A group of young students from Germany working on a Mediterranean migration project sought my views on the subject in the light of my 20-year direct experience in the field.

The recent protests by detainees at Lyster Barracks where still fresh in the mind and so it was no wonder that the students, particularly one of them, were also interested in my assessment of detention-related issues.

My mind quickly went back to the time when Malta had still a long way to go to have its own Refugee Act, a national eligibility procedure and purposely-organised closed and open centres for asylum seekers.

In the absence of proper refugee legislation, asylum seekers used to be dealt with according to the provisions of the Immigration Act. In terms of this law, foreigners found in Malta without the necessary permit, including overstayers, had to be taken to court which, in line with the prevailing legislation, would order their removal from the island and to be kept in detention until that happened.

In the case of asylum seekers, this used to mean that, unless they were staying regularly in Malta, if caught they had to wait in detention while their application was being processed.

The Refugee Section of the Emigrants’ Commission, which was UNHCR’s operational partner in Malta between 1987 and 2004, used to refer their applications and the relevant reports to UNHCR’s branch office in Rome for final determination.

Those granted protection as refugees under the mandate of the UNHCR still had to wait in detention until a presidential pardon was sought and obtained by the Emigrants’ Commission on their behalf with regard to their removal from the country.

Failed asylum seekers had to remain in detention until such time when they could be removed from Malta which, in some cases, used to perhaps mean months on end and, in more complicated cases, even years.

In the mid-1990s, Malta started to have its first experiences of individual asylum seekers in detention getting tired of waiting and becoming restless. Mgr Philip Calleja and I used to explain the circumstances to the persons concerned, try to help them in their humanitarian needs and encourage them to keep calm. We would then proceed to raise their concerns with the relevant authorities, also soliciting speedy remedial action to be taken.

The biggest stumbling block has constantly been detention itself. Indeed, at the top of the migrants’ concerns there has always been their cry for freedom.

As is well known, when the Mediterranean phenomenon of boat people started to pick up, Malta was not spared. This led to more and more people in the already crowded detention places accompanied by increasing risks of commotions.

Mgr Calleja and I – more so when I was appointed Refugee Commissioner according to the Refugees Act 2000 – used to walk straight to the protesting migrants to hear what they had to say, do our best to explain the prevailing circumstances and then push for further and better administrative measures aimed to, at least, making the migrants’ life in detention less difficult and less unbearable.

Our approach included continued efforts to help everyone understand that there were various forms of difficulties on each side of the wall and that such problems required all-round understanding, mutual respect and cooperation.

Many a time, we did manage to contribute to calm things down and to see improvements taking place.

Experience shows that the detention of asylum seekers is a very complex and difficult. It also raises questions of a humanitarian, human rights as well as juridical and legal nature.

Long detention in particular leaves scars on individuals, particularly those who might have already suffered hardship and perhaps abuse prior to arriving in a country where they are detained.

The biggest stumbling block has constantly been detention itself

There is always the risk that, in the public eye, not enough distinction is made between the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and that of criminals, a situation that might even feed racist and xenophobic attitudes.

In such a scenario, the fundamental question remains whether detention of asylum seekers should be an exception prompted by public order and security or a systematic policy.

States, of course, have a right to manage the movement of people across their borders. When, for example, hundreds of undocumented (or not properly documented) irregular migrants land somewhere, that State cannot just close its eyes and abandon all security measures.

Moreover, those shouldering the responsibility of assessing asylum seeker claims have no easy task. There are occasions when they have to face very difficult and complicated credibility and other issues, which would require longer and deeper consideration. Such cases may be sporadic but could also be numerous at a given moment.

Still, confronted with pressures of people forced to move, it would appear that it is always in order to reflect on the duration and ethics of detention, with increasing focus on possible, realistic and achievable alternatives.

Meanwhile, as long as national security continues to demand that asylum seekers be detained until their claims are fully examined and determined, no stone should be left unturned to ensure that this is not only done in terms of well-defined human rights criteria and in a dignified environment but also for the shortest time possible.

This definitely requires more resources, improved facilities and effective harmonisation, sustained by an objective, balanced, rational and a down-to-earth mindset by one and all.

Charles Buttigieg was Malta’s first Refugee Commissioner.