I have read the article "Amnesty demands asylum-seekers' release" on the November 5 web edition of The Times. It is based on a phone interview with me on November 4.

Although I do not consider that the report reflects our discussion to the extent that I would wish, I have one major concern with the article that I would want to clarify to readers. It is not the view of Amnesty International that "[s]hort of setting illegal immigrants free, countries like Malta should ensure that asylum procedures are not left to drag on for months on end".

First of all, it is not accurate to use the phrase "illegal immigrants" to describe asylum-seekers. The right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution is a human right under international law that can be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In exercising this right, asylum-seekers should therefore not be considered to have committed an illegal act, much less a criminal act. Nor should they be penalised for reasons of their "illegal" entry or presence.

The 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees - to which Malta is a party - explicitly recognises this important principle. In practice, blanket detention of asylum-seekers who arrive "illegally" in a country would constitute a penalty prohibited by refugee law. Where detention is not or cannot be justified in an individual case it will be arbitrary and could, in practice, potentially be indefinite. Arbitrary or indefinite detention would also put Malta in violation of international human rights law.

Furthermore, the deprivation of an asylum-seeker's liberty or freedom of movement seriously compromises his or her ability to present claims for international protection in the best and most comprehensive manner. This, in turn, would increase the risk of reaching an inaccurate decision on the claim.

Although it is in the interests of the individual claimant as well as the host state for decisions on asylum claims to be made quickly and not drag on, the reality is that speedy decision-making at all costs can seriously compromise the fairness of an asylum procedure. Amnesty International is of the opinion that, while a decision on each individual asylum claim should be made as fast as possible, the procedure must remain fair.

For example, the full access to a fair appeal for those whose claims have been rejected by an initial decision-maker would in many cases result in a process that could take at least several months. Short of granting protection to all persons who seek it, a fair and satisfactory procedure is the most effective way for Malta to ensure that it does not send a person back to face death or torture in his/her country of origin.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.