Malta breached the human rights of a Somali migrant who suffered degrading conditions in an immigration detention centre, the European Court of Human Rights ruled today.

The court held that Malta should pay Aden Ahmed €30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €3,000 to cover costs and expenses.

In today’s ruling, which is not final, judges held that Malta violated the European Convention on Human Rights article prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment and that ensuring a right to liberty and security.

Ms Ahmed was placed in detention in Malta after she entering the country irregularly, by boat, to seek asylum in February 2009.

This is the first time the court found a violation against Malta concerning immigration detention conditions.

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

Taken as a whole, those conditions, in which she had lived for 14-and-a-half months as a detained immigrant, amounted to degrading treatment.

Moreover, deportation proceedings were not in progress while she was being detained and the Maltese authorities had taken no steps whatsoever to remove her, so her continued detention for was unlawful.

The court also found that the domestic remedies in Malta had not provided Ms Ahmed with a speedy review of the lawfulness of her detention.

Malta ordered to pay Suso Musa €24,000

The European Court also ordered Malta to pay Suso Musa, allegedly a Sierra Leone national, €24,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Mr Musa entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat on April 8, 2011. Upon arrival, he was arrested by the police and presented with a document containing a return decision and a removal order.

The return decision informed him of the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure but the applicant never made a request for a voluntary departure period, since the rejection was automatically presented to him with the information regarding the possibility of making such a request

The applicant submitted a preliminary questionnaire in the first stage of his application for asylum on April 14, 2011.

On December 31, that year his application was rejected. On January 24, 2012 he appealed and the parties presented submissions on March 29, 2012.

On April 2, 2012 the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the appeal, definitively closing the asylum procedure.

In the meantime, pending the asylum proceedings, the applicant lodged an application to challenge the legality of his detention. He argued that the decision to detain him, as well as his ongoing detention, were contrary to the law. His application was rejected more htan a year after he lodged his challenge.

While these procedures were pending, a riot broke out at Safi Barracks, resulting in a number of detained migrants and police officers and soldiers were injured. That same day, 23 migrants, including the applicant, were arrested and charged in court in relation to the riot.

They were taken to Corradino Correctional Facility to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The following day, on August 17, 2011, the Court of Magistrates confirmed that the arrest of the migrants, including the applicant, was justified and in accordance with the law. They were remanded in custody.

On January 30, 2012 the Court of Magistrates granted the applicant bail and he was released from Corradino Correctional Facility and returned to Safi Barracks. He was released from detention at Safi Barracks on March 21, following 546 days of detention in an immigration context. The criminal proceedings in relation to the riot at Safi Barracks were still pending.

Around January this year, in an effort to make arrangements for the deportation of the applicant, the authorities interviewed him in the presence of a representative from the Consulate of the Republic of Sierra Leone.

The latter informed the Maltese authorities that the applicant did not hail from Sierra Leone and that they could, therefore, not provide further assistance.

Tomas Mikalauskas

The court also ordered Malta to pay €4,000 in non-pecuniary damage and €1,000 in costs and expenses to Tomas Mikalauskas, a Lithuanian national who was detained in Malta on drug charges in September 2009.

Mr Mikalauskas was repeatedly remanded in custody over a period of 10 months, after which he was granted bail subject to high financial guarantees.

As he was unable to pay, he remained in pre-trial detention for another 12 months. He was eventually released from detention in July 2011 when the guarantees were reduced.

He currently lives in Qawra, while the criminal proceedings are still pending against him.

Mr Mikalauskas alleged that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading given his recurring headaches and that the medical care provided to him in detention had been inadequate.

He also complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand and his inability to effectively contest the lawfulness of his detention on account of the repeated refusals to grant him bail and the high financial guarantees once bail had eventually been granted.

Lay Lay Co. Ltd

In a case instituted by Lay Lay Co. Ltd, the court found Malta not to be in violation of the Convention.

Lay Lay complained about the authorities’ refusal to issue a valid building permit for land it had purchased in Ghaxaq in 1984. It alleged that, due to the authorities’ protracted and irregular procedures in refusing its application for a permit, it was denied the possibility of contesting the refusal in court.