Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

148 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
possible, grant migrant workers and their family members a reasonable
period of time prior to their expulsion to claim wages and benefits.
States parties should also consider time-bound or expedited legal proceedings
to address such claims by migrant workers. In addition, States
parties should conclude bilateral agreements so that migrant workers
who return to their State of origin may have access to justice in the
State of employment to file complaints about abuse and to claim unpaid
wages and benefits”. 488
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has
repeatedly held that, under the CEDAW, States must “provide migrant
workers with easily accessible avenues of redress against abuse by employers
and permit them to stay in the country while seeking redress”. 489
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has stated
that States must “ensure the right of all migrant workers, regardless
of their status, to obtain effective protection and remedies in case[s]
of violation of their human rights”. 490 Similar observations have been
made by the CMW. 491
CEDAW is the treaty monitoring body that has dealt most extensively
with the issue of access to a remedy. It has addressed this in the specific
context of undocumented women migrant workers, recognising that
such women face particular difficulties in access to justice for violations
of their human rights due to fear of denunciation and subsequent deportation.
492 CEDAW has repeatedly held that States must “provide migrant
workers with easily accessible avenues of redress against abuse
by employers and permit them to stay in the country while seeking
redress”. 493 This implies that States have to “[r]epeal or amend laws
on loss of work permit, which results in loss of earnings and possible
deportation by immigration authorities when a worker files a complaint
of exploitation or abuse and while pending investigation”. 494
The analysis of CEDAW can also be applied to all other categories of
migrants. According to this approach, expulsion has both direct and
indirect effects on migrants’ right to a remedy:
488 CMW, General Comment No. 2, op. cit., fn. 2, para. 55.
489 Concluding Observations on Malaysia, CEDAW, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/MYS/CO/2, 31 May 2006,
paras. 25–26; Concluding Observations on China, CEDAW, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CHN/CO/6,
25 August 2006, paras. 41–42; Concluding Observations on Bhutan, CEDAW, UN Doc.
CEDAW/C/BTN/CO/7, 7 August 2009, paras. 29–30.
490 Concluding Observations on Republic of Korea, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/KOR/CO/14, 17 August
2007, para. 18.
491 Concluding Observations on Mexico, CMW, UN Doc. CMW/C/MEX/CO/1, 20 December 2006,
paras. 33–34.
492 CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 26, op. cit., fn. 8, paras. 21–22.
493 See, fn. 489.
494 CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 26, op. cit., fn. 8, para. 26(f)(ii).