A/HRC/37/51 impounded and temporary accommodation to be demolished. They have forced defenders to be accompanied in their activities in border areas by police officers, deliberately blurring the line between the State and civil society and undermining the perceived neutrality of defenders. Defenders seeking to provide humanitarian assistance to people on the move without State permission within these spaces are subject to criminalization (despite the suffering that this generates) and the clear protections that international human rights law offers such activities. In Italy, for example, some defenders working in border areas have been issued a foglio di via, an order to leave the town and not to return there for a specified period. 53. Even inside a State, people on the move are often confined to isolated locations ranging from refugee camps to construction sites, labour camps and agricultural plantations. Many of these are located in remote locations difficult to reach. Information about whom is being detained where is often kept from defenders, or provided when it is already out of date. Employers, private land owners and camp management authorities can restrict access to these locations. Asylum seekers in need of support from the State may be particularly vulnerable to policies of dispersal. Even where access is allowed, defenders working in such locations can be subject to intense surveillance, while people on the move working with defenders have to face suspicion and reprisals. All too frequently, places of detention are deliberately located in this way so as to increase the precariousness of people on the move and to isolate them from communities offering support.6 At the extreme, a place of detention can (as in the case of Australia) be on the high seas, on a remote offshore island or even outside the territory of the State. Judicial proceedings are sometimes even moved to within detention centres, further frustrating access by human rights defenders, including those seeking to provide legal counsel and representation. B. Criminalization and stigmatization of defenders of people on the move 54. Defenders working on issues faced by people on the move are often subject to criminalization and to restrictions above and beyond those usually faced by civil society more generally. States have expanded the troubling practice of requiring registration with the police and supervision and control by State authorities when working in particular geographic areas hosting large numbers of people on the move or close to border crossings. Even outside of these areas, defenders providing assistance to and expressing solidarity with people on the move have faced criminalization. While criminalization is often legislated nationally, it can also be the product of local bylaws that seek to prevent defenders from providing support to people on the move or otherwise interfere in the activities of defenders. 55. The irregular status of some people on the move may cause defenders working with them to be charged with “harbouring” irregular people or otherwise facilitating their irregular presence. Some defenders (such as Helena Maleno Garzón), have even been accused of the international crime of trafficking as a result of their advocacy against illegal practices, such as “hot returns”, and solidarity with people on the move. 7 The simple act of giving tea and biscuits to an irregular migrant has triggered criminal prosecution. Such prosecutions have a chilling effect, making mainstream civil society organizations and private individuals more hesitant to engage with people on the move or to take action in relation to the challenges they face. In some States, severe penalties have been legislatively mandated for whistle-blowers who reveal information about the mistreatment of people on the move. These laws place individuals in conflict with their own personal and professional ethics and are in clear violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by international human rights law. 6 7 14 Lauren Martin, “Noncitizen detention: spatial strategies of migrant precarity in US immigration and border control”, Annales de géographie, vol. 702-703, No. 2 (2015), pp. 231-247. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), #Defending Maleno, press release, 4 December 2017.