The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Maltese government to pay a migrant €28,000 for keeping him in “inhuman and degrading” conditions at the Safi Detention Centre which they must pay within three months of the final judgement.

Among some of the complaints, the asylum applicant reported that he was detained for 225 days with little-to-no access to drinking water, no heating in colder months and no cooling in hotter ones, very little ventilation, no time outdoors, and prolonged periods of isolation while suffering from PTSD and depression, among other complaints.

This case sheds light on the horrific living conditions endured by migrants, showing a sense of disregard from the state for the well-being of these humans’ lives. In fact, it was ruled that the Maltese government was in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

These articles seek to protect individuals’ freedom from torture and the right to liberty respectively.

The migrant argued that there was no common room for detainees to socialise in, no tables or chairs,  one set of clothes and one sheet, no access to a prayer room or private space, limited-to-no access to a phone to make calls, including to his lawyers, no access to any leisure activities, and a lack of adequate medical and psychosocial support.

In addition to this, he complained that the information provided to him regarding his medical situation and medical situation was not provided to him in a language that he understood.

He further explained that the bucket given to wash clothes was the same that was used to wash the floors which was further only done by detainees. And the lack of drinking water forced him to drink from a “rusty tap”, despite the poor quality.

In the early days of his detention, the teen stated that he was just 16 years old and while this could not be verified by official documentation, he was considered a presumed minor.

However, for a significant portion of his detention, he was kept with adults despite his age, the case reads. Meanwhile, asylum-seekers in the centre were addressed by their immigration police numbers instead of their names and surnames.

The government countered some of these arguments, claiming that detainees were allowed outside and that no minors were detained with adults. However, they lacked evidence to back up these claims.

The government further disputed that the applicant had been required to wash his clothing in a bucket, as the block in which he was situated had a designated sink to wash clothing, which the applicant could have made use of freely.

The bucket and other cleaning products and equipment were provided to the detainees to keep the premises clean in line with a policy of shared responsibility, the state argued.

Meanwhile, it argued that they were given a phone with unlimited calls, a multipurpose room, and were afforded at least 1.5 hours of outdoor access daily.

This contrasts the details provided by the applicant who argued that the phone he was given was unable to execute outgoing calls, so he had to wait to be phoned up, there was very little if any access to an outdoor area, and no prayer or common room.

Meanwhile, with regard to the applicant’s health status, the Court noted that after an assessment in February 2022, moved him from a regime of “restriction of movement” to detention – with the accommodation conditions remaining the same. At this time, it was known that the presumed minor was suffering from tuberculosis, depression, and PTSD.

The court further said that “it finds it hard to consider that such a decision could have been taken with the best interests of the child constituting a primary consideration, and bearing in mind the minor’s general well-being and social development, as required by Regulation 14 of S.L. 420.06.”

Ultimately, the ECHR unanimously concluded that the Maltese government violated Article 3, 5 § 1 (on two separate occasions), and 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Article 3 refers to the prohibition of torture, while Article 5 refers to the right to liberty.

Subsequently, it has been ordered to pay the applicant €25,000 plus any tax that can be chargeable in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €3,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.

From the expiry of the three-month cut-off date, the state must pay simple interest on these amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Read the full court case here.

Do you think that this is the right decision?