A/HRC/31/35 B. Collective expulsions and violations of the principle of non-refoulement 24. International human rights law limits the sovereign entitlement of States to remove migrants from their territory when the migrant would be at risk of serious harm upon return.26 Collective expulsions are prohibited as a principle of general international law.27 OHCHR has recommended that removal orders should only be issued following consideration of individual circumstances with adequate justification in accordance with the law and international human rights standards.28 Any consent given to voluntary return processes should be fully informed and given free of any coercion, such as the prospect of indefinite detention or detention in inadequate conditions. 29 25. Also guaranteed to all persons, regardless of their legal or other status, is the right to protection from refoulement (i.e., the return of anyone to a country where they would be at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment).30 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. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants has expressed concern about refoulement from Europe to countries of origin and third countries with weak rule of law and poor asylum systems that have been conducted under the broad auspices of bilateral agreements.31 27. Returns that are not sustainable can lead not only to further abuse and exploitation, but also to more cycles of insecure and irregular migration, with human rights implications for the people moving. In one survey of sub-Saharan African migrants in Morocco, 68 per cent of people interviewed said that they had been arrested and expelled since their arrival in Morocco; and almost 80 per cent of them had been expelled multiple times.32 Furthermore, in the case of children, it is vital that return is only used as a protection 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 8 See Intervener Brief filed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to leave granted by the Court on 9 October 2015 in European Court of Human Rights, N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Application Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15. Available at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ Migration/ThirdPartyIntervention.pdf. See International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1); as well as Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, para. 10; and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 30 (2005) on discrimination against non-citizens, para. 26. See Intervener Brief filed by the High Commissioner (see footnote 26), para. 19, for a non-exhaustive list of individual circumstances; also OHCHR Recommended principles and guidelines, guideline 9.4. See OHCHR, Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights at International Borders, guideline 9.3. See Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, art. 3; and, in the case of refugees, 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 33. See A/HRC/29/36, para. 39. See Doctors Without Borders, Violence, Vulnerability and Migration: Trapped at the Gates of Europe: A report on the situation of sub-Saharan migrants in an irregular situation in Morocco, March 2013, p. 14; also Duncan Wood, “Reflections on the Mexico-Guatemala Border”, in Reflections on Mexico’s Southern Border, Duncan Wood and others, contributors (Washington, D.C., Wilson Center; Mexico, Autonomous Institute of Technology Institute, 1 April 2015), pp. 5-6, a study of migrants attempting to transit from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States of America, in which it is noted that migrants paid smugglers around $7,000 for up to three border-crossing attempts. Deported migrants therefore soon made more attempts to cross the border irregularly.