The public health watchdog can detain people for health reasons, the government is insisting, after the European Court of Human Rights declared the practice illegal.

The Maltese authorities will continue to safeguard the health interests of all those residing in the country and will continue to provide all irregular migrants with the treatment needed, a home affairs ministry spokesperson told Times of Malta following the ruling.

Last week, a 17-year-old Ivorian migrant who spent 225 days in detention, including a spell of confinement inside a one-windowed container, was awarded €25,000 in damages by the ECHR.

The Strasbourg-based court declared that the practice of detaining migrants “for health reasons” under order by the Superintendent for Public Health was illegal.

A ministry spokesperson told the newspaper that the government will be responding to the ECHR “in due course”. He was replying to a set of questions about changes the government planned on bringing about following the ECHR observations.

The spokesperson said that, following disembarkation in Malta, the migrant was detained in line with national legislation that empowered the superintendent of public health to detain any person on public health grounds.

“Prior to arriving in Malta, [he] had transited through third countries considered as high risk from a health point of view. Following the necessary medical checks, he was found to have tuberculosis and was, therefore, provided with all the required medical care, including some days at Mater Dei Hospital, free of charge.”

The spokesperson added that a similar matter was brought by the same individual in front of the Maltese courts, where the court ruled that the superintendent had the power, by law, to detain him until he was given the necessary medication so that he would not pose a danger to others or himself.

The home affairs ministry also noted the migrant “tried to mislead the Maltese authorities by claiming to be a minor, after first claiming to be an adult”. Following an age assessment test, it was confirmed that he was actually an adult and not a minor and this was also confirmed on appeal, the spokesperson added.

“During this period, even though it was clear he is an adult, he was still kept in a section separate from adults and with other people alleging to be unaccompanied minors, in full conformity with EU legislation,” he said, adding that, throughout his time at Safi detention centre, he was closely followed by professionals.

'EU legislation allows for the possibility to detain vulnerable people'

“While EU legislation allows for the possibility to detain vulnerable people, including (unaccompanied) minors, government policy has always been that people confirmed to be unaccompanied minors are not issued with a detention order but are instead accommodated in a specialised centre operated by Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers.”

The spokesperson said that, since 2021, the Maltese authorities embarked on a large-scale refurbishment project at the centres operated by the detention services agency, providing premises “with better living conditions”. Detainees are now also being provided “fully-fledged healthcare services at par with the health services offered in the community”.

Contrary to what has been alleged by the migrant in the ECHR case, he had open access to temperature-controlled potable water, the spokesperson said.

“This feeling was expressed by internationally recognised entities during the past months. Moreover, Times of Malta journalists are invited to visit the centres and asses the continuous improvements.”

When Times of Malta was, in 2021, allowed in the Safi detention centre, the visit was controlled. The visit was a first in several years and the journalist was not allowed to speak to the migrants, record, film or photograph anything within the detention centre.

What did Times of Malta ask the government?

Will Malta stop detaining people for health reasons?

Will there be any policy changes/system update to ensure the keeping of proper records of who is being detained and by whom?

How will it adapt reception conditions according to the age of children seeking asylum to ensure that those conditions do not create for them a situation of stress and anxiety, with particularly traumatic consequences?

What is the government’s reaction to the comment that constitutional redress proceedings are not an effective remedy for the purposes of complaints of ongoing conditions of detention under Article 3?