A/HRC/18/54 27. Reports have also alleged that boats carrying rescued migrants have been unable to disembark the migrants at the nearest safe port.23 Concerns have been raised also that, as boats continue to arrive, States could revert to previous problematic interception policies that involved screening of protection needs at sea, or even to summary pushbacks. 28. All persons, regardless of where they are, their legal status, nationality or mode of travel, are entitled to protection of their right to life.24 29. Also guaranteed to all persons, regardless of their legal or other status, is the right to protection from refoulement.25 It should be noted that the principle of non-refoulement, which is recognized as a rule of customary international law, is equally applicable to all places where the intercepting State exercises jurisdiction and control, including on the high seas.26 30. Article 98.2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea codifies the obligation of shipmasters to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost and to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need for assistance. In addition, coastal States have an obligation to “promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service.” The obligation of rescue is also provided in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue obliges States to “ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea … regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which the person is found” (chap. 2.1.10). 31. In the context where a State has intercepted a ship suspected of smuggling migrants, article 9 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (see 23 24 25 26 One such incident took place in July 2011, when disagreement among several States, including Malta, Spain and Italy, over disembarkation led to more than 100 migrants being stranded on a vessel under NATO command for several days. See “Migrants’ rescue: Malta awaits NATO’s explanation”, Times of Malta, 14 July 2011. The Council of Europe expressed concerns in relation to the treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers rescued at sea, stating that “the absolute priority in the event of interception at sea is the swift disembarkation of those rescued to a "place of safety”…Yet it is clear that the notion of “place of safety” should not be restricted solely to the physical protection of people, but necessarily also entails respect for their fundamental rights.” Council of Europe resolution 1821 (2011), para. 5.2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 6 (1). Namely the return of anyone to a country where they would be at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. See Convention against Torture, art. 3, and (in the case of refugees) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 33. In its general comment No. 31, the Human Rights Committee noted that “the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum-seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party.” Similarly, the Committee against Torture affirmed that the non-refoulement obligation contained in article 3 of the Convention against Torture applies in any territory under a State party’s jurisdiction. See, for example, CAT/C/USA/CO/2. In the regional context, the Council of Europe noted that “the high seas are not an area where States are exempt from their legal obligations, including those emerging from international human rights law and international refugee law.” (resolution 1821). See also the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Medvedev and others vs France (no. 3394/03), where the Court held that the exercise of full and exclusive control on the high seas was tantamount to jurisdiction. Also see UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26 January 2007. 9