A report by Amnesty International about Malta published yesterday is “peppered with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which are testimony to AI’s customary selective, subjective and warped evaluation of the challenges that Malta faces with illegal immigration”, the Home Affairs Ministry said.
The report asserts that Malta’s mandatory detention regime for illegal immigrants goes against the European Convention on Human Rights. This premise is false, the ministry said.
“It must be noted that the ECHR does not condemn mandatory detention upon arrival... It provides for the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his affecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
“In fact, the ECHR has always concluded that states have the right to limit the movement of those who enter their territory and this limitation does not in any manner imply any violation of fundamental human rights.”
The ministry pointed out that detention does not follow from an application for asylum but from irregular entry.
In terms of the Immigration Act, people who enter Malta without authorisation are served with a removal order and are detained.
Detained persons are provided with information on their rights, including the right to challenge their detention and the right to apply for asylum.
Detention is also considered necessary in order to enable the authorities to make the necessary arrangements to effect removal and in fact the authorities pursue efforts to make the necessary arrangements to remove the person throughout the detention period.
The ministry said that the ECHR blamed Malta in the Louled Massoud v Malta case only because the authorities did not continue to pursue the necessary preparations for deportation with enough swiftness.
“This judgement cannot therefore be applied to other cases in a general manner, where the authorities continue to make efforts to conclude the necessary arrangements to remove the person throughout the 18-month period of detention.”
The ministry said that with regards to the operation of Immigration Appeals Board (IAB), contrary to Amnesty International’s observations, the sittings before the board wee conducted in a similar manner to those before the local courts.
Individuals may be assisted by a legal aid representative and evidence is heard by the board while submissions are made by the parties.
A copy of the transcript of the appellant’s asylum interview is provided to all lawyers representing the appellants, contrary to what is alleged by AI.
The fact that only a small number of first instance negative decisions were overturned by the Refugee Appeals Board should not lead to the inference that the process is not adequate, the ministry said.
“On the contrary, it reflects the fact that the asylum determination process at first instance is carried out in a thorough manner and is not restrictive in granting international protection where it is due.
“The small number of overturned decisions should be seen within the context of the fact that close to 60 per cent of asylum-seekers are granted international protection at first instance.
“This high asylum recognition rate at first instance demonstrates that the Maltese authorities have granted international protection to all applicants who indeed required it, at first instance, avoiding the need for applicants with well-founded claims to resort to an appeal.”
JULY 17 RESCUE OPERATION
On the rescue operation of July 17, when 55 Somalis found themselves in distress and 28 were brought to Malta while 27 were returned to Libya, the ministry said AI’s assertions are exclusively based on the accounts of events by the migrants themselves.
“While dramatic and representing a sequence of events that throws a poor light on the Maltese authorities, it is contested that nothing makes this account any more credible than the description of AFM personnel on the scene.
“Therefore, continuing to insist that the Maltese authorities acted incorrectly, on the basis of one alleged undocumented account to the exclusion of the other, calls into question Amnesty International’s objectivity in this regard.”
The ministry insisted that Malta did not return any person to Libya on July 17. The people in question, it said, were never on Maltese territory or under Maltese control. They were disembarked directly from their craft to a Libyan patrol craft back to Libya from where they had left.
“The government reiterates its position that persons rescued at sea are not subjected to Maltese jurisdiction, but have knowingly chosen to be rescued by the Maltese authorities rather than remain in a dangerous distress situation.
“This means Malta has always respected its obligations under international law.
“The fact that Malta honours such obligations should in no way be construed as Malta agreeing that further obligations thus ensue.
“AI’s allegation that Malta infringed the principle of non-refoulement is again therefore completely unfounded.”
The ministry insisted that the Maltese authorities have always complied with their international obligations and always respected fundamental rights.
“All reported cases of search and rescue were duly addressed by the AFM in accordance with international law. Thousands of lives have been saved in the Central Mediterranean as a result of these operations. All asylum-seekers who were at any point on Maltese territory or under Malta’s effective control were given the opportunity to seek asylum, and were provided with all the information and assistance required to do so.
“This is attested by the fact that the substantial majority of immigrants who reached Malta irregularly over the past years have proceeded to apply for asylum in Malta (98 per cent in 2008 and 90 per cent in 2009).”
OPEN CENTRES
The ministry also referred to AI’s criticisim of Malta’s open centres. It said that in its criticism, AI conveniently forgot that the aim of such centres is that of giving the over 2,000 residents who reside in them a roof over their head and a chance to move on to the next step in their lives.
“None of these open centres can be shut down for now as Amnesty International suggests, due to the high risk of homelessness that would ensue.
“It should also be noted that within an EU context, as well as beyond, the Maltese authorities have promoted the resettlement of beneficiaries of international protection from Malta.
“This can only be regarded as a commendable initiative in view of Malta’s innate limitations, in view of its small size, high population density and small labour market prone to saturation.
“Whereas the Maltese authorities undertake integration initiatives for beneficiaries of international protection, these cannot address such innate limitations, and resettlement therefore remains a necessity.”
The ministry said that Malta has also promoted cooperation and the provision of assistance to both countries of origin and transit.
RELATIONS WITH LIBYA
“In this regard, Malta assigns particular importance to the strengthening of relations between the EU and Libya, in view of the latter’s role in the migration sector, particularly in view of its geographical position and the fact that Libya is also facing considerable challenges due to the large number of immigrants that it hosts.”
The ministry noted that although it provided AI’s representatives with full access to Malta’s asylum system during their visit, the organisation failed to report on all the efforts undertaken to provide a sustainable future for these people and instead resorted to the usual rhetoric to unjustly shed bad light on Malta’s single handed efforts to deal with the phenomenon.
“It should also be underlined for the record that, in spite of the ministry’s repeated calls on AI to actively support Malta in its bid to resettle beneficiaries of international protection to other EU member states and lobby other countries to come to these unfortunate people’s aid, AI has conveniently refrained from doing so,” the ministry said.