Nicaragua

880

Immigration detainees

1995

Not Available

Detained children

2017

326

Refugees

2018

6,600,000

Population

2020

Overview

One of the poorest countries in the Americas, Nicaragua nevertheless has specific immigration detention laws and policies and maintains a dedicated immigration detention in Managua, which it terms an albergue (or shelter). Asylum seekers can be subject to detention while other vulnerable groups, including children and victims of trafficking, tend to be housed in shelters.

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

17 June 2020

Persecuted Nicaraguan Woman in a Shelter in Costa Rica, (Daniel Dreifuss, UNHCR,
Persecuted Nicaraguan Woman in a Shelter in Costa Rica, (Daniel Dreifuss, UNHCR, "Nicaragua: After two years of crisis, more than 100,000 have fled the country," UN News, 10 March 2020, https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1059051)

The Covid-19 crisis has had an important impact on Nicaragua, in particular on people seeking to leave the country, whose numbers have grown considerably in recent years. In early March 2020, a UNHCR spokesperson said that “serious political and social crises in the country have prompted Nicaraguan students, human rights defenders, journalists and farmers to flee their country at an average rate of 4,000 people every month.” Since the initial violent clampdown following popular protests in 2018, most Nicaraguans have fled to Costa Rica, which as of March was hosting 77,000 refugees and asylum seekers. More than 8,000 people have fled to Panama and 9,000 to Europe. The UN estimates that there are around 103,600 Nicaraguan refugees and asylum seekers worldwide.

On 16 April, news reports indicated that Costa Rica had reinforced its border with Nicaragua and rejected 5,000 undocumented migrants in a month. According to the Nicaraguan immigration authority (Dirección de Migración), since Costa Rica closed its borders, there have been 5,300 people have been refused entry into the country, monstly undocumented Nicaraguan citizens. The Costa Rican immigration authority (Dirección de Migración y Extranjería) reported that 700 Nicaraguan citizens have given up their asylum claim in Costa Rica due to the deterioration of their economic conditions and have now returned to Nicaragua.

In addition, on 22 April, news reports stated that groups of Nicaraguan nationals were being prevented from entering the country at its borders with El Salvador. During the weekend of 18-19 April, a plane carrying 160 Nicaraguan nationals to Managua was prohibited from entering the country. In response, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, urged Latin American countries to open their borders to their own nationals, stating that “under international law, everyone has the right to return to their country of origin, even during a pandemic.”

As regards the country’s prisons, on 12 June the organisation “Victimas de Abril” denounced the inhumane conditions of imprisonment of 86 political prisoners, of whom 45 have shown Covid-19 symptoms. Detainees have reported that within the Jorge Navarro prison, they have only received one medical visit in 10 weeks and are only provided with two buckets of water a day. Access to hygienic products is limited and visits have not yet been suspended. One wing of the prison has been dedicated to prisoners showing symptoms of the disease, yet, certain prisoners have developed symptoms while cleaning the facility.


Last updated: August 2015

Nicaragua Immigration Detention Profile

One of the poorest countries in the Americas, Nicaragua nevertheless has specific immigration detention laws and policies and maintains a dedicated immigration detention in Managua, which it terms an albergue (or shelter). Asylum seekers can be subject to detention while other vulnerable groups, including children and victims of trafficking, tend to be housed in shelters.

Migratory context. With approximately 14 percent of its population living abroad—mainly in Costa Rica and the United States—Nicaragua is regarded as a key country of origin in Central America, having the second highest emigration rate in Central America (after El Salvador).[1] However, the country has also served as both a transit and destination country during different periods of its recent history. In the 1980s and early 1990s, civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador forced large numbers of people to flee to Nicaragua. Since then, Nicaragua has become a destination for people fleeing poverty and gang violence in neighbouring countries.[2]

As of 2013, Nicaragua hosted 41,500 international migrants, representing 0.7 percent of the country’s total population.[3] Around 70 percent of migrants are from Central America, of whom 44.5 percent were from Honduras and 38.7 percent from Costa Rica. Nicaragua is also a transit country for people migrating north, mainly from countries in South America and the Caribbean (Peru, Ecuador, Cuba, and Colombia) but also from other continents (Somalia, Eritrea, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh).[4]

Legal framework. Nicaragua adopted its first foreigners law (Ley de Extranjeria) in 1894. In 1930, the Immigration Law (Ley de Inmigracion) was adopted, which provided the country’s migration regulatory framework for some five decades. The law provided for the expulsion of beggars, tramps, prostitutes, and anarchists. It was not until a new migration law was adopted in 1982 that immigration detention (internamiento) was formally introduced.[5]

The current legal framework for Nicaragua’s migration policy is provided in the 2011 Migration Law (Ley General de Migracion y Extranjeria). The Law regulates the entry, stay, and exit of foreigners in compliance with the country’s constitution and its international and regional obligations. The 2012 Migration Regulation (Reglamento a la Ley General de Migracion y Extanjeria) details the provisions of the Migration Law. In addition, the 2008 Refugees Protection Law (Ley de Proteccion a Refugiados) sets out the conditions for recognition of the status of refugees and applicable procedures.

Non-citizens who enter or stay in the country without authorization can be placed in detention (Migration Law, articles 160-161; Migration Regulation, article 154). Unauthorized entry or stay triggers deportation or rejection at the border and immigration detention can be ordered in the context of both procedures (Migration Law, articles 114 and 160-162; Migration Regulation, article 154). Additional grounds for deportation include the use of fraudulent documents or declarations to enter the country, conviction for offences, risk to public order and security, and vagrancy (article 171). Non-citizens who exit the country in an irregular way and are rejected in their destination country and sent back to Nicaragua are also subject to detention (Migration Regulation, article 141). 

Statistics. Data regarding the number of people placed in detention are not systematic or current. According to statistics from the Immigration Directorate (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, or DGME), between 1990 and 2003, 5,624 migrants were detained, of whom 2,113 were from Peru, 563 from Ecuador, 472 from Colombia, 282 from India, 210 from Dominican Republic, and 123 from Costa Rica. In that period, the highest number of detainees was registered in 1995 (880), while the lowest in 1990 (72).[6]

Between December 2004 and June 2005 181 persons were detained—65 from Peru, 56 from Ecuador, 21 from Colombia, 16 from Cuba, 12 from Guatemala, 4 from El Salvador, 3 from Bolivia, China, Costa Rica, and the US, and 1 from Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Italy, Mexico, and Spain.[7]

The proportion of migrants and asylum seekers from other continents (mainly Eritrea, Somalia, and Ethiopia) intercepted or detained increased from 18 percent in 2006 to 60 percent in 2009.[8] In August 2011, 710 migrants from Asia and Africa were detained.[9] More recently, some observers confirmed that the majority of detainees in the country are from other continents, including South America (Colombia and Cuba). On rare occasions citizens from Central American countries, such as Honduras or El Salvador, are also detained.[10] 

Length of detention. The law does not establish a maximum length of immigration detention. Rather, the Migration Law provides that people are to remain in detention until deported (Migration Law, article 161). In practice, the average length of detention tends to be approximately three months.[11]  

Vulnerable groups. Asylum seekers are not exempt from detention. However, in contrast to detainees awaiting deportation, asylum seekers are to be detained for no more than seven days (Refugees Protection Law, article 10(b)).

The Migration Regulation establishes that minors are not to be detained. Rather, they are accommodated in shelters, which are under the authority of the Ministry for the Family. If they travel with their parents, the entire family is to be housed at a shelter (article 155). Observers report that in practice children who migrate with their mothers or female guardians are accommodated together in shelters. However, when they are travelling with their father or male guardians they are placed alone in a shelter while the fathers placed in detention.[12]

Other vulnerable persons are placed in shelters, including pregnant women, female victims of trafficking or violence. The law also provides that in exceptional cases and for humanitarian reasons migrants with physical or psychological disabilities, confirmed by a physician, will not be detained (Migration Law, article 160).

Procedures. Immigration detention is ordered by the Migration Directorate (Migration Law, article 10(14)). According to the Migration Law, the reasons for detention should be notified to the detainee (Migration Law, article 163). There appears to be no automatic review of detention by a judicial body and migration authorities enjoy broad discretion to order detention.[13]

The Migration Law provides two kinds of administrative remedies against decisions adopted by the Migration Directorate, which can be sought by immigration detainees. First, persons whose rights were prejudiced by decisions of the Migration Directorate can seek review. Second, detainees can seek to appeal decisions considered unjustified. Both remedies are to be decided within 15 days. If rejected they allow the detainee to seek amparo relief (Migration Law, article 180-182).

In practice these remedies are rarely sought. The reason for this may be the lack of legal or linguistic assistance provided by a state. Frequently the sole providers of these kinds of assistance are civil society organizations, whose resources are limited.[14] In addition, there have been cases when detainees were reportedly not granted access to a lawyer even when they were prepared to pay for the legal assistance themselves.[15]

Alternatives. The Migration Law provides for alternatives to detention. Based on a request by the detainee or a non-governmental organization and after payment of a guarantee, the Migration Directorate can place a detainee with a non-governmental association. The person is to remain under the organization’s guardianship and custody. If they fail to abide by the measures, civil or penal sanctions can be applied (Migration Law, article 161). It appears that these alternatives to detention are rarely used in practice. One of the reasons for this may be a high proportion of migrants in transit amongst detainees.[16]  

Criminalisation. The Migration Law does not appear to establish irregular entry as a punishable offense. However, people who enter the country in this way can be fined 2,000 Nicaraguan cordobas (approximately 75 USD). In addition, they can be fined 25 cordobas (approximately 1 USD) per day for each day they remain in the country. These sanctions are applicable to all migrants in an irregular situation, irrespective of whether they are placed in immigration detention. Migrants are to pay this fine before being released from immigration detention (Migration Law, article 122, 165, and 166). Migrants often perceive the fine in combination with immigration detention as double peine.[17] Until the mid-2000s’, the country penalized irregular entry or stay with imprisonment.[18]

Detention centre. Nicaragua operates one long-tern dedicated immigration detention facility, called the Centro de Albergue de Migrantes. It is managed by the Migration Directorate and located on its premises in Managua. The centre was opened in 1997. Before the adoption of the current Migration Law in 2011, the facility was called Centro de Retencion. It has a capacity to hold approximately 40 persons. The centre usually confines on average between 10 and 20 persons; however, it has at times held more than 100 persons.[19]

Men and women are detained separately and have joint access to a common area. The centre has three cells, one for women and two for men. While the men’s cells are opened during the day, the females, besides being allowed to the above space, are locked in their cell. Often the centre has relied on NGOs to provide detainees with the articles of personal hygiene.[20]

In general, authorities do not allow independent bodies to visit the facility. In recent years some independent associations, including Jesuit Refugee Services, lost visitation rights. The only association that still has access is an Evangelical group called the Consejo de Iglesias Evangélicas Pro Alianza Denominacional (CEPAD), which is the UNHCR implementing partner. However, CEPAD focuses only on detained asylum seekers and visits the centre following a notification by the personnel of the centre. The ombudsman (Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos) can also visit the centre but it reportedly rarely does so. Detainees have reported cases where during visits the ombudsman’s personnel reprimanded instead of assisted them.

At least two people have committed suicide at the Managua centre since 2010.[21]

In addition to the dedicated detention centre, migrants who are intercepted in the border areas may be detained for a short period of time at the airport or police stations before being transferred to Managua.[22]

 


[1] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 440-441. Heydi José Gonzalez Briones. Perfil Migratorio de Nicaragua 2012. International Organization for Migration Nicaragua. 2013. http://nicaragua.iom.int/sites/default/files/Publicaciones/perfil_migratorio_de_nicaragua%20%281%29.pdf. , p. 18 and 36.

[2] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 442-444. Heydi José Gonzalez Briones. Perfil Migratorio de Nicaragua 2012. International Organization for Migration Nicaragua. 2013. http://nicaragua.iom.int/sites/default/files/Publicaciones/perfil_migratorio_de_nicaragua%20%281%29.pdf. , p. 18

[3] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). International Migration 2013 Wall Chart. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/migration/migration-wallchart-2013.shtml

[4] Heydi José Gonzalez Briones. Perfil Migratorio de Nicaragua 2012. International Organization for Migration Nicaragua. 2013. http://nicaragua.iom.int/sites/default/files/Publicaciones/perfil_migratorio_de_nicaragua%20%281%29.pdf. , p. 32. Undisclosed source. 2015. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[5] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 450-452.

[6] Cited in Heydi José González Briones. Marco jurídico que controla el tráfico ilícito de migrantes y la trata de personas en Nicaragua. Estudio de caso: Puesto Fronterizo Peñas Blancas. Encuentro 2007, No. 78, 19-46, http://165.98.12.83/353/1/encuentro78articulo2.pdf, p. 33.

[7] Heydi José González Briones. Marco jurídico que controla el tráfico ilícito de migrantes y la trata de personas en Nicaragua. Estudio de caso: Puesto Fronterizo Peñas Blancas. Encuentro 2007, No. 78, 19-46, http://165.98.12.83/353/1/encuentro78articulo2.pdf, p. 33.

[8] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 447.

[9] Heydi José Gonzalez Briones. Perfil Migratorio de Nicaragua 2012. International Organization for Migration Nicaragua. 2013. http://nicaragua.iom.int/sites/default/files/Publicaciones/perfil_migratorio_de_nicaragua%20%281%29.pdf. , p. 35.

[10] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

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

[12] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 469. Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[13] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[14] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[15] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 478. Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[16] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[17] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[18] Leonor Zúñiga Gutierrez. “Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua.” 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 Dominicana. 2011. http://www.sinfronteras.org.mx/attachments/article/1292/INTRODUCCI%C3%93N.pdf, p. 453.

[19] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[20] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[21] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015.

[22] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). August 2015. International Detention Coalition (IDC). INFORME REGIONAL DETENCIÓN MIGRATORIA Y ALTERNATIVAS A LA DETENCIÓN EN LAS AMÉRICAS. October 2014. 

IMMIGRATION AND DETENTION-RELATED STATISTICS

Total number of immigration detainees by year
880
1995
72
1990
Total number of detained minors
Not Available
2017
Estimated total immigration detention capacity
40 - 40
2015
Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
1
2015
Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
40
2015
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
10,569
2014
9,168
2012
6,773
2007
6,233
2004
6,395
2001
6,535
1998
4,586
1995
3,375
1992
Percentage of foreign prisoners
2.9
2014
2.9
2006
Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
171
2014
153
2012
119
2007
111
2004
123
2001
134
1998
103
1995
85
1992
Population
6,600,000
2020
6,082,000
2015
6,000,000
2012
International migrants
40,300
2015
41,500
2013
International migrants as a percentage of the population
0.7
2015
0.7
2013
Refugees
326
2018
328
2017
325
2016
330
2015
280
2014
Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants
0.05
2016
0.05
2014
Total number of new asylum applications
202
2016
135
2014
Stateless persons
1
2016
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
Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population
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
Refugee recognition rate

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD)
1,963
2014
Remittances to the country
1,140
2014
750
2011
Unemployment Rate
2014
Net official development assistance (ODA) (in millions USD)
430.4
2014
Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)
125 (Medium)
2016
Remittances from the country
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 (Political Constitution, articles 25(1) and 33) 1987 1987
1987
Core pieces of national legislation
Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 761. March 2011. (2011)
2011
Ley de Protección a Refugiados, No. 655. June 2008. (2008)
2008
Regulations, standards, guidelines
REGLAMENTO A LA LEY No. 761, LEY GENERAL DE MIGRACIÓN Y EXTRANJERÍA (2012)
2012
Immigration-status-related grounds
Detention to effect removal
2015
Detention after readmission
2015
Detention for unauthorised entry or stay
2015
Detention for unauthorized stay resulting from criminal conviction
2015
Non-immigration-status-related grounds providing for administrative detention in immigration legislation.
Detention on public order, threats or security grounds
2015
Does the country provide specific criminal penalties for immigration-related violations?
Yes (No)
2015
Has the country decriminalized immigration-related violations?
Yes
2006
Maximum length for administrative immigration detention in law.
No Limit
2015
Average length of detention
90
2014
Maximum length of detention for asylum-seekers
7
2015
Provision of basic procedural standards
Information to detainees (Yes)
2015
Access to free interpretation services (No)
2015
Compensation for unlawful detention (No)
2015
Independent review of detention (No)
2015
Access to asylum procedures () Yes
2015
Complaints mechanism regarding detention conditions (No)
2015
Right to appeal the lawfulness of detention (Yes)
2015
Types of non-custodial measures
Release on bail (Yes) infrequently
2015
Provision of a guarantor (Yes) infrequently
2015
Is the detention of vulnerable persons provided in law? Are they detained in practice?
Accompanied minors (Prohibited) No
2015
Unaccompanied minors (Prohibited) No
2015
Persons with disabilities (Prohibited)
2015
Asylum seekers (Provided) Yes
2015
Refugees (Not mentioned) No
2015
Stateless persons (Not mentioned)
2015
Pregnant women (Not mentioned) No
2015
Re-entry ban
Yes
2015
Additional legislation
Grounds for criminal immigration-related detention/incarceration and maximum potential duration of incarceration
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
Impact of alternatives
Mandatory detention
Expedited/fast track removal

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Individual complaints procedure
Acceptance Year
CRPD, Optional Protocol to o the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2010
2010
ICCPR, First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 1980
1980
Ratio of complaints procedures accepted
Observation Date
2/8
2/8
Relevant recommendations issued by treaty bodies
Recommendation Year
Committee on Migrant Workers § 38. ensure that its national laws, policies and practices adequately respect the right to liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary detention of migrant workers and members of their families and in particular that it: (a) Amend the Migration and Alien Affairs Act to include, as a priority response to irregular migration, alternatives to detention for migration-related administrative infractions and ensure that detention of migrants is used only as an exceptional measure of last resort, in line with the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2013) on the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation and members of their families; [...]; (c) Provide detailed information on the number of migrant workers arrested, detained and expelled for immigration-related infractions, the reasons for the detention and expulsion of these migrant workers and the detention conditions, including the length of detention. § 40. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure that migrants are not detained beyond the 48-hour period provided for in article 160 of the Migration and Alien Affairs Act; (b) Expeditiously and completely cease detaining children on the basis of their or their parents’ immigration status and adopt alternatives to detention that allow children to remain with family members and/or guardians in non-custodial, community-based contexts while their immigration status is being reviewed, consistent with the principle of the best interest of the child and the child’s right to family life; (c) Allow for the independent monitoring of the migrants centre by civil society organizations and ensure that the Office of the Human Rights Advocate has the independence and sufficient resources to regularly supervise all the facilities used for the detention of migrants based on their immigration status. § 62. The Committee recommends that the State party take the steps necessary to ensure that repatriated migrant workers and members of their families are guaranteed due process by law enforcement authorities; that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention and to inhuman or degrading treatment; that they have access to legal counsel and are provided with appropriate information regarding their case; and that they are not exposed to the media. 2016
2016
Committee against Torture

§12. The Committee urges the State party to ensure that there is an effective system for inspecting detainees’ detention conditions and treatment and, in particular, to extend the mandate of the Procurator for Prisons to include visits to migrant custody centres [...] and to facilitate access by NGOs to such places. The Committee requests that information be provided in the next report on the number of visits made, complaints received from detainees and the outcome thereof.

2009
2009
Regional legal instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
ACHR, American Convention on Human Rights 1979
1979
IACPPT, Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 2009
2009
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 2009
2009
Visits by special procedures of the Human Rights Council
Year of Visit
Observation Date
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance 2004
2004
2015
Working Group on arbitrary detention 2006
2006
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
2015
Custodial authority
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Ministerio de Gobernacion) Interior or Home Affairs
2015
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Ministerio de Gobernacion) Interior or Home Affairs
2007
Detention Facility Management
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Governmental)
2015
Direccion General de Migracion y Extranjeria (Governmental)
2007
Formally designated detention estate?
Yes (Dedicated immigration detention facilities)
2015
Types of detention facilities used in practice
Yes ()
2015
Authorized monitoring institutions
Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI))
2015
Consejo de Iglesias Evangélicas Pro Alianza Denominacional (CEPAD) (Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO))
2015
Does NHRI carry out visits?
No
2015
Do NGOs carry out visits?
No
2015
Apprehending authorities
Is the national human rights institution (NHRI) recognized as independent?
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?
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