Denial of a basic human right

The government's policy of detaining asylum seekers who enter Malta illegally was scrutinised by Radio France Internationale (RFI) a few days ago. The radio station was alerted to the plight of detainees in Malta by a phonecall from a Congolese asylum seeker detained at Floriana police headquarters. The conclusion drawn by investigating journalist, Claire Hedon, was that the home affairs authorities were failing to distinguish between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, and the press often followed suit.

Many people may wonder where the problem lies: Why should an asylum seeker be set apart from other so-called "illegal" immigrants? But international law makes a clear distinction, granting people who seek refugee status specific rights, some of which the government of Malta chooses to ignore. Home Affairs Minister, Tonio Borg told RFI that asylum seekers were detained because they entered Malta illegally not because they demanded asylum.

His argument makes no sense in the light of article 31 of the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees, which emphatically stipulates asylum seekers should not be punished for illegal entry into states.

In 1999, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) underlined that "both refugees and asylum seekers are in a different situation to other immigrants because they may be forced by their circumstances to enter a country illegally to escape persecution". The upshot of a failure to realise this, the UN agency continues, is that deplorably, many countries insist on routinely detaining asylum seekers.

In Malta, this practice has come under the spotlight in recent days as over 40 Ethiopian and Eritrean asylum seekers went on hunger strike in Safi Barracks, appealing to be freed from detention. And Amnesty International voiced concern about standards in detention centres in Malta, calling on the government to comply with international norms.

The RFI programme placed detention of asylum seekers in Malta against the background of EU accession. The correspondent visited Malta and interviewed refugees and members of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), a non-governmental organisation offering services to detainees, which has long voiced its opposition to the government's detention policy.

A correspondent for migration and refugee issues who has travelled to and researched other accession countries, she was surprised by Malta's policy; she claims it is the only accession country which detains asylum seekers indefinitely. She was not granted access to detention centres, which prompted her to declare on radio that detainees' living conditions were as bad as she had been led to believe.

Interviewed by RFI, Dr Borg upheld the rationale behind the government's policy. His comments make it clear that the home affairs authorities consider detention is necessary. Dr Borg also defended conditions inside the centres, saying they were as good as those elsewhere, if not better. Detention centres were not home, but detainees had all that was necessary to live, he said.

This is one way of looking at it. Detainees, human rights and humanitarian agencies - JRS included - and medical researchers subscribe to another point of view, borne out by bitter experience, by eyewitness or by meticulous research. We insist indefinite detention of asylum seekers is unlawful, unnecessary and harmful.

The simple truth is that indefinite and arbitrary detention constitutes the removal of a basic human right. UNHCR does not mince its words when it reminds states that "the right to liberty is a fundamental human right, which no one should be arbitrarily deprived of. This includes, of course, both refugees and asylum seekers".

In July, JRS Malta issued a report - "Detention of asylum seekers in Malta: a human rights perspective" - which came to the conclusion that government policy raised serious human rights concerns.

"An evaluation of the conditions in which asylum seekers are held in the centres in Malta can only lead to the conclusion that the measures adopted amount to a deprivation of liberty in terms of article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights," says JRS Malta assistant director, Katrine Camilleri.

The severe harm detention inflicts on asylum seekers has been well documented worldwide. In one telling example, a report released this year in the US by Physicians for Human Rights confirmed that the already poor psychological health of asylum seekers worsened the longer they were detained; 86 per cent of interviewed asylum seekers suffered significant depression.

Detainees in Malta suffer a similar fate. The asylum seekers interviewed in the US were detained for an average of seven months.

In Malta, asylum seekers have been detained for over a year. JRS has repeatedly expressed serious concern about the rising incidence of depression and related problems among detainees; several have been hospitalised for psychiatric treatment.

Prolonged detention is put down to lack of staffing in the Refugee Commissioner's Office, which decides cases of refugee status.

Dr Borg has voiced hope that procedures would be speeded up. In view of the price detainees are paying, such glib assurances are not good enough.

Nor is the quasi-facetious assertion that detainees have all they need even if they are not at home. The crux of the matter is: detained asylum seekers are people with fundamental human rights; can the government take them seriously?

Ms Vella writes on behalf of the Jesuit Refugee Service, Malta.