need of protection, including through better coordination with other services;
(e) Develop a referral protocol to identify and assist returned or deported children who are survivors of sexual and gender-based violence;
(f) Continue seeking technical assistance from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this regard."
2018
2018
2018
Human Rights Committee
31.The Committee takes note of the existence of a draft law on migration and aliens, which specifies the maximum period for detention at the Centre for the Comprehensive Care of Migrants, as well as of the ongoing reform of the Refugee Status Determination Act. However, it is concerned that the existing legal framework for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers is not in accordance with international standards. It is also concerned about information regarding the detention of asylum seekers, including families with young children, at the Centre, and about the unsuitability of the Centre for this purpose. The Committee is also concerned about reports regarding the lack of adequate protection and assistance for persons deported to the State party, in particular unaccompanied migrant children, and for unaccompanied migrant children travelling through El Salvador en route for the United States of America (arts. 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 24 and 26).
32. The State party should:
(a) Ensure that national immigration legislation, including the Refugee Status Determination Act and the law on migration and aliens, is consistent with the Covenant and other international standards;
(b) Avoid placing asylum seekers, especially children, in administrative detention and provide alternatives to detention for adult asylum seekers, so that detention is used only as a last resort and for as short a period as possible;
(c) Ensure the provision of protection and assistance to asylum seekers in appropriate conditions, as well as access to basic services and to the national asylum system;
[...]
2018
2018
2018
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
2014
> UN Special Procedures
Visits by Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council
Year of Visit
Observation Date
> UN Universal Periodic Review
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
CBDP, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem do Para)
1995
1995
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
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).
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.
Government Agencies
Directorate General of Migration and Foreigners: http://www.migracion.gob.sv/
International Organisations
UNHCR El Salvador: http://www.unhcr.org/el-salvador.html
IOM El Salvador: https://www.iom.int/countries/el-salvador
Media
El Mundo: http://elmundo.sv
La Página: http://www.lapagina.com.sv/internacionales
NGOs and Research Institutions
Human Rights Watch El Salvador: https://www.hrw.org/americas/el-salvador
