Malta should shorten the detention period and allow asylum seekers to obtain a speedy review of the lawfulness of their incarceration, according to the European Court of Human Rights.

The island was found to have breached numerous provisions of the European human rights convention in two separate judgments related to the detention of asylum seekers.

In the case Ibrahim Suso Musa v Malta, the European Court of Human Rights advised Malta to improve the conditions at detention centres to avoid being found guilty in future similar cases.

Neil Falzon, a human rights lawyer representing Mr Suso Musa, said: “This judgment confirms the need to radically revise the way Malta insists on treating asylum-seekers upon their arrival.

“Illegal detention is just not on and, if necessary, we will bring case after case until the system is overhauled.”

Asylum seekers who arrive in Malta by boat are held in detention centres for up to 12 months while their claims are processed.

Those who do not apply for asylum or are rejected are held for up to 18 months.

Mr Suso Musa was an alleged Sierra Leonean asylum seeker who arrived on a boat in April 2011 and was immediately detained by the authorities.

His asylum application was rejected in a decision upheld in April 2012 and he remained in detention with a view to his removal until March 2013.

Illegal detention is just not on and, if necessary, we will bring case after case until the system is overhauled

The court found that Mr Suso Musa’s detention before a decision was made on his asylum request had been “arbitrary”.

Moreover, it had taken the authorities an unreasonable amount of time to determine whether the applicant should have been allowed to remain in Malta.

Once Mr Suso Musa’s asylum request had been determined, it found that the deportation proceedings were not prosecuted with due diligence and the applicant was not allowed a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention.

Articles 5:1 (right to liberty and security) and 5:4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) were deemed by the court to have been breached.

Malta was ordered to pay him €24,000 in damages and €3,000 in costs and expenses.

The judgment is not final as either party has three months to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court.

In a separate non-final judgment yesterday in the case of Aslya Aden Ahmed v Malta, the court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

This was the first time the court had found detention conditions in Malta to breach the rules against inhuman and degrading treatment. Articles 5:1 and 5:4 were also deemed to have been breached.

The case concerned a Somali asylum seeker represented by Michael Camilleri and Katrine Camilleri.

She entered the country by boat in February 2009 and had her initial asylum application rejected in May 2009.

She later escaped to the Netherlands but was returned under Dublin II regulations and sentenced to six months in prison.

Upon her release she was again detained for immigration purposes, eventually being released in August 2012 because she had spent the maximum 18 months in detention.

The court was concerned about the conditions in which Ms Aden Ahmed was detained while at Lyster Barracks, notably possible exposure to the cold, the lack of female staff, a lack of access to the open air and exercise for periods of up to three months, an inadequate diet and the particular vulnerability of Ms Aden Ahmed due to her fragile health and personal emotional circumstances.

She had miscarried in March 2011 while serving her prison term.

Ms Aden Ahmed also suffered from insomnia, recurrent physical pain and episodes of depression while in detention.

Malta was ordered to pay her €30,000 in damages and €3,000 in costs and expenses.

In a statement, the Government blamed the judgments on the actions of the previous administration and reiterated its view that the country cannot cope with the influx of “illegal immigrants”.

“On the other hand this Government is working for detention conditions to improve and as much as possible not to repeat errors that may have occurred in the past,” it said.