A/HRC/18/54 paragraph 22 above) requires the intercepting State to, inter alia, “ensure the safety and humane treatment of the persons on board”. In order to avoid arbitrary expulsions, all persons – including smuggled migrants – rescued at sea should be screened individually to determine whether they face particular risks to their dignity and safety if disembarked to a foreign State. 32. According to amendments to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue adopted in 2004 that entered into force in 2006, States are obliged to cooperate and coordinate so that rescued persons are disembarked and delivered to a place of safety. The IMO Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea define such a place of safety as a “place where the survivors’ safety of life is no longer threatened and where their basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met.”27 33. The IMO Guidelines also highlight the “need to avoid disembarkation in territories where the lives and freedoms of those alleging a well-founded fear of persecution would be threatened is a consideration in the case of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea.” The UNHCR Executive Committee has further specified that interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection or result in those in need of international protection being returned, directly or indirectly, to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.28 34. In order to protect the physical integrity of migrants travelling at sea, States should be mindful to avoid dangerous interception practices. As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights notes, “a policy of attempting to stop, board and/or tow fully loaded or overloaded crafts in poor conditions on the high seas is inherently a high risk operation which not only jeopardizes many lives, but has resulted in the loss of human life.”29 D. Reception, detention and collective expulsion 35. Particularly in the early months and weeks of the crisis, concerns were raised in relation to inadequate reception arrangements for migrant arrivals, including overcrowding and lack of appropriate facilities in reception centres. Overcrowding and inadequate facilities were reported in neighbouring countries as well as further afield.30 In the initial months, as reception centres rapidly filled to capacity, the numbers of arrivals in Lampedusa led the Government of Italy to declare a state of emergency on the island. 27 28 29 30 10 Maritime Safety Committee, Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea, resolution MSC.167(78), IMO Doc. No. MSC 78/26/Add.2, annex, para. 6.12-6.17. UNHCR, conclusion No. 97 (LIV) Protection safeguards in interception measures, ExCom, fiftyfourth session, 2003, para. (a)(iv). The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States, Case 10.675, Report No. 51/96, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 550 (1997), para. 166. In late June, Médecins Sans Frontières reported that, “In Italy and Tunisia, refugees and asylum seekers are now confined in camps and transit centers for an indefinite period of time, their freedom of movement severely limited. Existing transit facilities and services are not equipped for long-term stay, and confinement in these centers is tantamount to detention. This situation is having a serious impact on the mental and physical health of the most vulnerable people, including unaccompanied minors, children, pregnant women, and victims of torture, violence, or human trafficking. In both Tunisian and Italian centers, the existing accommodation is inadequate for anyone staying longer than a few days.” MSF, “Trapped in transit: Neglected victims of the war in Libya”, 30 June 2011. In July 2011, riots erupted at an immigration centre in Bari, Italy, as asylum-seekers protested against delays in the processing of asylum claims. “African migrants found dead on overcrowded boat bound for Italy”, Guardian, 1 August 2011.