'This U.N. document undercuts Trump's darkest mass deportation claims'

[sop]

"El Salvador's government told U.N. investigators that the detainees America shipped to its CECOT maximum security prison are still under U.S. control."

"U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher asked a pointed question of the Trump administration on Tuesday. Last month, she had ordered the government to work to facilitate the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan national who had been mistakenly removed to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. According to a U.N. document filed Monday in a case related to one before her, the deportees in CECOT weren’t beyond reach, as the DOJ had claimed in her courtroom. Instead, according to the government of El Salvador, the men in the maximum-security prison have been apparently there under U.S. jurisdiction all along."

"In a letter to the Justice Department, the Maryland federal judge asked exactly who has been lying: the Salvadoran government to the United Nations or the government’s lawyers to her. The answer is most likely the latter as the idea that El Salvador is the dominant player in this farce is laughable at best — but let’s unpack why the lie was ever needed."

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-deportations-el-salvador-prison-immigration-un-document-rcna217502

[Igel]

1. Took a few links, but I got to the original document.

Here's the quoted bit in context.

1. On the lack of grounds for the request for information from the State of El Salvador.
The Salvadoran State emphatically states that its authorities have not arrested, detained, or transferred the persons referred to in
the communications of the Working Group. The actions of the State of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a
bilateral cooperation mechanism with another State, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure
for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State. In this context,
the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of
international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal
matters.
In this regard, the actions attributable to the Salvadoran State are limited to its sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction, and therefore
it cannot be held responsible for the failure to observe the principle of non-refoulement with respect to the persons mentioned.
2. On the absence of elements constituting enforced disappearance attributable to the State of El Salvador.
In this regard, the State of El Salvador emphasizes that the claims presented do not attribute any direct action to the Salvadoran State
that meets the definition of enforced disappearance under international law and the working methods of the Working Group.

What's the context? Apparently El Salvador views itself as being accused of things it did not do. It's not responsible for the "enforced disappearance" of the men, it's not responsible for violating non-refoulement.

What's non-refoulement? Didn't know. But the https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdfOHCHR has a clue:

]

What is the principle of non-refoulement? The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection
under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law. It prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for
believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, illtreatment or other serious human rights violations.

Did El Salvador do that. No. In that context, responsibility is entirely the US's.

What's unsaid? Whether their custodial arrangements grant on-going control over the men to the US. Because that might involve "sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction," but the document explicitly says they might be attributable but by silence implies they don't think that's a claim worth discussing. (Maybe it was made and allowed to stand. Maybe that's not how they read the accusations implicit in the questions posed.)

Not 100% convinced that the claim about what's said is entirely accurate.