The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will keep a watchful eye on Malta until it takes action about two judgments demanding shorter detention periods and better conditions at closed centres.

In the judgments, originally handed down in July, the European Court of Human Rights also ordered Malta to pay Ibrahim Suso Musa €27,000 and Aslya Aden Ahmed €33,000.

It ruled the Maltese authorities took too long to determine whether Mr Suso Musa was eligible for protection and therefore his 23-month stay was excessive.

Meanwhile, the court found Ms Aden Ahmed received degrading treatment while in detention when, among others, she was denied access to open air and exercise for up to three months. She even miscarried while serving a prison term.

Government’s remarks showed a failure or refusal to understand

While Ms Aden Ahmed was yesterday paid €3,000 in costs and expenses, it could not be confirmed whether Mr Suso Musa has received anything yet.

The judgment says the government has to pay compensation and expenses within three months from when the judgment becomes final, in this case, December 9.

The government had challenged the ECHR’s decision and asked for the cases to be referred to the Grand Chamber, but the request was rejected in December.

Last month, it said it was still examining legislation to determine whether intervention is needed, and if so, to what extent.

When contacted, an ECHR spokesman said once a judgment was made, it was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

“Until the State has adopted satisfactory measures, the Committee of Ministers does not adopt a final resolution striking the judgment off its list of cases, and the State continues to be required to provide explanations or take the necessary action,” he said.

A government spokesman said the matter did not reach the ECHR’s Grand Chamber and both cases were decided at a first instance without even going through the Maltese courts, calling this an “anomalous situation”.

In reaction, Neil Falzon, a human rights lawyer representing Mr Suso Musa, said the government’s remarks showed a “failure or refusal to understand” why the ECHR found a breach of fundamental human rights.

“In cases of people deprived of their freedom, the court has repeatedly required that any national redress mechanism be a speedy and effective one. This is exactly the spirit of the subsidiarity principle invoked by the government.”

Mr Suso Musa did start local proceedings, which took more than a year to be finalised.

The court also assessed the local administrative and judicial options available and concluded none met the standards required by the convention.

“It is preposterous for the government to claim that my client bypassed national procedures, when these were found by the court to be useless and ineffective,” Dr Falzon added.

“Instead of pointing fingers, the government should do what it agreed to do when it signed up to the convention and make sure that fundamental human rights of all people are given full attention.

“Ironically, it is the government itself that failed to respect the principle of subsidiarity, and not the court.”

It is the government that failed to respect the principle of subsidiarity, and not the court

One of Ms Aden Ahmed’s lawyers, Michael Camilleri, also said there was nothing anomalous or strange about the proceedings.

“The fact that my client went directly to the ECHR was debated during the submissions to the court and it took a decision to hear the case directly, based on well-established case law,” he said, adding that the Grand Chamber only accepted appeals in exceptional circumstances.

Dr Camilleri added that the most important aspects of these cases were the judgment contents.

The court decided that Malta had breached Article 3 of the convention when it came to the detention conditions of asylum seekers and Article 5 with reference to the right of liberty and security.

It raised questions about procedures that should be in place to ensure these rights are protected.

“Judgments that find breaches of human rights by the State concerned are binding. The government is obliged to execute them and should make sure that the decisions of the court are adhered to,” he noted.