|
Concerns
in Europe and
Central
Asia
January
– June 2003
MALTA
This country entry has been
extracted from a forthcoming Amnesty International report, CONCERNS IN
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: January - June 2003 (AI Index: EUR 01/013/2003),
to be issued in October 2003. Anyone
wishing further information on other Amnesty International concerns in
Europe and Central Asia should consult the full document.
The treatment of asylum-seekers and unauthorized immigrants
In February the government stated that 1,686
“illegal immigrants” had arrived in Malta in 2002, compared to 57 in 2001
and 24 in 2000. The authorities indicated that the sudden influx of
people had placed considerable strain on Malta’s resources during 2002,
affecting the availability of appropriate accommodation in the country and
its ability to process asylum applications promptly. Such problems
persisted into 2003.
In his annual report covering 2002, an English
translation of which was submitted to the House of Representatives in May
2003, the Maltese Ombudsman included the findings of an
investigation he had carried out into “the detention of illegal
immigrants.” He concluded, amongst other things, that “Malta does not
have enough facilities to handle relatively large inflows of foreigners
that reach our shores unexpectedly in addition to the illegal immigrants
who are already detained in Malta.
The arrival of more than one hundred persons at any one time
causes a crisis and must be treated as an emergency situation.”
Local
NGOs and AI were concerned by a policy of mandatory indefinite detention
for all asylum-seekers, as well as unauthorized immigrants. AI has called
on Malta to ensure that, in line with relevant international standards,
asylum-seekers are detained only when a legitimate reason for
doing so has been demonstrated in the individual case, only when other
measures short of detention will not suffice, and only for a minimal
period. Up to some 1,000
people were reportedly being held in five detention centres for
unauthorized immigrants at the start of the year -- a number apparently
reduced to below 500 by June.
According to the reports received by AI, the majority were
detained for at least six months while some were detained for as long as
18 months. It appeared that many were held on grounds beyond those
allowed by international standards and in conditions of detention
violating relevant international standards. There was also concern that some
did not have access to a fair and satisfactory asylum determination
procedure. AI noted an increasing number of reported protests by
detainees against their treatment, apparently bearing out the validity of
the warning contained in the Ombudsman’s report that: “As time goes by,
it is likely that tension amongst detainees will rise because of their
confined space, their monotonous daily routine and especially the
insecurity regarding their future.”
Under
amendments made to the Immigration Act in December 2002, unauthorized
entry into Malta ceased to be a criminal offence. However the amended Immigration
Act allows the authorities to detain people refused admission to Malta,
as well as people who are the subject of a removal order, pending their
deportation. Under the Refugees Act of 2000, those applying for refugee
status cannot be deported while their applications are pending
determination and are subject to appeals. They are “allowed to enter or
remain in Malta” until a final decision is taken on their application for
asylum and must, “unless in custody, reside and remain in the places
which may be indicated” by the relevant government minister.
In practice,
asylum-seekers were held in detention centres for unauthorized immigrants
until they were notified of the definitive decision on their applications
for protection and there was concern at the frequently excessively
lengthy delays in the processing of applications, apparently often
attributable to understaffing in the office of Malta’s Refugee
Commissioner, the relevant decision-making body. It was reported that, five
months after filling in the standard preliminary questionnaire indicating
their intention of applying for protection in Malta, many asylum-seekers were
still awaiting an interview with the Commissioner’s office, upon which
the outcome of their asylum application would largely depend. Some had
apparently waited up to eight months in detention without an interview
date being set. Some then faced
further lengthy delays awaiting the outcome of the interview. It was
claimed that, in a number of cases, the Commissioner had approved the
relevant asylum applications but that the individuals, including families
with children, were not promptly notified of the success of their
applications and remained in detention because of a shortage of
accommodation to which they could be transferred in the community. Other asylum-seekers apparently
faced delays in awaiting the outcome of appeals to the Refugee Appeals
Board.
In
May the Refugee Commissioner said his office, composed of five people, was
trying to speed up procedures and the Minister for Home Affairs said
steps had been taken to enable people declared refugees, or given
temporary humanitarian protection status to remain in Malta, to be set at
liberty.
At
the beginning of June an open centre was established to accommodate
recognized refugees and people granted temporary protection. However, at the end of the month
there were claims that over 100 people granted refugee status or temporary
protection, including many Iraqis. remained in the closed detention
centres. Some of the Iraqi asylum-seekers had by then apparently been
detained for some seven months: several local NGOs and refugee lawyers
stated that some of the Iraqis had been admitted to a psychiatric
hospital, diagnosed with acute depression as a direct result of their
indefinite prolonged detention.
Local
NGOs continued to call for improved mechanisms to ensure that
asylum-seekers are fully and regularly informed of asylum determination
proceedings and their rights, in a language they understand; are in a
position and have the practical means to exercise those rights
effectively, including the right to legal assistance, to contact a
representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and to file an
appeal against an unsuccessful application for refugee status. They also
called for greater transparency in the appeals process, including the
provision to applicants of the reasons for the rejection of their appeals.
Both
local NGOs and the Ombudsman’s office also underlined the importance of
providing appropriate training to officials in contact with immigrants
and asylum-seekers on arrival and during detention and pointed out that
members of the police and the armed forces, in charge of the daily
running the detention centres, had not been provided with such training.
Detention
conditions
There were numerous complaints regarding the
physical conditions of detention, in facilities not originally designed
as detention centres, with reports of people in some of the centres
suffering conditions of severe overcrowding with a resulting lack of
privacy and unsatisfactory sanitary arrangements. In some cases overcrowding
resulted in people sleeping for months in tents during the winter season
and suffering cold temperatures and flooding with rainwater. Some inmates, including children,
had little or no regular access to exercise in the open air, with most of
the day spent inside the detention centre, with no recreational
facilities or meaningful form of activity. Inmates’ contact with the outside world was frequently
very limited: in at least
one centre they were not allowed to make phone calls and in another,
although in theory they were allowed to make calls, in practice, they
were not supplied with the cards necessary to make calls. During the
period under review, efforts were made to allow detained school-age
children access to education and, by the end of June, an increasing
number were being allowed to leave the detention centres to attend local
schools during the day.
Local
NGO visitors to some of the centres, including health professionals,
reported a sharp deterioration in the mental health of many of the
inmates as the time they had spent detained in conditions such as those
outlined above lengthened, without any apparent indication of progress in
the processing of their claims for asylum. There were reports that many
detainees, including a significant number of asylum-seekers suffering
post traumatic stress disorder, were manifesting physical symptoms which
were of psychosomatic origin and that an increasing number were being
prescribed anti-depressant medication. It was also claimed that there was
an increase in the number of detainees having to be admitted to a local
psychiatric hospital for treatment, in particular those expressing suicidal
wishes. AI noted that, in
issuing the findings of his investigation into the detention of such
individuals in Malta, the Ombudsman (see above) also warned that “long
periods of detention can have a psychological effect, sometimes even
causing mental damage.”
The
Ombudsman’s report made a series of recommendations aimed at improving
the situation of people held in the detention centres, including, as a
matter of priority, steps to be taken to reduce overcrowding and organize
basic schooling for children, for detainees to be given clear and correct
information on their rights, their legal position and the process
involved, and allowed to exercise in the open air for an hour at least
twice a day. At the same time he recommended that an experienced and
competent administrator should be appointed to coordinate the operation
of the detention centres, including the work of the voluntary sector, and
that arrangements should be made for such an administrator and relevant
assistants to visit established centres for the detention of illegal
immigrants in other countries, in order to gain information and share
experiences.
|
