Malta will consider non-custodial measures as an alternative to detention as a result of a new EU directive which will come into force in July 2015, a government representative told the UN Human Rights Committee yesterday.
Representing the Home Affairs Ministry, Joseph St John said that the new EU Directive on Reception Conditions will introduce a provision to inform asylum seekers why they may be detained and also to advise them that they could challenge their detention.
Malta would consider non-custodial measures as an alternative to detention – such as regular reporting – as a result of the directive, Mr St John said.
NGOs such as the Jesuit Refugee Service have long been calling for an alternative to detention, stressing that it should only be resorted to in individual cases when other, non-custodial methods have proved ineffective or where an asylum seeker poses a serious threat to national security or public order.
Yesterday’s UN meeting in Geneva was a continuation to Monday’s review of Malta’s human rights record. As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Malta is required to undergo regular review by the committee of 18 international independent experts on how it is implementing the ICCPR.
Committee members criticised Malta’s detention policy and the length of detention, adding it was against the principle of proportionality and freedom of liberty.
Detention should be used as a measure of last resort, a commitee member emphasised.
The duration of detention was “controversial”, Mr St John admitted, adding that the country was gradually introducing reforms.
The maximum duration of detention for asylum seekers was 12 months but, in practice, if a person’s asylum application was rejected after six months, then he would cease to be an asylum seeker and could in theory be detained for a maximum of 18 months, he said.
However, a monthly review was conducted to ascertain whether there was still a need to keep individuals in the detention centres who were not asylum seekers and who were being detained with a view to their deportation.
In practice, the periods of detention were not so high, often around 30 days, and very rarely 18 months, Mr St John said. He also noted that of the 353 people released from detention this year, 192 were let out after being detained for less than 15 days.
If an asylum seeker’s application was rejected twice, measures were taken to return the person in question to his or her country of origin.
The asylum seeker could submit a subsequent application, under EU law, only if he was in possession of new evidence that could not have been available to him at an earlier stage. Responsibility for appeals lay with the Immigration Appeals Board and the same guarantees applied to the Board as to the Judiciary, he said.
Conditions at detention centres had improved due to a number of factors, Mr St John told the Committee. The number of detainees has been reduced over the years because, generally, people stayed in detention centres for shorter periods of time.
By the end of September 2014, there were 266 detainees at both the Lyster and Safi Barracks Detention Centres.
The use of tents had been completely eliminated, in turn being replaced with mobile homes.