A/HRC/45/9 equipped to deal with the emergency situation that the health pandemic presented. In the Northwest Processing Center, for example, the Government of the United States of America and the company that owns and operates the centre, the GEO Group, failed to take adequate steps to address concerns that had been raised by special procedure mandate holders since 2018,36 exposing migrants detained there to harm. 50. Migrants held in immigration detention centres are especially vulnerable to COVID19. Persons with disabilities, older persons, pregnant women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse persons are at particular risk of complications should they become infected, due to underlying health conditions or inadequate access to appropriate routine medical care.37 Overcrowding has meant that basic health protection measures to prevent the spread of the virus, such as physical distancing and hygiene rules, are not observed. Furthermore, transportation of migrant detainees between detention centres reportedly also continued, despite the spread of the virus. These actions, as well as the failure to act, pose a risk not only to the migrants but also to the employees at this centre and others like it, those carrying out the transportation services, and the general population. The companies running these centres have chosen to continue to cut costs in order to maximize profits while Governments turn a blind eye. 51. Broader legal and policy developments have also resulted in greater recourse to immigration detention, including of children, despite repeated concerns. A stark example is the adoption in 2018 in the United States of the zero-tolerance policy and the consequent separation of children and their families, 38 and the adoption in 2016 of the Immigration Act in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (see para. 54 below). This and related measures have allegedly resulted in serious human rights violations and abuses and simultaneously provided additional business opportunities for companies that have made financial gains as a result. 52. In several countries, alternatives to detention also provide a lucrative business market. Services include various levels of monitoring and supervision of those migrants released from detention, which may include reporting by telephone, Global Positioning System tracking through ankle monitors or electronic ankle bracelets, and smartphone applications. In addition, in one country, as an alternative to secure facilities, the Government houses asylum seekers in temporary accommodation run by private military and security companies, which have been accused of providing poor quality accommodation and of mistreatment. 39 53. Privately run immigration detention facilities also have an impact on the local communities in which they are located. The centres are often situated in remote areas or at times offshore in third countries in communities suffering from marginalization and economic hardship or poverty. Private military and security companies running these centres often present themselves as bringing jobs and prosperity to local communities. In reality, these companies benefit from cheap labour, often provided by migrants, women and indigenous peoples. This can create dependency by communities on these companies as the main source of employment, in what may be exploitative relationships with companies benefiting from multimillion-dollar contracts while paying their local employees very poorly.40 2. Returns and removals 54. Private military and security companies and airlines provide secure transportation services to move migrants between places of detention and for deportations, forced returns and so-called voluntary returns of individuals and groups. In general, Governments do not routinely disclose information about deportations, and often more precise information is published only in response to “freedom of information” requests, or other non36 37 38 39 40 12 See OTH 31/2020. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25912&LangID=E. See USA 23/2017, USA 12/2018 and USA 2/2018. See www.worldpsi.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/final_psi_epsu_psiru_privatisation_of_migration_and_r efugee_services.pdf; and www.migrantsorganise.org/?p=26878. As indicated at the expert consultation held in May 2020 (see para. 8 above).