The first part of the document makes reference to the past political declarations adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, namely those at Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Brussels, Brighton, Izmir and Interlaken. It also recalls the conclusions adopted at the Informal Ministerial Conference of 10 December 2025, the meeting convened by Secretary-General Alain Berset in response to the "letter of nine" from States demanding reforms of the ECtHR's migration case-law. That letter attracted concerns from human rights groups, as well as arguments that it had little to do with the Court's actual case-law on migration.
To pave the way for a political declaration on the issue, the CDDH document of 6 January suggests content for the Chișinău Declaration that, among others:
- recalls the importance and contribution of the Convention system and the importance of the role of the Court in supervising State compliance with the ECHR;
- reaffirms States' commitment to the system and rejects "attacks at high political levels on the rights protected by the Convention and the judgments of the Court seeking to safeguard them" (citing the Reykjavik Declaration);
- emphasizes the principles of subsidiarity, national implementation, the margin of appreciation, shared responsibility; and State sovereignty;
- welcomes the Court's strict approach to admissibility criteria and jurisdiction, and its judicial dialogue with domestic courts;
- affirms the Court's authoritative and balanced interpretation of the ECHR and the interpretative authority of its judgments;
- underlines States' obligation under Article 34 ECHR not to hinder the exercise of the right to individual application and their "unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties";
- recalls that States can seek referrals to the Grand Chamber and file third-party interventions;
- expresses concern about "the serious and complex challenges posed by irregular migration, such as instrumentalisation of migration, smuggling of migrants, trafficking in human beings and other criminal activities in this context"; and "the challenges related to the expulsion and return of foreigners convicted of serious offences, while respecting human rights";
- on Article 3 ECHR, recalls that the ECHR "does not purport to be a means of requiring the States Parties to impose Convention standards on other States, such that treatment which might violate Article 3 of the Convention because of an act or omission of a Contracting State might not attain the minimum level of severity which is required for there to be a violation of Article 3 in an expulsion or extradition case", and welcomes "the Court’s caution in finding that removal from the territory of a State Party would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention".
This last point, which has already been flagged as threating a reversal of the Court's established Article 3 case-law, is reiterated in the annex. That annex additionally notes that the Court's case-law allows removals to third States (para. 31) or under diplomatic assurances (para. 32) and that violations of Article 3 by removals of seriously ill persons are limited to exceptional circumstances (para. 33). It also clarifies the contours of the Court's expulsion-related case-law under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 ECHR, as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 concerning collective expulsions and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. It notes that other international treaties also contain human rights provisions related to migration (emphasizing the ICCPR, the UN Refugee Convention and the UN Convention against Torture, to which all CoE Member States are parties), and references the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The document then examines the interpretation and application of the Convention in the context of specific factual situations, namely:
- irregular migration (discussing mass arrivals by sea and land, reception and detention conditions and 'instrumentalisation of migration', which although not a legal term has been raised in three cases currently pending before the Grand Chamber concerning alleged pushbacks at the Belarusian borders, with a hearing in all three cases held on 12 February 2025); and
- the situation of foreigners convicted of serious offences, listing relevant elements for considering such cases and noting that the Court here conducts 'a process-based review'.