 Ladies and gentlemen, I think we might make a start. A very warm afternoon, I was going to say evening, but I think it's still afternoon. A very warm evening to you all and afternoon. And I welcome you all here to the Humanitarian. It's an important event today and I would like to first start by just flagging the delight. I have been on a panel with these eminent individuals. The information in relation to their full biography is on your seats. So I won't take up our precious time on that. But let me say that we have people eminently expert to speak to this afternoon on a very important topic. But if I may introduce, obviously, we have Karim here. We have Pia. We have Polly. And we have Helen. And they'll be both answering the questions that I'm going to ask them, but also hopefully engaging with you on a dialogue this afternoon. Now, this event today is part of the ICRC's global research and debate cycle on migration and displacement. And in fact, it's the fifth one to date. So we've done a lot of other events on this topic. Now, through these events, our aim is to foster understanding, engagement and debate and to move these important topic forward. Throughout the year, we've had events in Geneva but also in Moscow, Dakar, Pretoria and we've got many more in the coming years. So what we really like is to make sure that this debate is in Geneva but is also taken out of Geneva where often the issues are extremely pressing. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we know that borders were created to protect states and also their citizens. And we believe that more border management should take into account very seriously humanitarian considerations for migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees. Some of the humanitarian concerns ICRC has around border, borders are about immigration detention, the use of force at borders themselves and the principle of non-refouement. And they're also obviously and clearly legal obligations that states must respect. Today, just two weeks before the signing of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, we will this afternoon dive into this topic with a focus on the humanitarian concerns that's what we're most interested about this afternoon. The big question on the whole panel is for all of you, the meta question, as we'll call it, is how can states as those with the primary responsibility together with humanitarian organizations make their borders more humane? So that people are not put under pressure and more risks and that their needs are adequately addressed. So that's really the chapeau question this afternoon that we want to reflect upon, but we'll have a range of different voices and perspectives to dive into that. So the first perspective, and I think it should always be the starting perspective, we'll hear from Karim, he's going to speak from the podium, so to speak, because I think we need to locate any of this intellectual reflection in the experiences. So what I'd really like you to do, if it's possible, is share with us your opinion of the biggest challenges for migrants, those seeking asylum and refugees in crossing borders. So we'd be delighted to hear from you on that topic, to start us off and to make sure we really understand the problems that we will then go on and address, hopefully some of the solutions and frameworks. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Okay, thanks a lot. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Karim. I'm 23 years old, a refugee from Syria. Currently, I live in Hamburg, Germany. I completed training as a psychosocial counselor, and now I work as a stress management trainer at Corison, a psychosocial project based at the University Clinic of Hamburg. I'm also a member of United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR Global Advice Council. Today, I would like to talk to you about my journey from Syria to Germany, and my experience with borders along the way. It was a terrifying and ugly journey in many ways, but there were also many human aspects that can point us in the direction of how we could humanize borders more generally. In Aleppo, I lived with my parents. I was finishing my studies at the Banking Institute of Aleppo University. I had a part-time job. In summary, we had a nice life, but the conflict in Syria took that way as the most of the world knows. During 2015, the situation in Aleppo was very bad. After my parents' apartment was bombed for the third time, my father insisted that I leave. Everything about the journey was uncertain. There was no clear way forward. I just left, but I didn't know what my journey would be. I traveled with my cousin. We took a bus to Beirut. The road wasn't safe. It was being attacked by ISIS at that time. Normally, it takes two hours to get to the border. This time, it took nine hours. At the border itself, they checked everything. The money was the most difficult thing. We were only allowed to take $1,000 across the border. My parents gave me $2,000. A woman that traveled with me, she hid money for me, but many people were not able to take enough money. This is like a catastrophe. People are going to Lebanon and Turkey to escape the war, but when they arrive with a small amount of money, they can only pay for the apartment and food for one month. At that time, it was not possible to get visa to stay in Lebanon. I was only able to get a transit visa. So I traveled to Turkey on a boat. In Turkey, I was afraid. Before I arrived in Turkey, I had wanted to rent an apartment and study there, but when I arrived, I realized that even renting a small place was very expensive, and I would have to work 12 hours per day to pay for that, but I couldn't work. I couldn't get a legal job. I was afraid to work illegally. I was really scared that if I stayed in Turkey, I would end up homeless and sleeping on the street at that time. We couldn't get a visa to any Arabic country. Only Turkey, and we couldn't afford to leave there, and I couldn't go back. We felt it was worth the risk to try and take a boat to cross the sea. This was terrifying. People smugglers are exploiting the situation of refugees who are trying to find a safe place to live a normal life. This is the most ugly thing. At that time in Turkey, it was understood that the borders in Europe had opened, but at the same time, there was actually not a legal road to get there. It was a really big confusion for everyone. We felt we had to try and get across the sea. We couldn't go back. We couldn't stay in Turkey because we had no choice. We went to a square in Istanbul to find a smuggler to take us across the water. While we're trying to figure it out, some kids they were young, 13 and 16 years old, came to us and asked us to help them. Their families were in Austria and had tried to bring the kids to Austria through family reunification, but it took so long that they asked their children to go across the sea. I was very hesitant to help them to take on that responsibility, but I knew that they would go no matter what, and I would feel guilty if something would happen to them. I myself was so afraid. What about these children? I felt that it would be better if we went together and helped each other. We made contact with the smuggler. We took us from Istanbul to the coast. There the smugglers organized things, but we refugees had to build the little rubber boats, ourselves. It was a self-help smuggling operation. We had to carry the boat from the top of the hills to the beach. Each person paid $1,500. There were 85 people and two boats. The smuggler taught one of us on how to drive it. The first boat sank in first the 500 meter. We were panicking. One of the smugglers had a gun and said, you cannot leave, you have to go forward. He fired a shot into the air. We were scared. Everyone was afraid to get into the boat. We were 46 refugees in a boat with a pilot who had two minutes of training. In first few minutes, he drove right and left. There were big waves and we were in such a small boat, but we were lucky. We had a short journey. It took only three hours. Then we got to an island in Greece called Metellini. When we arrived, we didn't see big organizations, but we saw volunteers. People from Greece greeted us with food and drink. They were really kind when we arrived. They told us where to go and how to find points if we needed help. A tent for medical help, a tent for food, another tent for information. They gave us the information and services that we needed. Groups traveling with children had priority, and so we were able to move on and travel to Athens after four days because we had children in our group. From Athens, we moved on across many more borders. We traveled across Macedonia, Syria, Croatia, Slovenia. At each border, we received a paper from the border guards that allowed us to move on to the next country. Was the paper ever explained? Not really. I never really understood what this paper was. We just knew we needed this paper, otherwise we would be sent back. It was like a transit visa. The authorities took a look at our documents to confirm that we were real refugees from Syria. People who lost their documents, they had a really hard time. From border to border, sometimes we were walking, sometimes we took a pass. We walked long distances, with no stopping. We were 200 people. If we stopped, we would lose our big group. We felt safer to be in a big group. So it was like this, just passing, walking, passing, walking. There were tents along the way offering services, but we didn't have any place to sleep. The hardest thing was finding a place to sleep. We would sleep in the street, just find a place to sit. With nothing except what we were wearing. That was hard. One child was sick. I was always worried about the children. But even during this awful journey, there were people all the way who were helping. The host communities in all these countries played a big role and a positive role. People were coming with food, driving us and helping us. The situation would have been way worse if we didn't have so much support from the host communities. Actually, people came from Germany, from France, and from Canada and other countries. They wanted to help. It was so much organizations. It wasn't so much organization, but rather a spontaneous response. This outpouring of support was really a humanizing of borders. Finally, we arrived in Austria. I was completely sick. We were all exhausted and sick. When the children called their parents, this was the most beautiful moment after such a long and ugly journey. The parents finally saw their kids after two years. This was an amazing moment. Parents, the parents were hugging us. They said, you are also my children. Thank you for taking care of our children. They invited us to take rest in their house. They gave us food and good place to sleep. They made us stay there for 10 days. Finally, the children were safe with their families. I didn't have to feel such a big sense of responsibility. I'm still in contact with this family. This was really great, and I was so happy that I did this. And then we took the train from Vienna to Hamburg. When we arrived, people guided us to a registration point. We registered, and then we went to a reception center. The idea was to be at the reception center for two, three days, and then go to a real camp with more adequate accommodation. It was a big hall with 600 people side by side with no privacy. This was very difficult for everyone there. It was intended as a temporary situation, but because of big numbers, I was actually there for eight months. But it was safe shelter and a place to sleep, and that was the most important thing. Once I arrived in Germany, I became active and started volunteering. This is another way of humanizing borders, empowering refugees themselves to participate in their own protection. Plan International Germany established Youth Advisory Council that enables us as refugees to participate in political discussions that are related to asylum policy in Germany. We young refugees have worked with the local government authorities to improve the design of the refugee camps and the services for refugees. Refugee youth work with the NGOs to rank culturalizations, to bring together Germans and refugees to talk about their cultural traditions. We hold workshop with the city of Hamburg to talk about refugees integration. As a result of these discussions, some organizations offered opportunities like paid positions for Germans to teach refugees the language. This is a simple win-win solution that equals jobs for Germans and language classes for refugees. Together with other young refugees and Plan International and the Germany Ministry for Social Affairs and UNICEF, we have developed minimum standards for the protection of youth and children and other vulnerable groups in refugee camps in Germany. So now I come to the end of my story. The global outpouring of support in 2015 made my difficult journey across so many borders easier. It's not so obvious today. When we think about the global situation, we can see that as refugees, we are suffering from an increase in racism and discrimination in many contexts. The word refugee has a negative meaning for many people. It reminds them of terrorists, crisis and war. One of the negative perceptions of refugees that contributes to discrimination is the fear that they will not work and that they will be a cost to the social system. In fact, refugees want nothing more than to contribute to the country which is providing them asylum and safety. We must constantly counter those negative perceptions about refugees with accurate information. We must help people to understand that refugees do not migrate voluntarily and that they are not free to return to their country. Today I also see in Hamburg how many things are evolving in a positive way. The reception centers have all been closed. New buildings are provided for refugees with real apartments. Teachers are coming to the camps to teach German. There are nice places to play for children. In my work with Corison, I'm able to give back, I teach migrants and German citizens simple relaxation skills that they can use to regulate the river system and strengthen the ability to handle stress in their daily life and be more resilient. Young refugees are actively involved in discussions with local and national authorities about how to support refugee integration and how to combat discrimination. Earlier this month, I met the minister for families in Berlin to discuss the minimum standards for protection of refugees in the camps. And she will also implement these minimum standards and she will obligate all organizations to implement also those standards. These are important steps forward and they are part of a bigger effort to humanize borders. Thank you very much for the opportunity. And thank you very much for a really, I would say a beautiful narrative that has both the ideas about the human agency, the realities and the inspiration and finding those elements too of where people did help. I think that's a really important to challenge the narrative that is all negative. So thank you. You've set us off beautifully for the first speaker who will ask to speak. Would you like to speak from the floor or? Sure, I have. You've got your microphone, excellent. Well, Helen, what I think after a really careful unpacking of some of the pressure points that was experienced by Karim and his colleagues as he moved across borders, what are the legal frameworks that put in place to protect migrants and particularly refugees at borders? Thank you. And it's difficult to follow up a practical and real experience of how this plays out at the border, but just maybe to provide a bit of the overall legal framework that provides protection to migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers. A first point that is maybe important to mention is that there is no single universal treaty that comprehensively addresses all aspects of international migration. This does not, however, mean that migrants are not protected. Indeed, they enjoy protection and significant protection under several bodies of international law, including at borders. Notably, all migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, are entitled to the protection of international human rights law, which is applicable at all times. And I know Pia will speak a bit more about this, so only a couple of words on human rights law. This body of law is of particular relevance in the context of migration, as it protects every individual irrespective of legal status. Under human rights law, all states have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of individuals within their jurisdiction. In addition to human rights law, all migrants are also protected under other applicable bodies of international law, notably international criminal law, labor law and consular law. In addition, certain individuals may also be entitled to specific protection under international law, depending on their legal status and the specific circumstances they're in. So for instance, refugees and asylum seekers also enjoy protection under international refugee law with the key legal instruments here being the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol. These instruments grant refugees and asylum seekers specific rights and minimum standards of treatment additional to those provided under human rights law. There are also a number of regional instruments of refugee protection, including the 1969 Convention on Refugee Problems in Africa. In addition to general human rights instruments, certain categories of migrants, including victims of trafficking and children, enjoy additional protection under specific international instruments. Finally, when migrants find themselves in a territory of a state where there is a situation of armed conflict, they're also protected under international humanitarian law, which applies only in these situations. As civilians, migrants are covered by the rule providing general protection to the civilian population in both international and non-international armed conflicts. In international armed conflicts, migrants may also be protected under additional IHL rules applicable to certain categories of migrants, of foreigners. Finally, in all situations, migrants are also protected by the applicable domestic law. In its action on behalf of vulnerable migrants, the ICRC focuses on responding to the needs of most vulnerable migrants all along the journey, regardless of their legal status. However, we seek to ensure that persons are afforded the full protection to which they are entitled under both domestic and international law, including the special protection of certain categories of individuals. With this in mind, the ICRC welcomes the commitments taken by states in the global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration. Although known binding, the global compact, which is scheduled to be adopted on the 10th of December, is in many ways a historic document as the first human rights-based global agreement designed to better manage migration in all its facets. As no state alone can address the contemporary humanitarian challenges resulting from migration, the ICRC welcomes the commitment of states to foster international cooperation among all relevant actors to protect the rights of migrants and to uphold their existing obligations under international law. So that's just a quick overview of the legal framework that can protect migrants and does protect migrants. Well, thank you, Helen. Perhaps some, Pia, I might ask you to dig in a little bit more about what human rights law says, particularly at borders. And also to look in more detail at the global compact because I think it's a historic time for us to reflect upon it. Thank you very much. And thank you again for inviting me to be here. Mike. Can you hear me now? Thank you again for inviting me to be here. I'll just maybe add to the excellent introduction from Helen in relation to the legal framework. And maybe just to reflect, first of all, from the story and the very eloquent story that you shared, Karim, about what borders mean because I think borders can mean everything from the first approach to a visa office authority to ask for permission to leave to the actual physical line in the sand, the wall or the port authority to the various more hidden places where borders manifest themselves. And for a lot of even national authorities, there is an idea that borders are somehow zones of exceptionalism, often because they are quite invisible and hidden away in lines in the sea or in remote border posts in deserts, let's say. But human rights law is very clear, as Helen pointed out, that there are no zones of exceptionalism for human rights law. Wherever the migrant finds him or herself, their human rights law applies. And this is a very important kind of foundational principle of universality to say that all border governance measures come under the purview, in a sense, of international human rights law. And where border governance measures are applied, the human rights safeguards, checks and balances must be applied equally. And in fact, they must be embedded in national law in order to give effect. So the principles of non-discrimination and equality that are the foundational principles of human rights law must be applied in all these measures. We did some work, the UN Human Rights Office did some work back in 2014 to produce a set of principles and guidelines on human rights at international borders. And what we did was we went through, in a sense, the journey that you took, starting from rescue to the first assistance, to screening identification and referrals, which are very important in terms of ensuring people get the protection that they need, through onto detention, which we'll talk about later and returns. And in all of these circumstances, wherever border governance measures apply, there are particular human rights safeguards. And they're there because the human rights violations that people experience, as you know, when they come to borders, are relatively extensive. So they are experiences of discrimination and harassment at borders, whether by border authorities or other people present at borders, unlawful profiling, disproportionate interference with the right to privacy, for instance, as people try to cross borders in human or degrading treatment or even torture in the context of border governance. Dangerous and violent interception and pushbacks that can lead to injury or even death and, of course, prolonged or arbitrary detention. All of these issues that I mentioned have very immediate and applicable human rights safeguards that protect people in, for instance, the context of arbitrary detention or disproportionate force. And what's important, I think, in this is to come to your next question, what does the Global Compact for Migration say about this? And happily, I think, and very much to the credit of the co-facilitators that led this process and the member states that negotiated it, the Global Compact for Migration in its objective 11 gives, we think, a very strong answer in calling on states to manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner, more specifically to implement border management policies that, yes, respect national sovereignty because one, as you said in your introduction, it is an obligation of the state to ensure that they put in place border management, border governance that protects everybody in the jurisdiction, including their citizens, but also non-citizens. But to do this in the context of the rule of law, their obligations under international law and the human rights of all migrants when they speak, the GCM, the Global Compact, speak specifically about being gender responsive, child-sensitive, and non-discriminatory. And these are all very, very important principles that are then expanded upon in the various actions that the Global Compact calls on states to take, such as calling for proper identification. It calls for timely referrals, and we all know about situations where you are stuck in a limbo zone where the identification is taking too long or the referrals are taking too long and people's vulnerability, the vulnerability of migrants increase in these circumstances and ensuring due process at international borders. So there's a strong focus in the Global Compact when it speaks to border management of asking states to collaborate for the proper treatment of people of all migrants at international borders. And really I'll end with the thought that this is the premise really of the work that we did in 2014 and we're very happy to see actually that the Global Compact in its actual language does ask states to take forward this work that the UN Human Rights Office did on international borders because the premise really is that protecting the human rights of all migrants regardless of their status actually facilitates the effective governance of borders rather than hinders it. So putting in place rights-respecting policy measures is not an additional burden that a state must take but is actually part and parcel of a good governance of borders. Thank you, so we're starting to look at the law but also about the effectiveness that the law is useful. Well, maybe going back to you, Helen, it would be really interesting to hear a little bit about some of the considerations of states, especially when it comes to the principle of non-refumon and access to international protection. Yep, so following on Pia, it's a great way to follow. So when we consider the different considerations of states when it comes to border management, of course we recognize that there are legitimate concerns including security concerns that states may have and also that states have a sovereign prerogative to regulate the presence of foreigners within their territory and decide on the criteria for admission and expulsion. However, this is not without limits and it's not an absolute right. Indeed it must be exercised within the limits imposed by international and domestic law and here in particular I wanna speak about the principle of non-refumon. In essence, this principle prohibits the transfer of a person from one authority to another when there are substantial grounds to believe that the person would be in danger of being subjected to violations of certain fundamental rights and here I'm speaking for instance of torture, other forms of ill treatment, arbitrary deprivation of life or persecution for example. This principle is found in various bodies of international law, in particular refugee law and human rights law, within their respective scopes and conditions of application of course. So under refugee law, the principle of non-refumon applies whenever a state exercises jurisdiction. Pia was also referring to this in the context of human rights law and this includes at the border and the decisive criterion to determine whether a state is exercising jurisdiction is whether persons come within the effective control and the authority of that state. As such the critical question is in order to determine if a state is bound by the principle of non-refumon is whether the person is either within their territory or under the effective control of that state including if that happens extra-territorially. Although this is widely accepted the practical application of the principle of non-refumon is often less clear and there are remaining questions on when persons are considered to fall within the jurisdiction of a state for instance at borders. Today under refugee law it is generally recognized that the principle of non-refumon applies to admission and rejection at a state's border. This is explicitly stated in regional refugee instruments and has also been reiterated in various UNHCR executive committee conclusions. Although this does not grant a general obligation to grant admission into a state's territory it is argued that to effectively comply with the principle of non-refumon under refugee law states should ensure the admission of asylum seekers at least temporarily in order to carry out a fair and effective procedure to determine their status and protection needs. In recent years human rights bodies and courts have also been clear that the principle of non-refumon also applies extra-territorially. The traditional view is that a state needs to exercise effective meaning physical control over a person for human rights law to apply. However it has been argued that in the context of border closures for instance or pushbacks the principle of non-refumon applies given that the state aims to exercise effective control over the physical movement of migrants even if this exercise of control is only the direct prevention of movement towards another place. Once a state exercises jurisdiction so once a person is either in the territory of a state or within their effective control if a person asks for international protection they must be afforded the effective right to seek asylum and have access to fair and efficient procedures to determine their status and protection needs. Again while this does not mean that a state must allow everyone into their territory it does mean that before refusing admission or returning a migrant a state is required to assess carefully and in good faith whether the individual would be at risk of refumon upon return. Furthermore human rights law requires that individuals alleging a violation of their rights be afforded an effective remedy and in the context of non-refumon this means at the very least that they need to be informed of the return in a timely manner they must have the opportunity to challenge this return before an independent and impartial body and their return must be suspended while this review takes place. And those are some of the considerations of states in the management of borders. Thank you very much and really it's great to have all those issues unpacked so clearly for us. Perhaps I'll come back to you Pia if you don't mind. Obviously from the way you've explained it to us Helen non-refumon relates closely to the issue or could be of collective expulsion and I was just wondering would that be an example of a use of force at the border and what are the main legal obligations and potential challenges related to this issue? In particularly what does international human rights law have to say about migration detention? So there's a number of issues in there but the issue of the use of force and immigration detention. Sure absolutely thank you very much and I'll play off what Helen has said again. Firstly to say that the use of force again coming back to what I said that they are procedural standards around the use of force at borders that again are particularly important because you have border authorities again as we were saying that are put often in difficult situations of having to control the movement of maybe a large number of people maybe a small number of people but to channel them through various procedures and one of the dangers in a ways is precisely going back to the lack of oversight in terms of borders where there is a possibility that the use of force becomes arbitrary or excessive or disproportionate. Under human rights law in terms of the use of force and there are a number of principles that apply any use of force by law enforcement should be exceptional. So where there is such a use there needs to be the tests met for instance of legality of necessity proportionality and non-discrimination as well obviously of the requirements of precaution and accountability. Helen spoke to remedies it's very important that not just in the standards that apply but in the way that law enforcement officials conduct their everyday work at the borders that there is a sense of safeguarding and accountability and as I said there are a number of codes of conduct and principles that apply to that and that speaks very clearly to training and where the link with collective expulsion comes is because the ways in which border authorities for instance conduct interceptions, pushbacks, pullbacks there is often a high degree or high likelihood that there will be a disproportionate use of force in these measures that are taken. Particularly when there is a sense that it is a wild west if you will that the people to whom these actions are being taken are irregular migrants or shouldn't be on the territory in the first place. So the action is justified because the political and the policy measures demand it. Just to add really to what Helen said the principle of collective expulsion itself is a due process standard which entitles every human being to an individual assessment in the context of an expulsion decision. And when we think about the ways in which collective expulsions often happen it becomes a little bit ludicrous to talk about the procedural standards but in effect all people should have access to an individualized assessment to be able to present all the arguments militating against their removal. Very importantly the prohibition of reform but also other important standards such as the best interests of the child for instance or the right to family life. The authority that is conducting the removal of the expulsion should be able to decide in a fair and impartial way whether this expulsion is merited. And also to grant them the person that whose expulsion has been contemplated the right to a remedy. Again drawing through from the due process and standard procedures in relation to the treatment of all people. Turning now to immigration detention again we find it very welcome that the global compact for migration includes the call on states to use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and to work towards alternatives. Because of course the reality is that in many circumstances detention is often a measure of first resort and often the only resort that is contemplated again because it is seen as a measure applied to people that are dangerous that are criminal and you then build a link in not only in a policy sense but also in a public sense that the people to whom these measures are being applied are criminal and that they deserve the kind of the segregation that comes with immigration detention. It is often mandatory, it is often non-reviewable even when it is seen as a short prelude to deportation even when that deportation or expulsion is for instance not foreseeable. The exceptional character of such detention derives not just from the fact that in an ordinary sense the migrants that are crossing a border have not committed a crime they may not committed a crime against a person or property or indeed national security but it derives most fundamentally from the right to liberty which is universally applicable to everyone. And so the human rights mechanisms in pronouncing the best practice guidelines on this has made very clear that there should be a presumption against law, in law against immigration detention and that it should be exceptional and a measure of last resort. It is also important that the same due process standards that apply in for instance the case of collective expulsion apply to immigration detention as well so that there should be a determination made in each individual case as to the necessity and proportionality of the decision to detain and that the decision itself must be contemplated in law. And importantly and this is something that the Global Compact for Migration also is very welcome that is included is that there is a need for us to review alternatives to the detention itself and the Global Compact calls on states to promote, implement and expand alternatives to detention and to favor non-custodial and community-based care arrangements noting particularly that these arrangements would be most appropriate in the case of families and children. And indeed and I'll end with this best practices in international human rights law have increasingly reached the consensus that any detention of a child for immigration purposes so based on their immigration status or that of their parents is in violation of their best interests and always constitutes a child rights violation and indeed this was recently reiterated in a joint general comment of the committee on migrant workers and the committee on the rights of the child making it clear that child and family immigration detention should be prohibited by law and its abolishment ensured in policy and practice. So again a hint that there are measures available to the in the toolbox of states in their migration management toolbox that can bring them closer to managing borders in a way that does not interfere with the human rights of the migrants. Great, we always love a legal hint as well as the way that both of you think you so much have really walked us through the framework there. Perhaps I'd like to change tack for a moment and ask you some questions, Polly. You've been doing some research in the area and from what I understand your research says that humanitarian work at borders can actually change the way the borders operate. So where is this happening or is this happening and what is the result of this change? Is that better? Can everybody hear me? No? Yes, maybe speak up. I think that's okay? Yeah. Yes, okay, there's a thumbs up at the back, so. Great. Okay, so I'm gonna change tack a little bit and I'm not a lawyer and I'm really glad we had the legal aspects laid out clearly but there was some talk of territoriality and extraterritoriality so that's great that we've already sort of started to discuss this in more sort of geographical terms so I'm a political geographer and I've done a lot of work on humanitarian interventions in border regions in response to perhaps some of the uses of force that Pia's just been talking about but also in response to the types of journeys that people like Karim have had to undertake and I think what was very interesting in his story and where I'll probably start off is that we have seen over the last 20 or so or since at least 1980 an increase in the number of deaths at borders. The IOM's Missing Migrants Project has this listed at 50,000 and that's known deaths and importantly obviously the number is probably much, much higher than 50,000 so the question then is why are people dying at international borders and this links partly to for example the lack of safe and legal routes, increases in while we have sort of human rights frameworks for allowing people to access rights to asylum, what we see in practice very importantly is an increase or what we would say in political geography or in border studies as a hardening of borders towards certain people so while the mobility of many of us, people in this room probably has been encouraged, is managed, is facilitated, I'm a member of a frequent flyer program, I have speedy boarding, for many other people it's been made more and more and more difficult, access to visas is incredibly hard and then without those correct documents access to actually safe and legal forms of transportation is denied so Karim has to make a small boat journey of 10 kilometers and it costs one and a half thousand dollars you said when there is a ferry that costs 21 euros 50 for people who have the correct documentation i.e. a Schengen visa or a European Union passport so in that sense that we're starting in response to those deaths at borders that link very clearly to this sort of what we could call sort of inclusive and in-exclusive nature of mobility that we are starting, we're not starting to see a merge, we have seen a merge over the last 25 years, we also see a increase in what we can call life-saving activities and those happen both by the people who are charged to manage borders so states and their border policing agents, also many people that we see for example fishermen, commercial fishing vessels, have a long history of for example saving lives at sea but in more recent terms especially within the European context we've also seen an increase in the number of we could say emergency humanitarian organizations or traditional humanitarian organizations being present, active, responding to the risks that people, migrants, refugees, people on the move are facing as they are attempting to make journeys to exercise or try and attempt to exercise their rights to claim asylum so in that sense there has been an increase, there's been a growth in this this particular what I call humanitarian border work both by state actors, it often puts and I don't think we understand enough the difficulty that this actually places on state border management so border police, coast guards, et cetera who are at one at the same time being asked to secure the border are being asked to sort of prevent movement and prevent I don't want to say flows, I don't like that term are being asked to make sure that mobility and migration is happening in an orderly manner and at the same time also being expected to save lives and this puts actually a lot of pressure on sort of everyday working lives of many people in sort of what we could call key frontline areas so I've done a lot of work for example with the Greek border police and this is something that they feel very strongly that they're sort of being pulled in two directions in this regard, in one sense they're told by the European Union they're not preventing enough they're not stopping enough people from entering and at the same time they're then being criticized that they're not saving enough lives or they're engaging in practices like pushbacks or pullbacks, et cetera, et cetera but what this then does to the border in that sense and what we see changing is it changes who we see being responsible for the production of borders so we not only see traditional border policing actors border police, coast guards, et cetera, et cetera we see increasingly humanitarian actors being present in border spaces engaging in search and rescue at sea for example in the first instance but very quickly becoming a part of a particular regime that then also wants to control the mobility of migrants and so we see a very sort of smooth or sort of quick shift away from just sort of the notion of rescue the immediate need to save life into a more controlled aspect of sort of deciding who can enter, who can stay, who is actually given the right to be granted asylum but then in turn what it also does very, very importantly is it also changes where the border is located so if we think about life saving or humanitarian ideals they are universal ideals they have what we would say is an expansive geography they could potentially happen wherever life is at risk and so if we then see that we have to link border control practices also to where lives are at risk we see that actually border controlling, border practice don't just actually happen at the edge of territory they increasingly happen in international waters and they're increasingly being used for example to justify sort of efforts at externalization and attempts to prevent people exercising mobility in the first place in order to protect and save lives so it's an argument that's put forward for why we have the EU Turkey statement, not a deal it's a statement and we also see these sort of efforts that sort of justifying some of the practices that are happening right now in North Africa and especially in Libya so we see the presence of European especially the European context I'm talking about we see the presence of European border actors outside of traditional European territory it has an extraterritorial element to this so the border is not at the line anymore it can be effectively potentially anywhere in that sense so. Well thank you and I mean I'm hearing tonight a lot of the similar words with this idea of the hardening of borders for some this idea of sort of I think Pierre you spoke about zones of exclusion for some so there's certainly a lot of othering going on here a lot of identification about who has more humanity and who doesn't which goes exactly against the discourse of the ICRC so I think we need to think a bit about this and I hope we have in our questions some reflections on this because we I think at the heart of it it's about fear fear of each other fear of humanity but you did mention this this polly and I'm wondering whether maybe to spend a couple more minutes on perhaps what you see is the major challenges that humanitarian border work involves because I think you very clearly spelled out and it's extremely interesting about the impact it might even have on shifting borders themselves but what are the challenges? I think there are two challenges and I would say that they're both normative and operational and I'd say one of the sort of the biggest normative challenges I think for people who work in the humanitarian field and have a responsibility to upholding humanitarian values norms et cetera is that sort of making sure or sort of ensuring or trying as much as possible to make sure that humanitarian ideals around access to asylum or just the right to life didn't the need the responsibility to protect to save lives isn't actually used or doesn't become a justification for exclusionary practices and we do see this sort of again and again and again sort of repeated in certain discourses that's come especially from European governments and we're seeing this also of course with the rise of some of the populist parties that we have so I'd say that's one of the big normative challenges but I think there's an operational challenge and I would say that that sort of mobility itself so it's not only that we're talking about challenges at the border but we're also seeing because the journey itself has become very very risky and very very dangerous and it's in the I mean if you think about the migrant caravan right now moving up from Honduras towards the United States you see that the journey itself has become a place of risk and a place that necessary interventions need to take place in order to protect and that that's a very difficult what we would say in terms of geographic times spatial and temporal logic for traditional ways of providing protection to deal with right you know hospitals for example are static fixed locations a refugee camp happens after the act of displacement itself but when we're talking about the journey itself as being a place in which risk occurs harm occurs harm reduction needs to take place that provides very sort of unique or new operational challenges for humanitarian agencies and in some of the work that I've been doing that has been one of the big the big challenges in this sense. Thank you really interesting. If I may carry on I might ask you one more question before we go to the audience and it was really fascinating when you spoke about the what we call the first responders you know we often think about the big organizations but you talked about really the kindness of others just individuals who wanted to help. From your point of view what would you say is the ways that humanitarian organizations could better address the needs of those who are in the situation that you were. Yes in my own personal experience in fleeing my country I was only thinking about how to find protection from war and death. So you mentioned we talked about the international refugee law so the international refugee law is on paced and respects the vulnerable people who don't have much rights anywhere and it humanizes us and shields us when we need it and I think no country should turn its back. I want to also highlight that international refugee law exists for a reason and state applications must be respected and talking about especially as I highlighted in my speech Europe had opened up borders but what we needed is a safe road. So it's the same situation I heard from some friends who traveled to Turkey like through rebel controlled areas in Syria they had also real difficulties crossing the mountains and so on. So I think the most important thing that needs a safe road is gonna open up border when I will come us each country and I also highlighted the spontaneous response from the host community and how they had really a big role or positive role in supporting us. I think there are many people from the host communities who want to support us but they need like a platform and support from the states. And even especially if I want to talk in general about humanitarian organizations or NGOs I think they have also difficulties like in existing in some countries. So I think some states should also facilitate their work and that we can have like really comprehensive response. So I think this is my view of seeing the situation and how it should be. Very wise, so we're talking even more broadly about allowing more civil society to be engaged. Great, well look before I take some questions what I might do is ask every speaker in this round to perhaps tell me one thing that you think needs to be changed to make borders more humane. And then we'll take some questions and then I'll come back and ask you each one other question. So maybe I'll start with you Helen what is the one thing you think that could be done to make borders more humane? I have more than one thing. Oh I'm so sorry but I'm not sure they're all very extremely practical measures but I mean still I'll go through them. This is a broad panel so. And actually it fits in well with something that Pia was mentioning before about obligations but also humanitarian considerations being seen as a dilemma in terms of states security and other concerns. So it links a bit to that point. And I mentioned in my first, in my introduction I guess on the legal frameworks that of course states have a responsibility to uphold public order and security and in this sense they have a right to regulate migration. But these must not be the only consideration in shaping migration policies. In fact as Pia was mentioning security and protection of migrants shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive. In acting state policies that uphold migrants rights and that comply with international and domestic obligations. And focus on the humanity dignity and safety of migrants can actually contribute to greater security and stability. The implementation of strict border control measures and of other restrictive migration policies that are designed to prevent and deter movement may not only fail to curtail migration but they may actually compel migrants to go on longer and much more dangerous journeys as Kareem was mentioning. Exposing them to greater risks. Indeed and you were mentioning this Polly as well extreme vulnerabilities can arise at all stages of migration including at borders and all along the routes and protection and assistance needs of migrants need to be acknowledged and addressed. So the three or two things that I would say are some of the ways that states can make borders more humane is first by ensuring that their policies and practices do not create or increase risks for migrants including to their right to life. Pia mentioned the use of force and the criteria that need to be complied with under human rights law for this to be permissible under the law but also humanitarian considerations should be taken into account. Second states must use detention truly as a measure of last resort as also required by human rights law and not use it as a way to manage migration. Indeed here again detention does not curb migration but can seriously affect people's wellbeing. Finally states should also ensure that effective screening and referral mechanisms are in place at borders to identify and adequately respond to the needs of migrants including those most vulnerable for instance unaccompanied children. And here the closing of borders and the building of walls should not preclude the right of individuals to seek asylum. So people seeking international or other forms of protection must be provided a fair, efficient and legally accessible avenue to do so. In sum the success of migration policies and I might come back to this at the end if we wrap up so I'll leave this for further but should not be solely based on security or other legitimate concerns. They should also take into account humanitarian considerations and must always respect international law. Great, well I might pass it over then to Polly and you don't have to just say one because if we let our family ICRC say three you can say three if you wish. So what are the couple? I would have said a lot of what Helen just said. Couple, I think one of the key things is a lack of safe and legal routes and I think that if we have an asylum system which is territorially based and which requires you to be in the territory of a country in which you want to claim asylum then what we've practically made it incredibly difficult for people to actually get to that territory in order to claim asylum. I think we have to sort of look at how these two systems are not matching up and to recognize that in order for people to be able to claim asylum they need to be able to also access safe and legal routes and I think then to also recognize that the lack of safe and legal routes in and of itself is compounding the risks that people face on the journey. So we sort of talk a lot about the smugglers for example as being the bad guys in the story and for many that these are not necessarily great lovely people but to also recognize that the economy around smuggling is has been created by the lack of access to safe and legal routes and that this is a sort of a vicious cycle that the more restrictive border policies and border controls we have the more violent the borders become the more the smugglers benefit I mean it's a multi-billion dollar industry and I think to sort of to think more sort of clearly in those terms and to really then I would say do I have a third? No I think I've covered everything. Oh and I would also say to sort of act very because of what we are seeing right now is an increasing attempt to criminalize solidarity and humanitarian work and to recognize that that is something that I think we should all be very concerned about and that it's just another perhaps another manifestation of the way in which sort of humanitarian activity more generally has become a target of particular types of state activity and to recognize the inherent problems in that so when you have for example the Italian government under Salvini talking about the Aquarius needing to be impounded because perhaps it's carrying HIV AIDS how dangerous this is as an act of othering and as a way of sort of perpetuating this idea that the migrant other brings disease to push back very strongly at that reticence. So we have to push back about from DQ. Push back at that not push back migrants. Yeah push back of dehumanization. Pia have you got just one or two things? Yeah maybe one and a half. One and a half and then I will do a final one but I just wanted to capture a few ideas before we throw it open to this group. The point that I really want to reiterate the big structural issue that both Helen and Polly have raised which is that in order to make borders more humane states really need to reconsider and rethink how they do their migration policies because all of the various policy measures that you mentioned inevitably end up in violent dangerous abusive borders and so I think that that is fundamentally the point. I would, the half a point that I wanted to make was also to look at the migrants in situations of vulnerability the global compact calls them and the fact that the way the journeys are happening now the reasons that people are moving now is creating whole new baskets of vulnerable people on the move that require a protection response. Now whether states kind of accept that in terms of their current legal set ups is one thing but I think it is very important in this reorientation for states to recognize that there are new ways in which people are being made vulnerable. The main point that I wanted to make was also about capacity because I think that you talked about the pressure that border guards are under. There are a whole range of actors that are doing border guard functions or doing border authority work. Another multi-billion dollar industry is the whole private sector that has built up around how borders are managed and their capacity to do this. I mean I have to think about carrier sanctions and airlines that put a check-in person at the desk to essentially decide who gets on a plane to save their lives or not. There's a fundamental kind of woeful lack I think of a capacity there but also for the traditional border guards. OHSHR has spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to work with and build the capacity of border guards that work one border guard in a very remote location that has absolutely no idea what human rights law is. There's no capacity to actually put in place all of these obligations that are on her shoulders in the end. So there is I think a need to take that seriously and to build the capacity and finally just to reiterate very much the other group of actors that are working at borders are migrants rights defenders that are being increasingly criminalized and pushed out of the picture in ways that are unacceptable. We talk about, the office talks about human rights defenders. The human rights council has a whole slew of work around human rights defenders but often when you talk about those that defend the rights of migrants they are kind of put in a basket aside from normal human rights defenders. Those people don't really require as much support. So if you've got other in within the other in. Karim did you want to say one thing before we open? So I just wanted to say that everyone has the right to apply and seek asylum. So everyone's human rights should be respected and no human being should be detained from seeking safety, peace and freedom from persecution. And there are human beings who deserve the right to a lawyer access healthcare, access to information and dignity. So in my opinion that would be the most important things. So this is the recommendation that they have. I think one last thing is that we as refugees we want to also participate in our own protection as I mentioned. So that this is what we need also open opportunities from organizations, states to be involved and participate in our own protection. Thank you. So the opportunity to use your experience. Thank you so much. What an eloquent panel. I'd now like to take it to the audience to see if you have either any questions or some very short comments. And if you could, when you get the microphone we'll have a microphone going around. If you could please introduce yourself or just tell us who you are. That would be great. I think I saw a hand up here at the front. And then the next one there will take two on this side and then two on this side. So I can be fair, fair chair. Okay, thank you. I'm Ilaria, I'm an intern at the ECMC, the International Catholic Migration Commission here in Geneva. And I want to thank all the panelists for sharing their precious knowledge. And my question was from a legal point of view according to you, how the Dublin Agreement made things a little bit worse for people that have to migrate but are forced to stay in a country that probably were supposed to be just a transit one. And in this sense. Great. Thank you. I'll take one, I'll take a couple of questions and then I'll throw it to the panel. I think the gentleman in the green jumper. Yes. Well, again, I would like to thank everyone for your very eloquent expositions. I would like to, first of all, I forgot to introduce myself, my name is Ilaria Novikov. I'm a human rights consultant. I would like to talk a bit about the elephant in the room and ask what do you think about the issue of borders getting dehumanized by forces such as xenophobia, fear. You mentioned it, but I would like to know what can we do? What should we do? Indeed, as citizens, as members of civil society to prevent this moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll take one question from here and then I'll give it to the panel. Hello, I'm Gabriela Franco. I'm from Mexico, a human rights lawyer. And I am a participant in the Geneva Center for Security Policy. My question is more in terms of more than non-actor states, like you mentioned, in private sectors and of course civil society that are kind of adequate or brainwashed to stop this type of caravans. How can you argue the sovereignty when the states in self in saying that human rights, it's treading their sovereignty and the same question that the colleague here asked you. How you address the situation about xenophobic and in the same community. Thank you very much. So we've got three questions. One in relation to the Dublin Agreement, one in relation to and one and a half, the dehumanization discourse, if we'll call it that, the making of the other as not fully human. And then this issue of the private sector and sovereignty. So I don't know who wants to start off, maybe someone on the Dublin Agreement, maybe a word or two on what the Dublin Agreement is to fill those of us in the audience that may not be as aware. Pierre? I want to ask, I can answer it, but. Well, Polly, the non-lawyer, why don't we do that? Well, it's also a border. So basically the Dublin Agreement request that somebody applies for asylum in the first European country that they enter. And actually what this means, practically speaking, it means that certain countries come under huge amounts of pressure. So that would be, for example, Italy and Greece. And actually that would link back to what Pierre was saying about new and increased forms of vulnerability which we are seeing. So in the case of Greece, for example, where of course it has been a country with a huge number of entries over the last three or four years, where people are now under the U-Turkey statements and now that the borders through the Balkans have been closed. It sees that many, many people are waiting at an incredibly long time to have their asylum claim processed. And this leads to greater and increased levels of vulnerability because people are having to live in conditions which are manifestly unsafe and inhumane. So in that sense, we could say that the Dublin Agreement creates and generates new forms of vulnerability for people. It's an attempt to prevent what we would call in what the migration scholars would call asylum shopping to go to countries that people think have a better chance of claiming asylum in. So for example, the Netherlands where I live has a favorable outlook towards Eritreans, for example. But it's to attempt to prevent this type of activity happening. But of course it doesn't, from a geographic perspective, it doesn't take account of the fact that there will be certain countries which will be put under much higher forms of pressure because of their physical geography. So in this sense, countries in the Mediterranean region are put under increased forms of pressure in that sense. Thank you. Did a lawyer want to come back on that? Did any others want to flag on particularly the Dublin? Just very quickly, just a word to say that I think it also speaks to the agent, I'm a human rights lawyer, not a refugee lawyer, but it speaks to the agency of refugees because it says that you will apply for asylum in one place and whatever your social ties, whatever your family ties, whatever your skills, language, et cetera, are to another country, let's say they are irrelevant in terms of this idea that you run across a border and you seek protection. And that is unrealistic, I think, as we see in the way that people move to choose to exercise their right to seek asylum. Well, while you were talking, did you want to add anything in relation to think the private sector was raised and the interface between sovereignty, human rights? Yeah, I mean, just on the one hand, obviously the private sector, and there's in fact, the Pali at the moment, the annual forum on business and human rights is ongoing, which is very much about saying that the private sector does have responsibilities to respect human rights and that they are a range of ways in which guidance is being provided to the private sector to do that. The other big kind of question that I think comes up in your comment is, again, is sovereignty kind of at odds with human rights? And we would say very, very emphatically, no, only states can ratify human rights treaties. It is in fact the kind of the ultimate act of sovereignty to take on board the obligations of human rights law and other international obligations. So in fact, when states kind of balk and push back against things like the global compact for migration saying, well, it interferes with our sovereignty, well, actually no, because the whole business of multilateralism and international cooperation is exactly about sovereignty. And that is what states have accepted. Great, and I was wondering whether, I mean, the ideas that was raised in these two about how do we push back? I think at the wider discourse, because the more that the public fear individuals, the more that they are, I would say, more comfortable with the more draconian government policy. So it's a circle that goes round. So any ideas, any of you along here on along the panel on how to push back against these ideas? I mean, I can answer that as well. I can start us off. Start us off, yeah. Because we've been doing actually a lot of work. Great. The office has been doing a lot of work over the last few years, precisely on the narrative. And I'm sure, so have you, because it is exactly, we come back to that roadblock. Well, we'd like to have a better policy, but our publics just won't allow it. So we must kind of go in the way of more detention and more repression. And one of the things that we've learned is that the more local the answer is, the better it will be. So it's not about saying, well, we're going to have, the global compact is a great start, but it's not going to be the thing that makes people and communities accept that in fact migration is an inevitable part of life and we're going to be more multicultural as societies go on. And the other thing that we learned was that talking about migration in terms of the statistics of it, in terms of the economics of it, is actually less successful and a way of bringing about change than talking about the values of it. And what we have in common with people that are migrants, I'm a migrant, you're a migrant, but what we have in common is actually a much more successful message than saying migrants bring X amount of economic value to your countries because that's easily refuted by the person that's living in a very insecure economic situation or a situation where she's looking for a scapegoat or he's looking for a scapegoat and wants something to be better. We will have to remember that the public discourse on migration is very rarely about migration itself. It's about broader issues of fear and uncertainty in a world that is changing for a lot of people beyond their control. So I think we think that it's very important that it's at the local level that we don't just ask migrants to talk about themselves, prove yourself. Why should we accept you? It's about communities coming together and who should be entitled to speak to migration. Sorry, just wanna say something. Why, this is the point that I mentioned why we're suffering from increase in racism and discrimination in general that I think it's not about educating people who are refugees and when they are here and so on. I think we need to do much more, of course. I think it has to do with politics and policies that hold back refugees from integrating easily. I mean, if I wanna talk about the people, I mean, the people were in 2015 really nice, really welcoming, but now, because the people, they didn't see us like integrating, many are resentful. So I think it's not about that they're afraid. I mean, refugees and you know, there's negative perceptions, but about also we need to integrate, we need to work, we need to get back the country that tossed us. So I think due to this delay, I think because we're not integrating really fast, that's why we're, I mean, suffering from really discrimination in general, yeah. Well, thank you, really pointed issues. And I think the fact you're doing work on it and it's about the values rather than the transactional discourse is really interesting. I might take one more question if there's one in the audience. I see, I'll take two. This gentleman here and then this lady here. So whoever gets the microphone first, voilà. Hi, I'm Abdullah. I'm Syrian also. I'm doing my master here in Sierra Institute. Actually, I'm happy because we have someone from the ICRC, from legal viewpoint and someone from OECR because there is an issue about the displacement people from the area which were under the control of the opposition because this agreement was to like give the people to option as the Amnesty said in 2017, there was a report say, live or die. For that the human rights organizations, they consider like this is not acceptable while the ICRC organization and the local partner was facilitating this agreement. For that from legal viewpoint, for the ICRC, how they consider this agreement for the displacement people from many area towards Idlib in the north, despite also Idlib is not considered as a safe area. Thank you. Thank you. And then one last question here. The lady here. I have a hand. Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, okay. So I have a very specific question. Can you introduce yourself? Oh, hi. I'm Anais. I am a Charpreau section intern at the UNHCR. Great. So I have a question with regards to the criminalization of humanitarian workers, specifically the case of the emergency response center international in Greece. I'm aware that three of the volunteers have been detained for the past three months. And I'm really curious as to how and which organizations can intervene and do intervene in such cases so that solidarity is decriminalized and so that obviously these workers are released. Thank you very much. Helen, I might pass you the first question on the specific thing. We may not be able to be in a position to know the full details. That might have to be followed up, which is part of the fun of these discussions to make sure we can then follow up. And then maybe, Pia, would you have something to say or Polly in relation to the criminalization? So, Helen? Indeed, and you answered half the question because I don't have the information to comment on your point. We would have to come back to you on that. So we will be able to engage afterwards. I know there's nibbles and drinks and that's always a good time for the real questions to happen then. But Pia or Polly on that? I won't speak specifically to you. I know that you probably know much more about the issue just in terms of where there might be, you could find a remedy. The special rapporteur on human rights defenders has recently, one of his latest reports has been on migrants' human rights defenders or people that defend the rights of people on the move. And he has a number of really very good recommendations. And the special procedures also have a urgent appeal or a communication function where they can liaise with the government authorities on behalf of the individuals. But Polly, you probably know much more about it. Yeah, I know quite a bit about the case of ERCI. I mean, there's always a problem with a lot of these cases is that part of it is true and part of it is rumour and conjecture and the Greek authorities haven't been particularly force coming in exactly what it is that the three people are accused of. But I do know that there is a lot of work happening within Greece itself from various kind of different solidarity human rights organisations that are very active in assisting. There's three people detained from ERCI, for example, Solidarity Now, which is a principally Greek organisation which was set up actually to foster and to help Greek people under austerity but is increasingly doing more and more work with migrants and refugees in Greece. They are very active in working on this case, partly because they're trying to also protect their own humanitarian space in that sense. But I mean, obviously the Greek legal system is sovereign. It runs at its own speed. It is incredibly slow. I don't want to say it's incredibly slow but it is slow and things are running their course. But in terms of what needs to be done, I think as you say, a wider attempt sort of across borders to recognise that this is something that is not just happening in the Greek context but is also happening across Europe, in the US, in Australia and that it requires a concerted international effort. Yeah. Well, thank you. We're running now to the end of the programme. What I would like to do is just ask, and I really do mean one minute because we're a few minutes over, if everyone could just, on the panel, say the one thing you'd like people to leave and remember. What's the one issue out of tonight you'd wish them to remember as they leave? I might start at this end and start with you, Karim. Just wanted to thank you for having me here. It's a real pleasure. And I think the only thing that I've asked for that everyone worked with young people, young refugees in particular, because we can also support each other in terms of everything we need. So I would ask for more involvement from everyone and I think states, organisations or host communities, we need everyone help with this advocacy that we're also involved in the discussions that are related to asylum policy and so on rather than talking in behalf of us. So that would be my only recommendation. Great. Thank you. Yeah, just thinking about the discussion today, I think it's about recognising the humanity that is implicated in this discussion of borders. And we can talk a lot about policy measures and we can talk a lot about how the law can and should operate. But really trying to understand that in the end, human beings are implicated in very serious and severe matters of not just life and death in a way, but really about how their lives are meant to carry on when they've been affected so deeply by these border measures, I think would be the thing that I'd like to take away. Polly? I think mine would be actually to come back to one of the questions we had about sovereignty. It would be that sovereignty is both a state's attempt to secure itself, but it is also about responsibility, right? And we can understand sovereignty as responsibility and I think understanding borders not only in terms of security, but also in terms of responsibility and the responsibility that we have to protect life and everyone that is within our remit, I think would get us a long way to sort of trying to humanise borders if that is indeed possible. Great. And Helen? It fits very well with PN Polly. Basically, not seeing the success of border management and of border and of migration policies more generally as being based solely on how many people were kept out of a state, really looking at the journeys of migrants all along the routes and on arrival at the border as first and foremost an issue of humanity and seeking to ensure the humanity, dignity and well-being of migrants. And here just to close on the global compact on migration again because the ICRC, like OHCHR, very much believes that this is a good text and that if implemented it could improve the protection of migrants, respect their rights and uphold states' obligations. So really encourage states to adopt it in Marrakesh and that would be my closing point. Well, thank you. We've heard a whole range of things tonight. I wanted to thank the organisers, my colleagues in forum. I would also encourage you to look at the really moving exhibition that we have outside that follows the journey of three women. But on behalf of the panel, thank you for being a great audience and join us for some refreshments upstairs so that we up the stairs and we'll see you again soon. Thank you. Thank you so much. That was really fun. It's always fascinating to have the different aspects. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's all, I mean, it's still on. My broadcasting, through everything.