A ruling preventing Switzerland from sending an Afghan family with six children back to Italy was a reminder to the Maltese government that its reception conditions needed to be adequate, according to local human rights NGO Aditus.

On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that returning the Tarakhel family to Italy without guarantees that they would have appropriate conditions would violate rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

The family had made its way to Switzerland from Italy and claimed asylum there in November of 2011. The EU’s Dublin Regulation provides for the return of asylum seekers from one member state to that responsible for processing their claims for international protection. Both the ECHR and the European Court of Justice had already, in 2011, ruled that inadequate conditions in Greece precluded returning asylum seekers to that country.

There had also been cases, particularly concerning unaccompanied minors, who were not sent back to Malta as it was deemed the island failed to provide adequate reception that fulfilled their basic rights, Neil Falzon, of Adidus, told Times of Malta.

In this ruling, however, the court was establishing what sort of reception was adequate, he said. While governments were not obliged to provide free housing and care, they had to provide an environment that allowed individuals to exercise their basic human rights.

“This is a reminder to the Maltese government that fundamental human rights of people in open centres need to be accommodated, otherwise the island would be penalised,” Dr Falzon told the newspaper.

The court in fact ruled that returning the family to Italy without Switzerland first obtaining specific individual guarantees that Italian authorities would keep the family together, would breach article 3 of the convention which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.

The court also stated that the possibility of a significant number of asylum seekers being left without accommodation, or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy, or even in insalubrious or violent conditions, was not unfounded.

The ruling was welcomed by human rights organisations including Advice on Individual Rights in Europe, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Amnesty International, which had intervened.