Malta violated human rights by exposing detainee to COVID quarantine patients

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Malta unlawfully held a detainee alone for 77 days and exposed him to COVID-19 patients without justification.

The Strasbourg-based court found that the Maltese authorities had violated multiple articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in their treatment of Joseph Feilazoo, a Nigerian national who resides in Ħal Safi.

It ordered the state to pay Feilazoo €25,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

“In particular, the Court was struck that the applicant had been held alone without access to natural light for 77 days, during much of which time he had also had no access to exercise,” the ruling said.

“The Court was also very concerned by the unrebutted allegations that the applicant had been housed with people in Covid-19 quarantine where there appeared to have been no medical reason to do so.”

Feilazoo brought the case against the government, complaining of excessive force, unlawful detention, poor conditions, lack of investigation, and that the State hindered his right to petition the Court.

The Court found Malta in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and Article 34 (right to individual application).

The Court said it had already expressed concern “about the appropriateness of the place and the conditions of detention where the applicant had been detained,” referring to the Safi Barracks detention facility.

It noted that other complaints, relating to poor ventilation, the presence of pests, and malfunctioning toilets, were also unrebutted by the government.

Feilazoo’s legal troubles began in February 2010, when he pleaded guilty to drug-related offences. He was sentenced to prison and fined. However, unable to pay the fine, he was given an additional 22-and-a-half-month sentence.

He expressed his intention to return to Spain, where he had previously resided, but Spanish authorities refused to accept him. Following his release from prison, he was taken to the immigration office and told he would be sent back to Nigeria.

At one point, he allegedly became aggressive. “It was alleged that at one point the applicant had become aggressive, causing harm to and even biting prison officers; pepper spray was used on the applicant,” the judgment noted.

Two prison officers filed complaints, and an investigation was launched. Feilazoo was questioned without a lawyer and was subsequently convicted and imprisoned again in 2019.

During this second term, he claimed he was moved through different security regimes to restrict access to legal aid, and that authorities interfered with access to his medical records.

Later that year, he was released from prison but placed directly into immigration detention, where he remained for more than a year.

The Nigerian authorities have refused to issue a travel document, and so the applicant has not yet been deported.

The Court noted that while authorities had justified his detention on the grounds of deportation, “it did not appear that the authorities had sufficiently pursued the passport matter with the Nigerian authorities”.

It also ruled that the entire detention period could not be justified as deportation-related and thus constituted a violation of his right to liberty and security.

Finally, the Court found a breach of the applicant’s right to individual application under Article 34. It ruled that “the authorities had failed to ensure that the applicant had been provided with the possibility of obtaining copies of documents which he had needed to substantiate his application”.

It added that “the applicant’s representation had been inadequate in the light of, especially, the lack of diligence in dealing with his case, the lack of regular lawyer-client contact despite the Court’s requests, and the inaction on the part of the authorities to rectify the situation.”

The judgment was delivered by a Chamber of seven judges, including Lorraine Schembri Orland of Malta.