Conditions in detention and open centres continued to worsen last year and migrants’ human rights were still being breached as a result of the mandatory detention policy, according to an Amnesty International report.
The international human rights organisation also said that Malta’s appeal procedures to challenge the length and legitimacy of detention, or to challenge decisions to reject an asylum claim, continued to be inadequate.
The Amnesty International 2012 annual report pointed out that the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights had criticised living conditions in reception centres for migrants, particularly in Marsa and in the Ħal Far tent village and hangar complex. The commissioner suggested measures to improve refugee determination procedures, called for a programme to address the social exclusion of migrants and others and for a strategy to promote local integration and combat racism and xenophobia.
Reacting to the report, the Ministry for Home and Parliamentary Affairs insisted that Malta’s detention policy was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ministry accused Amnesty International of using “outdated” information.
Regular refurbishment was ongoing in centres, the tent village was being replaced by mobile homes and the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers had undertaken several integration-oriented programmes.
Over the past years, Malta multiplied efforts to ensure that third country nationals staying irregularly were returned to their respective countries of origin, increasing the prospects of them being repatriated in the shortest time frame possible, the ministry said.
In the report, Amnesty International said the EU Returns Directive was transposed into domestic law last year but its application remained limited.
The directive provided common standards and procedures in EU member states for detaining and returning people who stayed in a country illegally.
However, Maltese law excluded those who had been refused entry or entered Malta irregularly from enjoying such minimum safeguards.
The directive therefore did not apply to the majority of those it was meant to protect, the report said.
By the end of the year, no measures were taken by the government to implement the 2010 judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Louled Massoud versus Malta.
The Court had found “the Maltese legal system did not provide for a procedure capable of avoiding the risk of arbitrary detention pending deportation”.
The ministry said that no measures were taken because the Maltese system provided for the possibility to challenge detention before the Immigration Appeals Board.
It said it was “regrettable that Amnesty International has remained one of a handful of international institutions which consistently fail to support Malta in its appeal for international assistance and solidarity in this field”.