Illegal immigration has exposed the gaps in Malta's human rights practices, according to researcher Daniela DeBono.

Human rights were not meant to distinguish between people of different nationalities, however, the arrival of immigrants highlighted that different approaches were adopted by the government and society towards these foreigners, Ms DeBono explained. This suggested that, for example, while immigrants were kept in detention, society and the government would not tolerate the same treatment and conditions in the case of Maltese nationals.

Human rights reports by Amnesty International, the UN and the Council of Europe labelled Malta's human rights record as generally "good" or "satisfactory" before 2002, when the immigration phenomenon exploded in Malta. The reports generally mentioned topics like domestic violence and outlined measures being taken by the government to help. However, after 2002, the picture started changing and Malta's human rights reports became essentially immigration-based documents and generally negative.

In fact, the catalyst seems to have been the 2002 case of about 220 Eritreans, who, after being deported, claimed to have been tortured and brutally beaten on their return. The government consistently defended itself from the charges and insisted it had followed internationally-accepted practices in deciding to deport these particular migrants.

But the case helped cast the spotlight on Malta and immigration and this then went on to "expose gaps in the human rights field that are not limited to immigration".

As part of a doctoral research she is doing with the University of Sussex, Ms DeBono interviewed people who worked in various areas affected by human rights violations, such as immigration and domestic violence. The question she asked was: Why were human rights principles used to direct action with some groups in society and not with irregular immigrants?

"The quote which came up again and again in my interviews which best depicts this is: 'Human rights for the Maltese come first'," she explained.

"This is a contradiction. Human rights are not tied to a national group and all states signatory to international human rights treaties are responsible for upholding the human rights of everyone, irrespective of nationality, in their country.

"It also shows that the approach of the Maltese government and society at large is one which is exclusive," she said, adding that human rights were inclusive in their recognition of a common humanity.

This was a pattern observed in other European countries experiencing illegal immigration.

Ms DeBono explained that many people interviewed agreed that when it came to the treatment of human rights victims like immigrants, abused children or battered women, Maltese society often operated a charity approach rather than a rights-based one.

Some people pointed out that human rights issues always existed but rarely made it to the surface. They also mentioned the lack of a cosmopolitan outlook, which views the Maltese as forming part of a global community.

"There is an intrinsic link between a cosmopolitan approach and human rights, which is why government policies ought to take a broader approach that is not limited to immigration," she said. This would address the issue by opening up people to the true all-round meaning of human rights.