20 euros can contribute to interpreters that allow clients to speak in their native language.
25 euros can contribute to research into human rights and to influencing policy and legislation for long term change.
50 euros can contribute to the cost of providing free legal information for those who are struggling to access their basic human rights in Malta.
100 euros can contribute to running our small office.
More info in our Donations Policy.
Ħafna aspetti tar-reġim ta’ detenzjoni ta’ Malta mhumiex konformi mal-obbligazzjonijiet internazzjonali, Ewropej, u saħansitra nazzjonali. Waqt li nibqgħu nipprovdu servizzi legali lil persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni u nsegwu l-kundizzjonijiet ta’ għajxien tagħhom, fl-għeruq ta’ kull attività fil-kampanjar tagħna niġġieldu d-detenzjoni illegali.
Nemmnu bi sħiħ li jeżistu alternattivi għad-detenzjoni.
L-avukati biss jitħallew iżuru persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni, u biex iżuruhom iridu jkunu jafu isimhom u n-numru tagħhom. Dan jagħmluh f’iżolament u jfisser li NGOs oħrajn li joffru għajnuna lil hinn minn dik legali ma jitħallewx jidħlu. Fost dawn hemm l-MGRM u l-JRS Malta li joffru servizz ta’ psikosoċjalità. L-esperjenza u r-riċerka globali juruna li meta persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni ma jitħallewx jaraw avukati, assistenti soċjali, rappreżentanti reliġjużi, tobba u oħrajn, jidħlu f’riskju akbar li jinkisrulhom id-drittijiet umani tagħhom.
Ħallu lill-NGOs jidħlu fejn jgħixu l-persuni miżmuma. Ħallu lill-NGOs jżuru lill-persuni miżmuma biex jagħtu servizz u jipprovdu l-għanuna.
Qatt mhu fl-aħjar interess tat-tfal li jinżammu f’detenzjoni minħabba immigrazzjoni.
Tibqgħux iżżommu lit-tfal f’detenzjoni wara l-iżbark tagħhom. Adottaw il-preżunzjoni li l-persuni li jistqarru li huma tfal huma minuri.
Il-Bord tal-Appell dwar l-Immigrazzjoni huwa diżappunt. Mhuwiex legalment kompetenti biex jiddeċiedi dwar każijiet ta’ detenzjoni, la taħt il-Konvenzjoni Ewropea dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u lanqas taħt il-Liġi tal-UE. Persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni ma jistgħux jaċċessaw korp ġudizzjarju biex jisfidaw il-legalità tad-detenzjoni tagħhom.
Għandha tiġi adottata leġiżlazzjoni li permezz tagħha korp ġudizzjarju li huwa verament indipendenti u imparzjali jieħu post il-Bord tal-Appell dwar l-Immigrazzjoni. Il-proċeduri ta’ reviżjoni tad-detenzjoni regolari għandhom jiġu ddokumentati b’mod xieraq. Meta l-liġi titlob li d-detenzjoni għandha tiġi rriveduta, dawn ir-reviżjonijiet għandhom ikunu fil-ħin, effettivi, aċċessibbli u konformi mal-garanziji proċedurali bażiċi.
L-iskrinjar għall-vulnerabbiltà mal-iżbark mhuwiex profond biżżejjed biex jidentifika kull persuna vulnerabbli u ma jsirx skrinjar regolari tal-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni. Barra minn hekk, xi drabi, persuni vulnerabbli jinżammu f’detenzjoni biex jirċievu kura u għajnuna mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni.
Persuni identifikati bħala vulnerabbli għandhom jinħelsu minnufih u jingħataw għajnuna mill-Aġenzija għall-Benesseri tal-Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil (AWAS). L-identifikazzjoni tal-vulnerabbiltà għandha ssir minn professjonisti indipendenti.
Il-liġi internazzjonali, Ewropea u nazzjonali jistabbilixxu punti li għandhom ikunu fis-seħħ qabel dawn jippermettu d-detenzjoni ta’ persuna. Deċiżjonijiet dwar detenzjoni għandhom ikunu msejsa fuq ċirkustanzi individwali, iddokumentati kif xieraq, u l-persuna li se tinżamm trid tiġi mgħarrfa dwar ir-raġunijiet għad-detenzjoni tagħha u l-liġi warajha. Persuna tista’ biss tinżamm f’detenzjoni abbażi tar-raġunijiet mogħtija mil-liġi.
Il-politika ġenerali li tadotta Malta ma tilħaqx dawn l-istandards.
Għal kull detenzjoni, ipprovdu r-raġunijiet speċifiċi skont il-liġi. Esploraw b’mod attiv alternattivi għad-detenzjoni.
Diversi korpi għad-drittijiet umani, fosthom il-Kumitat Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni tat-Tortura u t-Trattament u Pieni Inumani jew Degradanti u l-Kummissarju għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, ikkritikaw l-istat diżastruż taċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni f’Malta.
L-approċċ ġie deskritt bħala “negliġenza istituzzjonali” u, skontna, jikkostitwixxi trattament inuman u degradanti.
Malta żżomm f’detenzjoni diversi gruppi ta’ persuni. L-immigranti kollha li jissalvaw fuq il-baħar immedjatament jinżammu f’detenzjoni wara l-iżbark tagħhom.
Ħafna drabi, persuni li jfittxu ażil ukoll jinżammu f’detenzjoni. Jekk jiġu salvati fuq il-baħar, jibqgħu miżmuma f’detenzjoni matul il-proċedura tal-ażil kollha. Jekk ikunu qed jgħixu f’Malta, jinġabru malli jressqu l-applikazzjoni tagħhom għal ażil fl-Uffiċċju tal-Aġenzija għall-Protezzjoni Internazzjonali. Rajna wkoll persuni li nżammu f’detenzjoni wara li ġew lura Malta minn Stat Membru ieħor tal-UE skont il-proċedura ta’ Dublin.
Malta żżomm ukoll persuni f’detenzjoni meta jiskadilhom il-permess biex jibqgħu Malta. Fost dawn insibu persuni li baqgħu Malta wara li skadielhom il-permess, persuni li ġew irrifjutati l-ażil u xi drabi saħansitra vittmi tat-traffikar uman. Dawn jinżammu f’detenzjoni biex jintbagħtu lura lejn il-pajjiż ta’ oriġni tagħhom. Fosthom insibu wkoll persuni li għandhom permess ta’ residenza minn Stat Membru ieħor tal-UE, u għalhekk jintbagħtu f’dak il-pajjiż. Minkejja li persuni apolidi (stateless) m’għandhomx jinżammu f’detenzjoni, minħabba li m’għandhomx pajjiż ta’ oriġni identifikat, xorta jinżammu f’detenzjoni.
Persuni li jaslu fl-Ajruport Internazzjonali ta’ Malta mingħajr id-dokumenti neċessarji biex jidħlu f’Malta, bħal viża valida, jinżammu f’detenzjoni u jintbagħtu lura lejn il-pajjiż li ġew minnu.
Il-liġi tistqarr li l-persuni li jfittxu ażil jistgħu jinżammu f’detenzjoni sa massimu ta’ disa’ xhur, waqt li persuni li għandhom ordni ta’ tneħħija jistgħu jinżammu sa 18-il xahar. Skont l-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, fl-2024, il-medja kienet ta’ 46.5 jum – bl-inqas waħda tkun ta’ jum wieħed biss u l-ogħla waħda, 754 jum.
Persuni identifikati bħala vulnerabbli waqt l-iżbark tagħhom jinżammu f’detenzjoni għal żmien qasir ħafna. Fil-każ ta’ persuni oħrajn li jfittxu ażil, iż-żmien f’detenzjoni huwa marbut mal-pajjiż ta’ oriġni tagħhom: normalment, persuni li għandhom ċans akbar li jingħataw protezzjoni internazzjonali jinżammu għal madwar xahrejn, waqt li l-oħrajn kollha jinżammu f’detenzjoni tul il-proċedura kollha tal-ażil.
Persuni miżmuma wara ordni ta’ tneħħija spiss jinżammu f’detenzjoni sakemm jitneħħew. Il-proċedura tista’ tieħu minn ftit jiem sa perjodu massimu ta’ 18-il xahar.
Fl-2024, l-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni rrapportat li żammet 1,624 persuna, li minnhom 1,519 kienu rġiel u 105 nisa. Punt interessanti huwa li l-Aġenzija tirrapporta wkoll li l-akbar grupp ta’ persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni huwa magħmul minn ċittadini Sirjani. Fl-2023, l-ammont kien ta’ 1,467: 1,392 kienu rġiel u 75 nisa.
Fl-2024, Malta neħħiet il-projbizzjoni legali fuq id-detenzjoni ta’ persuni vulnerabbli. Ironikament, dan ikkonforma l-liġi mal-prattika li konna ilna nosservaw għal snin sħaħ, għax minkejja l-projbizzjoni, persuni vulnerabbli xorta kienu jinżammu f’detenzjoni.
Persuni li jiġu salvati fuq il-baħar, wara l-iżbark tagħhom, jinżammu f’detenzjoni. L-Aġenzija għal-Beneserri tal-Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil (AWAS) tkun preżenti waqt din il-proċedura fi tfittxija għall-aktar persuni vulnerabbli, li jinżammu f’detenzjoni għal ftit jiem biss. Dawk li ma jitqisux vulnerabbli jibqgħu miżmuma fiċ-China House jew fiċ-Ċentru ta’ Detenzjoni ta’ Ħal Safi.
Minn hemm ’il quddiem, jekk l-AWAS tikkonferma li persuna partikolari hija vulnerabbli, normalment tinħeles: persuni evidentement vulnerabbli jiġu identifikati aktar malajr, waqt li oħrajn b’vulnerabbiltà anqas evidenti jistgħu jqattgħu xhur sħaħ f’detenzjoni sakemm xi ħadd jinduna bil-vulnerabbiltà tagħhom u sussegwentement bil-ħtieġa tagħhom għal għajnuna. Reċentement, il-mandat tal-AWAS ġie ristrett għal persuni li jinsabu fi proċedura ta’ ażil, u dan ifisser li ma għadx għandha permess tevalwa persuni li mhumiex ifittxu ażil humiex vulnerabbli jew le, fosthom persuni li għandhom ordni ta’ tneħħija pendenti. Dan ifisser li essenzjalment, din il-politika, tabbanduna lil dawk l-aktar vulnerabbli, u tikkostitwixxi abbuż istituzzjonali.
It-titjib li sar fis-servizz tas-saħħa tal-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni wassal biex persuni vulnerabbli jinżammu f’detenzjoni, bir-raġunament li qed jingħataw kura adegwata fiċ-ċentru ta’ detenzjoni. Dan ħareġ mid-data fir-Rapporti Annwali tal-Aġenzija tal-2023 u l-2024.
Sforz l-aċċess ħafna aktar limitat li għandna għaċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni bħalissa meta mqabbel mas-snin preċedenti, għandna inqas possibbiltà li nidentifikaw u nirreferu persuni vulnerabbli.
Fuq kollox, il-ħsara kkawżata mid-detenzjoni hija ddokumentata tajjeb. L-esperjenza ta’ detenzjoni fiha nnifisha, tapprofondixxi l-vulnerabbiltajiet, u xi drabi saħansitra toħloq vulnerabbiltajiet li ma kinux jeżistu. Naraw dan f’kull żjara f’ċentru ta’ detenzjoni, b’dawk miżmuma jmorru lura bħal ġranċ minn ġimgħa għal oħra.
Ir-Regolament 6(B) dwar l-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil jitlob li l-awtoritajiet kompetenti jiżguraw monitoraġġ regolari u appoġġ adegwat, iqisu s-sitwazzjoni partikolari tagħhom, fosthom saħħithom. Meta familji sħaħ jinżammu f’detenzjoni, ir-Regolamenti jitolbu li l-awtoritajiet jipprovdu akkomodazzjoni separata għalihom. In-nisa jistgħu jinżammu f’detenzjoni ma’ qrabathom irġiel jekk jagħtu l-kunsens tagħhom biss.
Skont ir-Regolamenti, il-minuri mhumiex mitfugħa f’keffa waħda. Twaqqfu regoli differenti għal minuri li huma akkumpanjati, għal dawk li mhumiex, u għal persuni li jistqarru li huma minuri. Minuri akkumpanjati għandhom jinżammu f’detenzjoni bħala miżura tal-aħħar għażla biss, u jekk ebda alternattiva anqas restrittiva ma tista’ taħdem. L-aħjar interessi tal-minuri għandhom jiġu l-ewwel. Waqt li l-minuri jinżammu f’detenzjoni, għandu jkollhom aċċess għal attivitajiet ta’ logħob u rikreazzjoni. Minuri mhux akkumpanjati għandhom jinżammu f’detenzjoni f’ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali biss, u qatt f’akkomodazzjoni ristretta. Persuni li jistqarru li huma minuri jistgħu jinżammu f’detenzjoni bħala miżura tal-aħħar għażla biss, sakemm l-istqarrija tagħhom li huma minuri mhi bla ebda bażi.
L-evalwar tal-vulnerabbiltà wara l-iżbark mhuwiex sħiħ, u persuni vulnerabbli li iżda ma ġewx evalwati bħala tali, jinżammu fiċ-China House jew fiċ-Ċentru ta’ Detenzjoni ta’ Ħal Safi. Hemmhekk, jiddependu fuq il-possibbiltà li xi ħadd jidentifikahom bħala vulnerabbli biex jiskatta l-proċess. Diversi vulnerabbiltajiet huma moħbija, kemm minħabba n-natura tagħhom, kif ukoll minħabba li ma jiġux żvelati faċilment u għalhekk jistgħu jgħaddu xhur sakemm xi persuni vulnerabbli jiġu identifikati. Min-naħa tagħna, ma nemmnux li s-servizzi ta’ għajnuna fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni jilħqu l-firxa ta’ ħtiġijiet li jeżistu, li ħafna drabi huma kumplessi ħafna.
Ir-Regolament 10 dwar l-Istandards u Proċeduri Komuni għar-Ritorn ta’ Ċittadini ta’ Pajjiżi li Jkunu Qegħdin fil-Pajjiż Illegalment jiddikjara li minuri mhux akkumpanjati u familji b’minuri għandhom jinżammu f’detenzjoni biss bħala l-aħħar miżura u għall-iqsar perjodu ta’ żmien possibbli. Familji miżmuma f’detenzjoni sakemm titwettaq it-tneħħija tagħhom għandhom jiġu pprovduti b’akkomodazzjoni separata li tiggarantixxi privatezza xierqa. Il-provvediment jiggarantixxi aktar salvagwardji speċifiċi għal minuri f’detenzjoni, bħall-possibbiltà li jinvolvu ruħhom f’attivitajiet ta’ ħin liberu, inkluż attivitajiet ta’ logħob u rikreazzjoni adattati għall-età tagħhom, u għandu jkollhom, skont it-tul tas-soġġorn tagħhom, aċċess għall-edukazzjoni Statali f’Malta.
Sa fejn hu possibbli, minuri mhux akkumpanjati, għandhom jiġu pprovduti b’akkomodazzjoni f’istituzzjoni pprovduta b’persunal u faċilitajiet li jikkunsidraw il-ħtiġijiet tal-persuni tal-età tagħhom.
Ħadd ma jevalwa l-possibbiltà ta’ vulnerabbiltajiet tal-persuni li jinġabru mit-toroq, minn tal-linja, djarhom, jew il-post tax-xogħol tagħhom. Fl-2024 u l-2025, inġabru gruppi ta’ persuni mingħajr saqaf fuq rashom, uħud minnhom bi problemi serji ta’ saħħa mentali, u wara li nħelsu mill-ħabs, inżammu awtomatikament f’detenzjoni. Uħud minnhom intbagħtu lura malajr malajr lejn il-pajjiżi ta’ oriġni tagħhom
Barra minn hekk, persuni vulnerabbli miżmuma f’detenzjoni bil-għan li jitneħħew mill-pajjiż, ma għandhomx aċċess għas-servizzi ta’ identifikazzjoni u l-għajnuna tal-AWAS. Il-benesseri tagħhom huma dependenti għalkollox mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni.
Minħabba li persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni fl-ajruport jintbagħtu lura ftit sigħat jew jiem wara, huwa improbabbli ħafna li jiġu skrinjati għal vulnerabbiltajiet. Fl-2024, Malta żammet f’detenzjoni grupp ta’ tfal Sirjani fl-ajruport, u wara intbagħtu fiċ-Ċentru ta’ Detenzjoni ta’ Ħal Safi għax kienu fi stat wisq ħażin biex jintbagħtu lura fit-titjira disponibbli li jmiss.
Kif semmejna qabel, Malta żżomm lit-tfal f’detenzjoni. L-aħjar interessi tagħhom ma jiġux iddeterminati qabel tittieħed id-deċiżjoni li jinżammu f’detenzjoni.
L-awtoritajiet ma jqisux il-preżunzjoni ta’ età minuri, kif mitlub mil-liġi internazzjonali, u minflok iżommu lit-tfal f’detenzjoni sakemm tiġi evalwata l-età tagħhom fiż-‘żona tat-tfal’ fiċ-Ċentru ta’ Detenzjoni ta’ Ħal Safi. Il-proċess ta’ evalwar tal-età jista’ jieħu diversi xhur, ħafna drabi minħabba dewmien fl-istadju ta’ appell quddiem il-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni. It-tfal fil-każ J.B. u Oħrajn vs Malta inżammu f’detenzjoni minn Novembru tal-2022 sa Mejju tal-2023, u t-tifel fil-każ A.D. vs Malta nżamm f’detenzjoni minn Novembru tal-2021 sa Lulju tal-2022. Ayoubah Fona nżamm għal 58 jum.
Aħna qatt ma żorna ‘ż-żona tat-tfal’, madankollu skont il-klijenti tagħna, qatt ma jingħataw xi forma ta’ edukazzjoni u qatt ma tiġi organizzata ebda attività adattata għat-tfal. L-AWAS iżżurhom regolarment.
Barra milli r-reġim ta’ detenzjoni tat-tfal f’Malta jikser diversi standards tad-drittijiet umani, insibuh bħala wieħed li jmur kontra l-prinċipji tal-Qafas ta’ Politika għat-Tfal 2024-2030: li jpoġġi fuq quddiem id-drittijiet tat-tfal; l-aħjar interessi tat-tfal; l-opportunitajiet indaqs għat-tfal; u l-appoġġ ta’ kwalità għolja.
Detention.MT huwa xogħol il-Fondazzjoni aditus u proprjetà tagħha. Dan il-proġett sar realtà bis-saħħa tal-għajnuna ġeneruża ta’ PROASYL. Sar ħafna xogħol biex jitwaqqaf Detention.MT, għalhekk, jekk jogħġobkom meta tikkwotaw xi ħaġa minn dawn il-paġni, irrikonoxxuna.
Qed nagħmlu kulma nistgħu biex is-sit Detention.MT ikun sħiħ kemm jista’ jkun, imma nifhmu li xi riżorsi setgħu qabżulna. Għalhekk, jekk għandkom xi riżorsi jew informazzjoni li taħsbu li jistgħu jkunu relevanti, napprezzaw jekk taqsmuhom magħna.
Aħna naġġornaw Detention.MT kull sena bejn Jannar u Marzu. Jekk għandkom xi mistoqsijiet jew tixtiequ tikkontribwixxu għal dan is-sit, tistgħu tikkuntattjawna permezz ta’ email indirizzata lil info@aditus.org.mt.
Krediti tar-Ritratti: Għar-ritratt tar-raġel bi flokk oranġjo bilwieqfa mal-kanċell taċ-ċentru tad-detenzjoni; għar-ritratt ta’ persuni lebsin life-jackets oranġjo u blu; għar-ritratt ta’ żewġt irġiel reqdin; għar-ritratt ta’ raġel f’detenzjoni bi flokk griż; għar-ritratt ta’ grupp ta’ rġiel f’detenzjoni jitolbu; għar-ritratt ta’ persuni fuq dgħajsa lebsin life-jackets oranġjo, ikkreditaw lil Darrin Zammit Lupi. Fil-każ tar-ritratti l-oħrajn kollha, ikkreditaw lill-Fondazzjoni aditus.
Nixtiequ nirringrazzjaw minn qalbna lill-ħbieb tagħna li jaħdmu għal PROASYL tal-ġenerożità tagħhom lejn ix-xogħol li nagħmlu marbut mad-detenzjoni kif ukoll talli għamlu Detention.MT realtà.
Grazzi wkoll lil Alastair Burnett għal ħinu, il-paċenzja u l-impenn tiegħu biex stajna ngħaqqdu Detention.MT flimkien. Bħal dejjem, grazzi lil Jean Paul Borg li ttraduċa dawn il-paġni għall-Malti. Grazzi wkoll lil Darrin Zammit Lupi talli jaqbad il-vjaġġi migratorji bil-kamera tiegħu perfettament.
Sal-2018, kellna aċċess sħiħ għaċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni u l-persuni miżmuma fihom. NGOs oħrajn ukoll kellhom aċċess. Bis-saħħa ta’ dan l-aċċess, konna norganizzaw sessjonijiet ta’ informazzjoni ma’ gruppi fil-kwartieri li jgħixu fihom, u nidentifikaw aktar faċilment persuni vulnerabbli u persuni li jeħtieġu għajnuna legali kumplessa. L-aċċess li kellna kien jippermettilna wkoll biex niġbdu l-attenzjoni tal-awtoritajiet dwar kwistjonijiet ta’ kuljum: fosthom il-kwalità tad-doxox, il-ħwejjeġ, l-ikel, is-saħħa, u l-aċċess għal barra. Konna wkoll nibnu relazzjonijiet mill-qrib mal-klijenti tagħna.
Illum l-aċċess tagħna huwa biss għall-kamra tal-bord fiċ-Ċentru ta’ Detenzjoni ta’ Ħal Safi, u għalhekk ma għadniex nistgħu ngħaddu informazzjoni dwar l-istrutturi tal-faċilitajiet. Ħafna mill-informazzjoni miġbura hawn isfel hija meħuda minn diversi rapporti tal-Kumitat Kontra t-Tortura (CPT) tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa.
Madankollu, nistgħu nikkonfermaw li ċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni ta’ Malta huma spazji b’element qawwi ta’ militarizzazzjoni, li jġibu s-sigurtà u l-għeluq qabel il-benesseri u d-dinjità ta’ min hu miżmum fihom. L-ambjent ta’ kull post ta’ detenzjoni huwa simili għal ta’ ħabs, b’interjuri b’bibien ta’ metall tqil li jagħtu laqta pessimista, twieqi mbarrati, mingħajr ebda ħsieb dwar il-kumdità tal-persuni li se jgħixu fihom. Meta l-persuni miżmuma jiċċaqalqu minn post għal ieħor jiġu mmanettjati u waqt li jkunu taħt detenzjoni, kull aspett ta’ ħajjithom jiddependi għalkollox mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi tad-Detenzjoni, fosthom jekk jistgħux jiltaqgħu ma’ avukati jew NGOs.
Il-kundizzjonijiet ta’ dawn il-postijiet huma diskussi f’tema separata.
L-Ordni dwar Dikjarazzjoni ta’ Postijiet ta’ Detenzjoni telenka l-postijiet ta’ detenzjoni skont l-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni, iżda ftit minnhom jintużaw bħala postijiet ta’ detenzjoni. Jeżistu wkoll ċentri ta’ detenzjoni li mhumiex imfassla biex ikunu ċentri ta’ detenzjoni.
L-Ajruport Internazzjonali ta’ Malta
Elenkati
Yes
Jintużaw
Yes
Minn Min
Irġiel, nisa, u tfal
Għaliex Jintuża
Għal persuni li fl-ajruport jiġu pprojbiti milli jidħlu fil-pajjiż, u għalhekk jintbagħtu lura mill-pajjiż li ġew fl-istess titjira jew dik li jmiss
L-Initial Reception Centre ta’ Ħal Far (China House)
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
No
Minn Min
Irġiel | Tfal mhux akkumpanjati
Għaliex Jintuża
Għal persuni li għadhom kif waslu li ma jidhrux vulnerabbli | Persuni li jfittxu ażil | Persuni li qed jistennew tluq
Is-Safi Barracks
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
Minn Min
Irġiel | Nisa | Tfal mhux akkumpanjati
Għaliex Jintuża
Għal persuni li jfittxu ażil | Persuni li qed jistennew tluq
Iċ-Ċentru Miftuħ ta’ Ħal Far (HOC)
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
Minn Min
Kull persuna li tidher vulnerabbli | Persuni li m’hemmx post għalihom fis-Safi Barracks
Għaliex Jintuża
Għal persuni li għadhom jaslu li jeħtieġu skrining mediku | Persuni li m’hemmx post għalihom fis-Safi Barracks
Il-Kwartieri tal-iSpecial Assignment Group
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
L-Għassa tal-Pulizija tar-Rabat Għawdex
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Mhux għal detenzjoni tal-immigranti
Il-Qrati tal-Ġustizzja
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Mhux għal detenzjoni tal-immigranti
Il-Kwartieri Ġenerali tal-Pulizija
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Mhux għal detenzjoni tal-immigranti
Il-Port il-Kbir, il-Belt Valletta
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
Il-Lyster Barracks
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
Il-Kumpless tal-Pulizija f’Fort Mosta
Elenkati
Iva
Jintużaw
Le
Kamra taħt l-art tal-ajruport b’seba’ sodod, żewġ bankijiet tal-metall, żewġ imwejjed, żewġ doxox, u tojlit.
Nistqarru li qatt ma rajna din il-kamra.
Dan huwa l-akbar ċentru ta’ detenzjoni u huwa parti miż-żona magħluqa tal-kwartieri tal-Forzi Armati ta’ Malta. Dan iċ-ċentru huwa magħmul minn diversi blokok u jista’ jilqa’ madwar 1,000 persuna, bi blokka minnhom tilqa’ esklużivament lit-tfal mhux akkumpanjati u oħra lin-nisa.
Blokok A, Ċ u D huma dormitorji kbar b’diversi żoni fi ħdan kull blokka.
Fi Blokka A, diversi kmamar għandhom żewġ settijiet ta’ 10 bunk beds f’arja ta’ madwar 40m2. Kull kamra għandha xi armarji, imwejjed, u siġġijiet. It-twieqi u l-bibien huma mbarrati, bil-bibien jagħtu għal kuritur komuni bi ftit bankijiet u mwejjed. Hemm ukoll tojlits u doxox komuni. Kull blokka għandha bitħa tat-tarmak għall-eżerċizzji, u din trid tinqasam bejn l-erba’ żoni ta’ kull blokka għal ftit sigħat kuljum.
Il-parti riżervata għan-nisa fi Blokka B tilqa’ sa 12-il mara. Hija magħmula minn unitajiet prifabbrikati madwar bitħa tat-tarmak parzjalment imdella, b’mejda fuq barra, bankijiet, u librerija żgħira. Il-kmamar għandhom air conditioners u heaters imwaħħlin mal-ħajt.
Blokka B hija żewġt imħażen li tilqa’ sa 550 persuna, u mimlija b’fillieri ta’ bunk beds. Wieħed mill-imħażen huwa maqsum internament f’unitajiet iżgħar. Fit-tnejn li huma, hemm tojlits u doxox komuni.
Blokka Ċ, tilqa’ sa 70 persuna, u hija mimlija fillieri ta’ bunk beds. Għandha ftit imwejjed u siġġijiet, doxox u tojlits komuni kif ukoll żona biex il-persuni miżmuma jaħslu ħwejjiġhom.
Blokka G hija s-Central Monitoring Unit (CMU), u tilqa’ sa seba’ persuni. Għandha tliet ċelel għal persuna waħda ta’ madwar 4.8m2 u żewġ ċelel għal żewġ persuni ta’ madwar 7m2. Din tal-aħħar għandha żewġ bunk beds u tojlits mingħajr għatu li mhumiex osservati. Iż-żewġ żoni huma mmonitorjati minn CCTV 24/7. Hemm bitħa żgħira b’mejda, żewġ bankijiet u magna tal-ħasil.
Blokka D hija l-Ħal Far Initial Reception Centre.
Din il-blokka hija ċentru ta’ detenzjoni separat, imma formalment imfassla bħala Blokka D fi ħdan is-Safi Barracks. Hija magħmula minn tliet żoni (A-Ċ) u tilqa’ sa 170 persuna.
Żona Ċ għandha erba’ kmamar miftuħa ta’ madwar 18m2 kull waħda, b’sitt settijiet ta’ bunk beds. Għandha żona komuni kbira li ġeneralment tintuża biex il-persuni miżmuma jieklu flimkien. Iż-żona għandha wkoll kmamar b’doxxa waħda u bi tnejn, kif ukoll sitt tojlits.
Minħabba li lill-klijenti tagħna nistgħu nżuruhom biss fil-kamra tal-bord taċ-ċentru ta’ detenzjoni, ma nistgħux nikkummentaw wisq fuq is-sitwazzjoni materjali taċ-ċentri. Imma ċertament li hemm qabża kbira bejn dak li jingħad fil-qafas legali u r-realtà fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni.
L-informazzjoni li qed nippreżentaw hawn hija msejsa fuq sorsi varji: ir-rapporti annwali tal-Aġenzija għas-Serivizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, il-Bord ta’ Monitoraġġ għal Persuni Detenuti, il-Korp ta’ Kontra t-Tortura tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa (CPT), u l-proċeduri ġudizzjarji (eż., A.D. vs Malta, J.B. u oħrajn vs Malta, Ayoubah Fona vs il-Ministeru għall-Intern, Sigurtà, Riformi u Ugwaljanza ET).
Kollox ma’ kollox, huwa ċar li Malta ma toffrix lill-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni kundizzjonijiet tal-għajxien dinjitużi. L-istejjer tal-klijenti tagħna, ikkorraborati minn rapporti tal-Korp ta’ Kontra t-Tortura tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa u s-sentenzi tal-każijiet imsemmijin hawn fuq, kollha jiġbdu l-attenzjoni dwar kundizzjonijiet tal-għajxien ħżiena b’elementi bażiċi taħt l-istandards mistennija, fosthom it-tojlits u d-doxox; il-ħwejjeġ li jridu jintlibsu mill-persuni miżmuma; il-provvisti marbuta mal-iġjene personali; il-prodotti marbuta ma’ ġeneri speċifiċi; u l-ikel.
Rigward is-servizz tas-saħħa li jingħata lill-persuni miżmuma, kien hemm titjib sinifikanti, imma ftit li xejn tingħata importanza lill-benesseri ġenerali tal-persuni miżmuma. Apparti xi sessjonijiet sportivi minn żmien għal ieħor, ma jeżistix programm strutturat għal attivitajiet edukattivi, kulturali jew ta’ divertiment. Id-deumanizzazzjoni tmissha b’idejk: kulħadd jilbes l-istess ħwejjeġ; kulħadd jissejjaħ b’numru minflok b’ismu; u kulħadd jiddependi għall-inqas ħaġa mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizz ta’ Detenzjoni.
Deċiżjoni wara l-oħra qajmet tħassib serju dwar kif tinżamm id-detenzjoni marbuta mal-immigrazzjoni f’Malta, speċjalment fil-każ ta’ individwi vulnerabbli u t-tfal.
Fit-13 ta’ Jannar 2026, fil-każ ta’ Ayoubah Fona, is-Sede Kostituzzjonali tal-Qorti Ċivili ta’ Malta ddeċidiet sentenza importanti. Fona, kien għad kellu 15-il sena meta wasal Malta. Wara li rnexxielu jeħlisha minn vjaġġ trawmatiku li fih diversi persuni mietu, Fona nżamm l-isptar. Madankollu, mal-ħruġ tiegħu mill-isptar, inżamm f’detenzjoni fiċ-China House u l-Barracks ta’ Ħal Safi.
Il-Qorti sabet li:
Fil-każijiet A.D. vs Malta u J.B. u Oħrajn vs Malta, il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem eżaminat il-kundizzjonijiet tad-detenzjoni marbuta mal-immigrazzjoni f’Malta, u sabet dawn il-problemi serji, fosthom:
Iż-żewġ każijiet sabu li l-effetti flimkien tal-kundizzjonijiet tal-għajxien ħżiena, it-tul tad-detenzjoni, u d-deterjorazzjoni fis-saħħa mentali jikkorrispondu għal trattament inuman u degradanti.
Fl-2025, il-Kumitat Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni tat-Tortura ppubblika r-rapport tiegħu wara li żar Malta fl-2023. Minkejja li minn dak ir-rapport fl-2023, saru xi żviluppi, b’mod ġenerali, is-sitwazzjoni ma nbidlitx wisq.
Xi persuni miżmuma rrapportaw li ġew abbużati fiżikament u verbalment, speċjalment waqt l-inċident tal-ħarba miċ-Ċentru ta’ Ħal Far f’Mejju tal-2023. Stqarrew li qalgħu daqqiet bil-ponn u bis-sieq, ġew immanettjati b’mod issikkat, u kienu soġġetti għal insulti razzisti. Xi dokumentazzjoni medika ssostni dawn l-istqarrijiet. Il-Kumitat Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni tat-Tortura talbet lil Malta biex taddotta approċċ li ma jittollera ebda abbuż u razziżmu.
Il-Kumitat Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni tat-Tortura stqarr li l-kundizzjonijiet fiċ-ċentri ta’ Ħal Safi u Ħal Far għadhom ħorox u li jixbhu lil ta’ ħabs: id-dormitorji huma ffullati, is-saqqijiet maħmuġin, l-iġjene ħażina, id-doxox imkissrin, u l-persuni miżmuma ftit li xejn jingħataw ħin barra.
Ir-rakkomandazzjonijiet ewlenin tiegħu huma:
F’rapport maħruġ fl-2024, il-Kumitat għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem tan-Nazzjonijiet Uniti ukoll qajjem tħassib: nuqqas ta’ data ċara dwar il-prattiċi ta’ detenzjoni, kundizzjonjiet tal-għajxien ħżiena, użu eċċessiv tal-forza, u l-użu ta’ raġunijiet marbuta mas-saħħa biex tiġi ġġustifikata d-detenzjoni mingħajr rimedji legali.
Ir-rakkomandazzjonijiet ewlenin tiegħu huma:
Fl-2015, Malta adottat dokument ta’ politika li jimpenja ruħu li jtejjeb il-kundizzjonijiet tal-għajxien fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni. Id-dokument jistqarr li fil-faċilitajiet għandu jkun hemm aċċess għal klinika, kmamar għal iżolament mediku, telefowns, kmamar għal intervisti għall-Aġenzija għall-Protezzjoni Internazzjonali (IPA) u l-NGOs, kif ukoll spazji għal divertiment u edukazzjoni, u post ta’ qima.
Skont ir-Regolamenti dwar l-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil, l-applikanti li jfittxu protezzjoni internazzjonali għandhom jinżammu f’faċilitajiet speċjalizzati u jinżammu separati, ’il bogħod kemm jista’ jkun, minn persuni minn pajjiżi terzi. Għandhom ikollhom aċċess għal spazji fil-miftuħ, u għandha tiġi pprovduta akkomodazzjoni separata għall-familji, u bejn l-irġiel u n-nisa biex tiġi żgurata l-privatezza.
Iċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni huma mmexxija mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, li taqa’ taħt il-Ministeru għall-Intern, is-Sigurtà u x-Xogħol. L-Aġenzija twaqqfet fl-2023 u hija responsabbli mid-detenzjoni ta’ ċittadini minn pajjiżi terzi li jidħlu Malta irregolarment jew il-preżenza tagħhom f’Malta hija irregolari u nħarġet Ordni ta’ Detenzjoni kontrihom.
Ir-Regolamenti dwar is-Servizz ta’ Detenzjoni tal-2016 ikopru:
Ir-Regolamenti jiddikjaraw li ċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni għandhom jipprovdu “akkomodazzjoni sikura iżda umana” waqt li jippermettu ħelsien kemm jista’ jkun fi ħdan il-limiti tas-sigurtà.
In-nisa miżmuma f’detenzjoni għandhom jinżammu separatament mill-irġiel.
Kull persuna għandha tirċievi dokument magħruf bħala ‘compact’, li jiddikjara d-drittijiet u r-responsabbiltajiet tagħha f’lingwa li tifhem, u għandha jkollha aċċess għar-Regolamenti. Għandu jinżamm rekord personali għal kull persuna miżmuma. Il-persuna li taqdi l-irwol ta’ Kap tas-Servizzi għad-Detenzjoni għandha tipprovdi aġġornamenti dwar kwistjonijiet li jaffettwaw lil kull persuna miżmuma, fosthom applikazzjonijiet għal ażil, applikazzjonijiet marbuta mal-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni, u l-proċedimenti ġudizzjarji quddiem il-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni jew il-Qrati Maltin.
Kull persuna miżmuma f’detenzjoni għandha tkun intitolata li żżomm l-affarijiet personali tagħha (ħlief flus kontanti, jew affarijiet li jistgħu jikkompromettu s-sigurtà) u tilbes ħwejjeġ personali li huma xierqa. Għandhom jiġu pprovduti faċiltajiet għall-ħasil u t-tnixxif tal-ħwejjeġ, u l-NGOs jistgħu jqassmu ħwejjeġ wara li jiksbu permess. L-ikel għandu jkun sustanzjuż, nutrijenti, suffiċjenti, u fejn possibbli, jirrispetta l-ħtiġijiet reliġjużi, kulturali, alimentari, u mediċi.
L-akkomodazzjoni għandu jkollha dawl, sħana, ventilazzjoni, u faċiltajiet sanitarji adegwati, b’faċiltajiet esklużivi għall-irġiel u għan-nisa. Il-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni għandu jkollhom aċċess għal prodotti iġjeniċi u għal faċiltajiet ta’ żamma personali. Huma intitolati għal attivitajiet rikreattivi, edukattivi u fiżiċi kif ukoll għal aċċess għal librerija u għall-inqas siegħa kuljum ta’ eżerċizzju fuq barra, u l-possibbiltà li jipprattikaw ir-reliġjon tagħhom. L-aċċess għal telefowns pubbliċi għandu jkun żgurat.
Il-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni għandu jsirilhom eżami mediku ftit wara d-dħul tagħhom. L-uffiċjali mediċi għandhom jirrapportaw kull tħassib marbut ma’ saħħithom, fosthom ir-riskji marbuta ma’ detenzjoni kontinwa jew kwistjonijiet ta’ saħħa mentali bħal ħsibijiet suwiċidjali. Għandu jkun hemm arranġamenti speċjali, fosthom counselling, meta dawn ikunu neċessarji. Il-Kap tas-Servizzi għad-Detenzjoni għandu kull xahar iressaq rapporti dwar inċidenti lill-Ministru.
Jeżistu diversi mezzi kif tappella jew tisfida l-legalità tad-detenzjoni abbażi tal-qafas legali li taħtu persuna tinżamm f’detenzjoni. Xi miżuri huma maħsuba bħala awtomatiċi waqt li oħrajn jeħtieġu azzjoni mill-persuna miżmuma f’detenzjoni.
Waqt li hemm differenza kbira bejn l-effettività ta’ mezz u ieħor, fil-prattika, il-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni illegalment ftit li xejn għandhom rikors għal ġustizzja. La l-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni u lanqas il-Qrati nazzjonali ma jistgħu jagħtu lill-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni stħarriġ ġudizzjarju tad-detenzjoni tagħhom fil-pront.
Barra minn hekk, il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem stqarret ċarament fil-każ J.B. u Oħrajn vs Malta (2025), li l-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni ma jissodisfax ir-rekwiżiti tal-konvenzjoni bħala ‘korp ġudizzjarju’ minħabba n-nuqqas ta’ indipendenza tiegħu kif ukoll għax hu imparzjali, tant li l-Qorti talbet lil Malta biex tintroduċi emendi legali biex il-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni jikkonforma mal-Konvenzjoni. Il-Kummissjoni ta’ Venenzja ġibdet l-attenzjoni dwar dawn in-nuqqasijiet ukoll.
Nemmnu li implikazzjoni serja ta’ dan il-ġudizzju hija li l-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni mhuwiex kapaċi jipprovdi l-istħarriġ ġudizzjarju meħtieġ skont il-liġi tal-UE. Abbażi ta’ dan, huwa ċar li skont il-Konvenzjoni u l-Liġi tal-UE, ir-reġim ta’ detenzjoni ta’ Malta huwa illegali. Min-naħa tagħna, qajjimna din il-kwistjoni quddiem l-awtoritajiet Maltin u l-Kummissjoni Ewropea ripetutament.
Ninsabu sodisfatti li qed naraw impenn fil-pjan aġġornat ta’ rkurpu u reżiljenza biex tiġi abbozzata leġiżlazzjoni li tirrevedi l-korpi kważi-ġudizzjarji ta’ Malta.
Detenzjoni ordnata taħt ir-Regolamenti dwar l-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu l-Ażil u r-Regolamenti dwar Standards u Proċeduri Komuni għar-Ritorn ta’ Ċittadini ta’ Pajjiżi li Jkunu Qegħdin fil-Pajjiż Illegalment tista’ tiġi appellata quddiem il-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni fi żmien tlett ijiem ta’ xogħol. Il-Bord għandu s-setgħa jordna l-ħelsien immedjat tal-persuna, imma ma jistax jiddikjara ksur ta’ drittijiet jew jordna kumpens.
L-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni tispeċifika li d-deċiżjoni tal-Bord hija finali, u dan ifisser li ħadd ma jista’ jmur fil-Qrati biex tiġi rriveduta d-deċiżjoni.
Il-limitu ta’ tlett ijiem ifisser li huwa kważi impossibbli għall-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni biex jirrikorru għal din il-proċedura.
Ordnijiet ta’ detenzjoni maħruġa kontra persuni li japplikaw għal ażil għandhom jiġu rriveduti awtomatikament mill-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni wara sebat ijiem ta’ xogħol, u din id-durata tista’ tiġi estiża b’sebat ijiem oħra ta’ xogħol. It-tieni reviżjoni għandha ssir wara xahrejn.
Detenzjoni bbażata fuq Ordnijiet ta’ Tneħħija għandha tiġi rriveduta mal-applikazzjoni jew ex officio mill-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni, fi żmien tliet xhur. Fil-każ ta’ perjodu ta’ detenzjoni ta’ sitt xhur jew aktar, il-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni għandu jissorvelja r-reviżjonijiet. Madankollu, il-liġi ma tispeċifikax kif il-Bord għandu jissorvelja.
L-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni tispeċifika li d-deċiżjoni tal-Bord hija finali, u dan jagħlaq l-aċċess mill-Qrati milli tiġi rriveduta d-deċiżjoni.
Dan il-proċess la huwa rapidu u lanqas effettiv. Xi drabi, ir-reviżjonijiet ma jsirux u kellna każijiet li damu jistennew deċiżjoni mill-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni għal ġimgħat u xhur sħaħ. Ħafna drabi, reviżjonijiet ta’ każijiet ta’ minuri li qed jistennew evalwar tal-età tagħhom ma jsirux. Id-deċiżjonijiet tal-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni huma rarament meħuda skont il-fatti u diversi drabi l-Bord jisma’ l-każi u jiddeċiedi dwarhom en masse.
Min-naħa tagħna, rarament irrappreżentajna klijenti miżmuma f’detenzjoni għall-ewwel reviżjoni tagħhom. Dan minħabba li fl-ewwel jiem u xi drabi anki ġimgħat tal-wasla ta’ persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni f’Malta, aħna nkunu mċaħħda mill-aċċess għalihom.
L-Artikolu 409A tal-Kodiċi Kriminali joħloq proċedura habeas corpus urġenti u rapida għal Malta li permezz tagħha kwalunkwe persuna miżmuma f’detenzjoni tista’ titlob lill-Qorti tal-Maġistrati (Ġuriżdizzjoni Kriminali) biex tivverifika l-legalità tad-detenzjoni. Id-deċiżjonijiet li jikkonfermaw illegalità jistgħu jiġu appellati mill-Istat biss.
Deċiżjonijiet differenti tal-Qorti ma jaqblux bejniethom jekk il-Qorti għandhiex tivverifika l-legalità tad-detenzjoni biss jew jekk għandhiex tesplora wkoll il-kwalità tagħha. Pereżempju, f’rikors tal-2024, ġbidna l-attenzjoni tal-ksur tal-Kostituzzjoni u l-Konvenzjoni mill-bażi ġurika, u ħeġġiġna l-Qorti biex toqgħod fuq l-obbligu tagħha li tirreferi l-kwistjoni lill-Qorti Ċivili (Ġuriżdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali). Il-Qorti ċaħdet it-talba tagħna, u qalet li s-sempliċi eżistenza tal-bażi legali kienet biżżejjed biex tippronunzja ruħha mingħajr ma ndenjat ruħha tistaqsi jekk il-bażi legali kinitx legali jew le.
Fil-każ J.B. u Oħrajn vs Malta, il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem iddeterminat li l-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni ma għandhomx għalfejn jistrieħu fuq din il-proċedura biex jeżawrixxu r-rimedji domestiċi, minħabba li ma qisitx din il-proċedura bħala r-rimedju ordinarju għal detenzjoni marbuta mal-immigrazzjoni.
Din il-proċedura użajnieha b’mod effettiv ħafna biex nisfidaw l-użu tal-leġiżlazzjoni tas-saħħa pubblika biex permezz tagħha l-Istat iżżomm persuni f’detenzjoni. Dan wassal għal sensiela ta’ deċiżjonijiet, b’uħud minnhom jikkritikaw bl-aħrax u jikkundannaw din il-prattika. Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, din il-forma ta’ detenzjoni tneħħiet wara l-każ tagħna quddiem il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, A.D. vs Malta (2024).
Wara ħelsien mid-detenzjoni, kwalunkwe persuna tista’ tiftaħ kawża dwar id-drittijiet umani quddiem il-Qorti Ċivili (Ġuriżdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali) abbażi tal-Kostituzzjoni, il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, u/jew il-Karta tal-UE. Jekk jinstab ksur, il-Qorti tista’ tordna kumpens.
Darba wara oħra, il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem sabet li din il-proċedura ma tikkostitwixxix rimedju effettiv għad-detenzjoni kurrenti għax mhix rapida, tant li ħafna drabi tieħu aktar minn tliet snin.
Min-naħa tagħna, fl-2025, użajna din il-proċedura b’suċċess fil-każ ta’ Ayoubah Fona.
Ma jeżistux proċeduri li persuni li jinżammu f’detenzjoni fl-ajruport jistgħu joqogħdu fuqhom. Il-liġi ma ħolqot ebda proċedura u minħabba li ħafna drabi dawn il-persuni jinżammu f’detenzjoni għal ftit sigħat jew għal ftit jiem, prattikament sakemm jintbagħtu lura lejn il-pajjiż li ġew minnu, huwa kważi impossibbli għalihom biex jaċċessaw servizzi legali.
Min-naħa tagħna, ma għandna ebda mod kif inkunu nafu min inżamm f’detenzjoni fl-ajruport, fejn se jintbagħtu jew kif qed jiġu ttrattati.
L-amministrazzjoni tad-detenzjoni f’Malta hija rregolata minn diversi liġijiet, fosthom normi nazzjonali li jittrasponu leġiżlazzjonijiet relevanti tal-UE. L-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni jista’, bis-saħħa tal-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni, ir-Regolamenti dwar l-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil, u r-Regolamenti dwar Standards u Proċeduri Komuni għar-Ritorn ta’ Ċittadini ta’ Pajjiżi li Jkunu Qegħdin fil-Pajjiż Illegalment, iżomm persuni li mhumiex ċittadini Maltin f’detenzjoni.
Il-leġiżlazzjoni dwar l-immigrazzjoni tawtorizza d-detenzjoni ta’ kwalunkwe persuna, li tasal bl-ajruplan, u li ma titħalliex tinżel fl-art f’Malta. L-Artikolu 10 tal-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni jispeċifika li l-għan tad-detenzjoni huwa li jiżgura t-tneħħija tal-persuna jew bl-istess ajruplan li waslet bih, jew permezz tat-titjira disponibbli li jmiss. L-istess artikolu jispeċifika li l-persuni li jaslu b’mezzi oħrajn u ma jingħatawx permess biex jinżlu l-art jistgħu jinżammu f’detenzjoni.
L-Artikolu 10 jiddikjara li kull persuna miżmuma f’detenzjoni għandha titqies li tinsab taħt kustodja legali u li ma niżlitx l-art. Fl-istess artikolu, ma jissemma ebda dritt għal appell jew reviżjoni.
L-emendi tal-2023 fir-Regolamenti marbuta mal-Immigrazzjoni jippermettu lill-gwardjani tal-fruntiera li jżommu kwalunkwe persuna waqt li jkunu qed iwettqu l-kontrolli tagħhom. F’każijiet bħal dawn, l-għan tad-detenzjoni huwa li l-persuna tittieħed quddiem pulizija jew li tinżamm sakemm jaslu l-pulizija. Kulħadd jista’ jinżamm f’detenzjoni jekk jirrifjuta li jipprovdi l-informazzjoni mitluba. Dan japplika wkoll f’każ li persuna ma tissodisfax ir-rekwiżiti tad-dħul f’Malta.
Aħna qatt ma żorna l-post ta’ detenzjoni fl-Ajruport Internazzjonali ta’ Malta. Minħabba li spiss dawn il-proċeduri jseħħu fi żmien qasir ħafna, xi drabi f’sigħat jew ftit jiem, rarament ikollna għarfien dwar persuni miżmuma hemmhekk. Mhuwiex ċar x’informazzjoni tingħata lill-persuni li jinsabu miżmuma rigward id-dritt tagħhom għal ażil jew dwar drittijiet oħra, imma jekk xi ħadd jesprimi li jrid ifittex ażil, ġeneralment jiġi rreferut lill-Aġenzija għall-Protezzjoni Internazzjonali.
Jeżistu fis-seħħ diversi miżuri li jaqtgħu lill-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni mid-dinja li teżisti lil hinn mill-kanċell taċ-ċentru ta’ detenzjoni li jinsabu fih. Ftit għandhom opportunitajiet biex jikkomunikaw mal-qraba u l-ħbieb, u l-komunikazzjoni mal-avukati tagħhom, fosthom tagħna, hija skarsa.
Minkejja rakkomandazzjonijiet ripetuti mill-Bord ta’ Monitoraġġ għall-Persuni Detenuti, biex titwaqqaf kamra ta’ kompjuters b’aċċess għall-internet, din għadha ma twaqqfitx.
Dawn il-miżuri huma ħorox u abbużivi. Jiċħdu lill-persuni miżmuma mill-komunitajiet tagħhom u mill-kapaċità tagħhom li jifhmu u jipparteċipaw fi proċeduri li jaffettwaw il-futur tagħhom. L-inċertezza żżommhom waħedhom u iżolati.
L-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni jikkonfiska l-affarijiet personali kollha tal-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni, fosthom il-mobajls u s-SIM cards. Ġeneralment tingħata rċevuta li hija meħtieġa biex l-affarijiet personali jintraddu lura. Madankollu, xi klijenti tagħna kellhom bżonn l-intervent tagħna biex l-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni raddilhom lura l-affarijiet personali tagħhom.
Ġejna informati li l-mobajls jiġu kkonfiskati biex isiru investigazzjonijiet dwar ksur possibbli tal-Att dwar l-Immigrazzjoni, l-Ordinanza tal-Passaport u l-Kodiċi Kriminali. Qalulna wkoll li l-mobajls jintraddu lura ladarba l-investigazzjonijiet jiġu ffinalizzati.
Minkejja, r-riassigurazzjoni tal-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni, m’aħniex f’pożizzjoni li nikkummentaw dwar il-kwalità ta’ kunsens mogħti mill-persuni li jċedu l-mobajls tagħhom. Lanqas ma nistgħu ngħidu jekk humiex mgħarrfa dwar ir-raġuni tal-konfiska, jekk ikollhomx interpreti preżenti u x’jiġri jekk ma jagħtux il-kunsens tagħhom. Nafu wkoll li kien hemm okkażjonijiet li l-mobajls ma nżammux mill-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni imma ngħataw lill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, minkejja li dan mhux permess bil-liġi.
Il-mobajls ma jintraddux lura sakemm il-persuna tinżamm f’detenzjoni, irrelevanti jekk il-perjodu jkunx ta’ ftit jiem, ġimgħat jew xhur sħaħ. Għalhekk nisfidaw l-istqarrija li l-mobajls huma meħtieġa għal investigazzjonijiet, minħabba li r-ritorn lura lejn sidhom jidher li jiddependi aktar mill-ħelsien tagħhom milli mill-konklużjoni tal-investigazzjonijiet. Qatt ma tingħata informazzjoni dwar x’investigazzjonijiet qed isiru, abbażi ta’ xiex hemm is-suspett jew kwalunkwe ħaġa oħra marbuta mal-investigazzjonijiet.
Informazzjoni pubblika dwar in-numru ta’ prosekuzzjonijiet li saru wara s-salvataġġ u l-iżbark ta’ immigranti mhix disponibbli, madankollu matul is-snin ġew ikkonfiskati mijiet ta’ mobajls.
Kull żona fi ħdan iċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni hija mgħammra b’telefown biex jintuża minn kulħadd. L-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni tipprovdi lil kulħadd vawċers telefoniċi kif ukoll top-ups. Mad-dħul fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni, il-persuni miżmuma jingħataw dokument b’lista tal-organizzazzjonijiet u n-numru tat-telefown tagħhom. Għall-biċċa l-kbira tal-persuni miżmuma li għadhom kif waslu, din il-lista ma tgħinhomx jagħżlu bejn organizzazzjoni u oħra minħabba li f’din il-lista ma teżistix informazzjoni dwar is-servizzi li jagħtu dawn l-organizzazzjonijiet, il-kwalità, l-għarfien espert, jew l-indipendenza tagħhom.
Kull ġimgħa, inċemplu lit-12-il żona ta’ detenzjoni individwalment u nipprovaw niġbru kemm nistgħu informazzjoni. Huwa l-uniku mod għalina biex niksbu informazzjoni dwar min jinsab fiż-żoni u biex niġbru l-aktar informazzjoni bażika: ir-raġuni għad-detenzjoni, id-dati tal-bidu u t-tmiem tad-detenzjoni, il-kwistjonijiet mediċi, l-iżolament, il-proċedura tal-ażil, il-ħtiġijiet materjali, iridux jibagħtu jew jirċievu messaġġi mill-familja, fost oħrajn.
Matul l-ewwel ftit jiem jew ġimgħat wara operazzjoni ta’ salvataġġ, mhux possibbli li nilħqu lil dawk li għadhom kif waslu. Huwa probabbli li l-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jiskonnettjaw it-telefowns taż-żoni. Ġbidna l-attenzjoni dwar dan mal-Aġenzija u l-Ministeru għall-Intern, iżda sa issa għadna ma ngħatajna ebda rispons.
Nitolbu regolarment ukoll lill-Aġenzija biex tipprovdilna n-numri tat-telefown taż-żoni ta’ detenzjoni aġġornati, speċjalment meta ma nkunux nistgħu nilħqu persuni speċifiċi bħal dawk li għadhom kif waslu jew li qed jinżammu f’iżolament. It-talbiet tagħna għadhom ma ntlaqgħux.
Ir-Regolamenti dwar is-Servizz ta’ Detenzjoni jipproteġu l-privatezza tal-korrispondenza, speċjalment dik bejn dawk miżmuma u l-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Qrati Nazzjonali, it-Tribunal tal-Appelli għall-Protezzjoni Internazzjonali, u l-Bord tal-Appelli dwar l-Immigrazzjoni.
Skont ir-Regolament 35, il-persuni kollha f’detenzjoni għandu jkollhom aċċess għal telefowns pubbliċi fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni, u l-Kap tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jista’ jagħmel tajjeb għall-ispejjez ta’ kull telefonata, billi jipprovdi phone cards lill-persuni kollha miżmuma f’detenzjoni.
Ir-regolamenti ta’ bħalissa marbuta mal-aċċess għaċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni jaqtgħu lill-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni mill-informazzjoni u s-servizzi meħtieġa, bħal ngħidu aħna l-informazzjoni dwar il-proċedura tal-ażil; l-identifikazzjoni ta’ persuni vulnerabbli; il-prijoritizzazzjoni ta’ applikanti b’każijiet kumplessi; ir-rimedji legali kontra d-detenzjoni; u d-dati ta’ skadenza qrib.
Il-fatt li jkollna niċċekkjaw kull żona biex nidentifikaw persuni li jeħtieġu servizzi legali jfisser li l-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni jkollhom jikxfu informazzjoni personali fil-pubbliku, u dan jista’ jkun perikoluż. Hija wkoll sistema li tiffavorixxi persuni li għandhom il-mezzi waqt li tiżvantaġġja persuni vulnerabbli. Ħafna drabi, insiru nafu dwar persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni wara li niċċekkjaw aħna, u fost dawn insibu persuni li nġabru waqt roadblocks u nisa li qed jinżammu b’rabta ma’ traffikar uman.
Barra minn hekk, dan ir-reġim huwa mwaħħad ma’ approċċ aktar aggressiv li jħeġġeġ persuni li jfittxu ażil biex jaċċettaw ritorn lura b’mod volontarju, ħafna drabi qabel laqgħat ma’ rappreżentanti tal-UNHCR jew NGOs. Pereżempju, f’Diċembru tal-2025, grupp ta’ 44 immigrant ntbagħat lura wara li ġimagħtejn biss qabel ġie salvat minn għarqa. Minkejja t-tentattivi tagħna biex nitkellmu magħhom, qattgħu ġimagħtejn f’detenzjoni maqtugħa minna.
Minkejja l-leġiżlazzjoni, fil-prattika, l-aċċess għaċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni huwa rregolat minn politika tal-2023 adottata mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni.
Ir-Regolament 30 tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jagħti l-jedd lill-persuni f’detenzjoni għal żjarat minn, jew komunikazzjonijiet ma’ persuni awtorizzati u rappreżentanti ta’ organizzazzjonijiet mhux governattivi, ħlief sa fejn ikun meħtieġ fl-interess ta’ sikurezza u sigurtà. Ir-Regolament 12(5) tal-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu l-Ażil jikkonferma dan id-dritt għall-qraba, il-konsulenti legali, il-UNHCR u l-NGOs iżda din id-darba f’kuntest ta’ ċentri ta’ detenzjoni.
Ir-Regolament 49 tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jitlob li l-persuni li jridu jżuru ċentru ta’ detenzjoni jeħtieġu qabelxejn jiksbu l-awtorizzazzjoni mill-Kap tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jew mill-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni li jkun qed jaġixxi fuq il-parir tal-Ministru. Barra minn hekk, ir-Regolament 53, jistqarr ukoll li l-Ministru tal-Intern jista’ jimponi projbizzjonijiet fuq żjarat minn persuna fiċ-ċentru ta’ detenzjoni jew lil xi persuna f’ċentru ta’ detenzjoni għal dawk il-perjodi ta’ żmien li hu jqis li jkunu meħtieġa.
Ma jistgħux jittieħdu ritratti fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni, sakemm ma jinħariġx permess mill-Kap tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni.
Ir-Regolament 6A(5) tal-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil jippermetti lil dawk miżmuma f’detenzjoni li jilqgħu żjarat minn qraba u ħbieb.
Ir-Regolament 6A(4) tal-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil jagħti lill-UNHCR id-dritt għal żjarat u komunikazzjoni mal-applikanti miżmuma f’detenzjoni. Ir-Regolament 49(2) tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jitlob lir-rappreżentanti minn organizzazzjonijiet internazzjonali u minn NGOs jiksbu l-awtorizzazzjoni mill-Kap tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jew mill-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni li jkun qed jaġixxi fuq il-parir tal-Ministru.
Il-UNHCR titħalla żżur persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni wara li tippreżenta formalment l-applikazzjonijiet għal ażil, u għalhekk tiċċaħħad minn aċċess għal persuni li għadhom kif waslu li jeħtieġu informazzjoni dwar id-drittijiet tagħhom. Il-UNHCR ma titħalliex iżżur il-kwartieri fejn jinsabu l-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni, u għalhekk tiċċaħħad mill-funzjoni ta’ monitoraġġ.
Skont ir-Regolament 6A(5) tal-Akkoljenza ta’ Persuni li Jfittxu Ażil, konsulenti legali, counsellors, u rappreżentanti ta’ NGOs jistgħu jikkomunikaw u jżuru lill-persuni miżmuma f’detenzjoni, waqt li skont ir-Regolament 34 tas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, il-konsulent legali jew ir-rappreżentant ta’ kull persuna f’detenzjoni f’kull proċediment legali għandhom jingħataw faċilitajiet raġonevoli sabiex jintervistaw il-persuna miżmuma f’detenzjoni b’mod kunfidenzjali, iżda kwalunkwe intervista tista’ ssir biss fil-preżenza ta’ uffiċjal. Madankollu, aċċess lill-NGOs jingħata biss wara awtorizzazzjoni mill-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni jew il-Prinċipal Uffiċjali tal-Immigrazzjoni li jieħu l-passi skont il-parir tal-Ministru.
L-NGOs jistgħu jaħtru avukati biss, biex dawn min-naħa tagħhom iżuru ċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni. Professjonisti oħrajn – fosthom assistenti soċjali, tobba, infermiera, persuni li jaħdmu maż-żgħażagħ – huma pprojbiti milli jżuru ċ-ċentri u li jipprovdu servizz. Bejn l-2024 u l-2025, l-Aġenzija għas-Servizzi ta’ Detenzjoni, ripetutament, ċaħdet lill-Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM), minn aċċess għal persuna LGBTIQ+, minħabba li skontha qed tipprovdi servizzi ta’ għajnuna hija stess b’mod adegwat.
L-avukati tagħna jistgħu jżuru biss klijenti identifikati. Aħna ma niġux informati jew mgħarrfa dwar persuni li għadhom kif inżammu. Għalhekk il-mistoqsija li tqum hija, kif nistgħu nidentifikaw persuni miżmuma li jeħtieġu s-servizzi tagħna? Kull ġimgħa, inċemplu kull żona ta’ detenzjoni biex nitolbu informazzjoni minn gruppi ta’ persuni permezz tat-telefown pubbliku ta’ dik iż-żona. In-numru tal-pulizija tal-persuni miżmuma, l-ismijiet eżatti tagħhom, ir-raġuni tad-detenzjoni, ħarsa ġenerali lejn it-talba tal-ażil, il-vulnerabbiltajiet, il-pajjiżi ta’ oriġni, u dettalji oħrajn ikollhom jiġu rreġistrati u aġġornati kontinwament biex l-avukati tagħna jkunu jistgħu jagħżlu liema sitt persuni minn dawk miżmuma jżuru fiż-żjara li jmiss.
Nistgħu nżuru biss klijenti fil-jiem u s-sigħat meta l-kamra tal-bord taċ-ċentru tad-detenzjoni tkun disponibbli. Xi drabi ma stajniex inżuru persuni miżmuma għal ġimgħat sħaħ minħabba li din il-kamra ma kinitix disponibbli. Il-kamra tal-bord hija mgħammra b’kameras u ma nistgħux nikkonfermaw isirx rikording ta’ xi jkun qed jintqal jew le.
Dawn l-organizzazzjonijiet jistgħu jitolbu aċċess għaċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni lill-Kap tas-Servizz ta’ Detenzjoni, li min-naħa tiegħu jista’ jippermetti dan skont il-każ wara konsultazzjoni mal-Uffiċjal Prinċipali tal-Immigrazzjoni.
Il-Politika tal-Viżitaturi tal-Aġenzija tas-Servizzi għad-Detenzjoni ġiet adottata fl-2023 wara xhur ta’ negozjati diffiċli bejn l-NGOs u l-Ministeru għall-Intern. L-għanijiet iddikjarati tal-politika huma li jiġu żgurati s-sigurtà tal-operat u tal-persuni kollha fi ħdan iċ-Ċentri ta’ Detenzjoni. L-NGOs qablu li jiffirmaw din il-politika ġdida b’riżervi, u l-UNHCR kompla jiddiskuti mal-gvern dwar iffirmar ta’ Momerandum ta’ Ftehim.
Iż-żjarat kollha jridu jintalbu billi jimtlew il-formoli preskritti għall-inqas jumejn qabel, u kull żjara tippermetti massimu ta’ sitt persuni. Il-laqgħat kollha mal-persuni miżmuma jridu jsiru f’kamra li għandha kamera tas-CCTV u ebda tagħmir personali, fosthom mobajl, mhu permess fil-kamra. Tali tagħmir irid jitħalla barra, u qabel id-dħul, isiru tfittxijiet fuq il-viżitaturi. Jistgħu jintalbu żjarat ta’ emerġenza, minħabba “kwistjonijiet legali pendenti”. Ritratti u “ħwejjeġ ta’ kuntrabandu” jwasslu għal tkeċċija u projbizzjoni minn żjarat fil-futur.
Iż-żjarat jistgħu jsiru biss lil persuni miżmuma identifikati. Dan ifisser li l-viżitaturi jridu jipprovdu n-numru tal-pulizija, u l-isem u l-kunjom tal-persuni miżmuma li se jżuru.
Malta detains various groups of people. All migrants rescued at sea are detained immediately following their disembarkation.
Persons seeking asylum are also often detained. If are rescued at sea, they remain in detention throughout their asylum procedure or, if already in Malta, they are picked up as soon as submit their asylum applications at the office of the International Protection Agency (IPA). We have also seen people detained after being returned to Malta from another EU Member State, in the Dublin procedure.
Malta also detains people with no permit to remain in Malta. This includes over-stayers, rejected asylum-seekers and – at times – victims of human trafficking. They are detained with a view to their return to their country of origin. It also includes anyone holding a residence permit from another EU Member State for their return to that EU Member State. Although stateless people should not be detained, since no country of origin is identified, they are also detained.
People who arrive at the Airport without the necessary documents to enter Malta, such as a valid visa, are detained and returned to the country they flew from.
The law says that asylum-seekers may only be detained for up to nine months and persons pending removal for up to eighteen months. According to the Detention Services Agency, in 2024 the average detention duration was of 46.5 days with one day being the minimum and 754 days the maximum.
Persons identified as vulnerable at disembarkation are detained for a very short time. For other asylum applicants, their detention is linked to their country of origin: persons having a higher chance of receiving international protection are usually detained for around two months, whilst all others remain in detention throughout their asylum procedure.
Persons detained pending removal usually remain in detention until removed. This could be a few days or up to the maximum permitted period of 18 months.
Many aspects of Malta’s detention regime are not in line with international, European and also national legal obligations. Whilst we continue to provide legal services to detained persons and to monitor their living conditions, we prioritise combating illegal detention in all our advocacy activities.
There are alternatives.
Lawyers, and lawyers alone, are allowed to visit named and numbered clients. This means that NGOs offering other forms of support, such as MGRM or JRS Malta’s psycho-social service, are denied entry. Worldwide experience and research tell us that when detained persons are not able to freely be visited by lawyers, social workers, counsellors, religious representatives, doctors and other visitors they are at a higher risk of suffering human rights violations.
Allow NGOs access to living quarters in detention centres. Allow NGOs to visit to provide needed services and support.
It is never in the best interests of a child to be locked up for immigration purposes!
Stop detaining children following disembarkation. Adopt the presumption of minor age for persons claiming to be children.
The Immigration Appeals Board fails the test. It is not legally competent to decide on detention cases, either under the European Convention on Human Rights or under EU law. Detained persons do not have the opportunity to approach a judicial body in order to challenge the legality of their detention.
Enact legislation replacing the Immigration Appeals Board with a judicial body that is truly independent and impartial. Appropriately document the regular detention review procedures. Where the law requires detention to be reviewed, these reviews must be quick, effective, accessible and in line with basic procedural guarantees.
The vulnerability screening at disembarkation is not in-depth enough to identify all vulnerable people and regular screening of all detained persons does not happen. Furthermore, at times vulnerable people are kept in detention to receive care and support from the Detention Services Agency.
Immediately release and provide support to people identified as vulnerable by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum-Seekers. Allow vulnerability identifications by independent professionals.
Several human rights bodies, including the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Commissioner for Human Rights, have criticised the abysmal state of Malta’s detention centres.
The approach has been described as “institutional neglect” and, in our opinion, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment.
A number of measures are in place cutting off detained people from the outside world. They have limited opportunities to communicate with family and friends and their contact with their lawyers, including us, is extremely difficult.
Despite repeated recommendations by the Monitoring Board for Detained Persons for the establishment of a computer room with Internet access, this has not yet materialised.
This is cruel and abusive. It deprives people of contacts with their communities and of the ability to understand and participate in procedures affecting their futures. Their uncertainty leaves them alone and lonely.
The Principal Immigration Officer (PIO) confiscates all personal belongings upon detention, including mobile phones and SIM cards. A receipt is generally given and needed for the return of items, although we have had clients who needed our intervention with the PIO to have their possessions returned to them. At any time during their detention, detainees may request access to their SIM cards to copy the telephone numbers of anyone they wish to call.
We are told that phones are confiscated to conduct investigations into possible breaches of the Immigration Act, the Passports Ordinance and the Criminal Code, and that phones are returned once investigations are finalised. The PIO relies on the Criminal Code, allowing the Police to seize any item if there are reasonable grounds to believe it might be evidence in relation to a crime and where the confiscation is necessary for the item’s preservation. The Code also permits the Police to search persons for anything that could be used to facilitate their escape, or for possible evidence.
Yet despite PIO assurances, we are not able to comment on the quality of consent given by persons surrendering their phones. We cannot say whether they are aware of the reasons for the confiscation, if interpreters are present or what would happen if they withheld consent. We also know that there are occasions where the phones are not kept by the PIO by handed to the Detention Services Agency, although this is not permitted by the law.
Mobile phones are not returned for as long a person remains in detention, whether detention lasts for days, weeks or even months. We therefore question the statement that the phones are needed for investigations, since their return seems more dependent on a person’s release than on the termination of any investigation. No information is ever provided on what investigations have been conducted, the grounds on which suspicion was based or anything at all regarding investigations.
Public information on the number of prosecutions carried out following the rescue and disembarkation of migrants is not readily available, yet hundreds of mobile phones have been confiscated over the years.
Each zone within the detention centres is equipped with a telephone for shared use, and the Detention Services Agency provides everyone with telephone vouchers and regularly also provides top-ups. Upon entering detention centres, a document listing organisations and contact numbers is provided. For most newly-arrived people, the names of the listed organisations say nothing about their services, quality, expertise, or independence.
Every week, we call each of the 12 detention zones and try to gather as much information as we can on the people in each zone. It is the only for us to know who there is in the zones and to gather the most basic information: detention grounds, start date and end date, medical issues, isolation, asylum procedure, material needs, messages for/from family, etc.
For the first days or weeks after a rescue operation, we are unable to reach new arrivals. It is probable that the Detention Services Agency switches off the zones’ phones. We repeatedly flagged this with the Agency and the Home Affairs Ministry, yet we have never received any feedback.
We also regularly request the Agency to provide us with updated telephone numbers of all the detention zones, especially when we are unable to reach specific people such as new arrivals or persons held in isolation. Our requests remain pending.
The Detention Service Regulations protect the privacy of correspondence, particularly that between detainees and the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, national Courts, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Appeals Board.
Regulation 35 further grants detainees the right to public telephones, the cost of which may be borne by the Detention Services Agency through the provision of phone cards.
Since we are only able to visit our clients in the detention centre board room, it is impossible for us to comment directly on the material situation within the centres. Yet there is a stark distinction between the legal framework and the reality in all detention centres.
The information presented here is based on various sources: our clients, the Detention Services Agency through their annual reports, the Monitoring Board for Detained Persons, the Council of Europe’s anti-Torture body (CPT), and judicial procedures (e.g. A.D. v. Malta; J.B. and Others v. Malta, Ayoubah Fona vs The Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et).
Overall, it is clear that Malta does not offer detained persons living conditions that respect their dignity. Client stories, corroborated by the CPT reports and above-mentioned judgements, talk of substandard living conditions relating to the most basic elements: toilets and showers, clothing, personal hygiene supplies, gender-specific items, and food.
There has been a significant improvement in health services, yet little attention is paid to the overall wellbeing of detained persons. Other than occasional sports sessions, no there is no structured programme for educational, cultural or leisure activities. The dehumanisation is palpable: everyone wears the same clothes; detainees are called out by their immigration numbers; for absolutely everything, they depend entirely on the Detention Services Agency.
A series of court decisions have raised serious concerns about how immigration detention is carried out in Malta, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals and children.
On 13 January 2026, Malta’s Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Ayoubah Fona, who was only 15 years old when he arrived in Malta. After surviving a traumatic journey during which several people died, Fona was hospitalised. However, immediately after being discharged, he was placed in detention at China House and Safi Barracks.
The Court found that:
In A.D. v. Malta and J.B. and Others v. Malta, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the conditions of immigration detention in Malta, finding serious problems, including:
Both cases found that the combined effect of poor living conditions, prolonged detention, and declining mental health amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
In 2025 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) published the report of its 2023 visit. Although some developments are noted since 2023, the overall situation is largely unchanged.
Some detainees reported being physically and verbally abused, especially during an escape incident in May 2023 at the Hal Far centre. They said they were punched, kicked, tightly handcuffed, and subjected to racist insults. Some medical records supported these claims.
The CPT called on Malta to adopt a strict zero-tolerance approach to abuse and racism.
The CPT said that conditions in the Safi and Ħal Far centres were still harsh and prison-like: overcrowded sleeping areas, dirty mattresses, poor hygiene, broken showers, and limited time outdoors. In Safi in particular, men often did not receive the required three hours of outdoor exercise per day. Its report strongly criticised the detention of children at Safi, especially unaccompanied minors or those whose age was still being assessed. These children had no activities, spent up to 23 hours a day locked inside, and had little mental health or social support. The CPT said children should be moved to more suitable, open facilities.
Main recommendations:
The UN Human Rights Committee also raised concerns in a 2024 report: lack of clear data about detention practices, poor living conditions, excessive use of force, and the use of health reasons to justify detention without proper legal remedies.
Main recommendations:
In 2015, Malta adopted a policy document committing to improve living conditions in detention centres. The policy states that facilities should include access to a clinic, medical isolation rooms, telephones, interview rooms for the International Protection Agency (IPA) and NGOs, leisure and education spaces, and a place of worship.
Under the Reception Regulations, applicants for international protection must be detained in specialised facilities and kept separate, as far as possible, from other third-country nationals. They must have access to open-air spaces, and separate accommodation must be provided for families and for male and female detainees to ensure privacy.
Detention centres are managed by the Detention Services Agency (DSA), which falls under the Ministry for Home Affairs, Security and Employment. Formally established in 2023, the DSA is responsible for detaining third-country nationals who entered Malta irregularly or are irregularly present and have been issued a Detention Order.
The 2016 Detention Service Regulations cover:
The Regulations state that detention centres must provide “secure but humane accommodation” while allowing as much freedom as possible within security limits.
Female detainees must be housed separately from males.
Each detainee must receive a document known as the ‘compact’, outlining their rights and responsibilities in a language they understand, and must have access to the Regulations. A personal record must be maintained for each detainee. The Head of Detention Services must provide updates on matters affecting the detainee, including asylum applications, Immigration Act applications, and judicial proceedings before the Immigration Appeals Board or Maltese courts.
Detainees should be entitled to keep their personal belongings (except cash, or where safety concerns apply) and to wear their own suitable clothing. Facilities for washing and drying clothes must be provided, and NGOs may distribute clothing with approval. Food must be wholesome, nutritious, sufficient, and, where possible, meet religious, cultural, dietary, and medical needs.
Accommodation must provide adequate lighting, heating, ventilation, and sanitary facilities, with separate facilities for men and women. Detainees must have access to hygiene products and grooming facilities. They are entitled to recreational, educational, and physical activities, access to a library, at least one hour of outdoor exercise daily, and the ability to practise their religion. Access to public telephones must also be ensured.
Detainees must receive a medical examination shortly after admission. Medical officers must report any health concerns, including risks related to continued detention or mental health issues such as suicidal thoughts. Special arrangements, including counselling, must be made where necessary. The Head of Detention Services must submit monthly incident reports to the Minister.
In 2024 Malta removed the legal ban on the detention of vulnerable persons. Ironically, this brought the law in line with practice we had observed for years whereby vulnerable people were regularly detained, despite the ban.
All persons rescued at sea are detained following disembarkation, where Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS) is present looking for the most vulnerable. These are only detained for a couple of days and then taken to the open centres, whilst everyone else is detained in China House or Safi Detention Centre.
From then on, if AWAS confirms as person as being vulnerable they are usually released: persons evidently vulnerable are identified quicker, others could spend months in detention until someone realises that they are in need of support. AWAS’ remit was recently restricted to persons in the asylum procedure, meaning it is not permitted to assess the vulnerability of detained people who are not asylum-seekers, including those pending removal. This policy essentially abandons the most vulnerable, constituting a form of institutional abuse.
The improvement in the Detention Service Agency’s health service has resulted in vulnerable people being kept in detention with the idea that they are adequately taken care of in the detention centre, as seen in data in the Agency’s 2023 and 2024 Annual Reports.
The Malta LGBTIQ+ Rights Movement (MGRM) has often requested access to Safi Detention Centre, following requests by detained LGBTIQ+ persons. The Detention Services Agency always denied these requests, insisting that the Agency was providing adequate support services.
In the pending ECtHR application M.S. vs. Malta, the authorities refused to release an LGBTIQ+ applicant who had been repeatedly confirmed as vulnerable by AWAS. They were denied MGRM services.
With limited access to detention centres we are now less able to identify and refer vulnerable people.
Importantly, the harm caused by detention is well-documented. The detention experience itself heightens vulnerabilities and, at times, creates vulnerabilities where before there were none. We witness this in all our detention visits, people withering away week after week.
Regulation 6B of the Reception Regulations requires the authorities to monitor them closley and to address their needs, including their health. When families are detained, the Regulations require the authorities to provide separate accommodation for them. Women may only be detained with male family members if they consent to it.
The Regulations set different rules for children, depending on whether they are accompanied, unaccompanied or persons claiming to be children. Accompanied children may only be detained as a last resort, and only when no less restrictive alternatives can work. The child’s best interests must come first. While detained, children must be given access to leisure and play activities. Unaccompanied children may be detained only in exceptional circumstances, and never in restrictive accommodation. Persons claiming to be children may also only be detained as a last resort, unless their claim to be underage is clearly and obviously unfounded.
The disembarkation vulnerability assessment is not comprehensive and, once in China House of Safi Detention Centre, vulnerable persons rely on being noticed for them to be flagged. Several vulnerabilities are hidden, either due to their nature or because they are not readily disclosed and it can take months for some people to be identified. We do not think the support services in the detention centres meet the range of present needs, often extremely complex.
Regulation 10 of the Returns Regulations says that the detention of unaccompanied children and families with minor children may only be used as a last resort and must be limited to the shortest possible period. Where families are detained pending removal, they must be accommodated separately in conditions that ensure adequate privacy. The provision further guarantees specific safeguards for children in detention, including access to age-appropriate leisure, play, and recreational activities, as well as access to state education in Malta, depending on the duration of detention.
Unaccompanied minors should, as far as possible, be housed in facilities with specialised personnel and age-appropriate conditions that take account of their particular needs.
Nobody assesses the possible vulnerabilities of people picked up from the streets, homes, buses or work places. In 2024 and 2025 groups of unhoused people, some with severe mental health problems, were automatically detained following their relase from prison. Some were rapidly returned to their home countries.
Furthermore, vulnerable persons detained with a view to their removal do not enjoy AWAS’ identification or support services. They are entirely dependant on the Detention Services Agency for their welfare.
Since people detained at the airport are returned within hours or days, it is highly unlilely that any vulnerability screening is carried out. In 2024 Malta detained a group of Syrian children at the Airport and then transferred them to Safi Detention Centre as they were too sick to be immediately returned on the next available flight.
As mentioned above, Malta detains children. No best interests determinations are carried out before deciding to detain children.
The authorities do not rely on the presumption of minor age, as required by international law, mitigating this by detaining children pending age assessment in a ‘child zone’ in Safi Detention Centre. The age assessment process can take several months, usually because of delays at the appeals stage before the Immigration Appeals Board. The children in J.B. and Others v. Malta were detained from November 2022 till May 2023, the child in A.D. v. Malta from November 2021 till July 2022 and Ayoubah Fona was detained for 58 days.
We have never visited the ‘child zone’, yet our clients tell us that they do not receive any form of education and no child-oriented activities are organised. AWAS visits them on a regular basis.
Aside from violating several human rights standards, we find Malta’s child detention regime also clashes with the principles in Malta’s Children’s Policy Framework 2024-2030: children’s rights; best interests of the child; equal opportunities and high quality support.
Detention.MT is owned and produced by aditus foundation with generous support from PROASYL. A lot of work goes into putting together Detention.MT, so please be sure to acknowledge us when quoting anything from these pages.
We are doing our best to be as comprehensive as possible, yet it is certainly possible that we miss some Resources. Share any Resource or information that you think is relevant for Detention.MT.
We update Detention.MT between January and March of every year. If you have any questions or would like to contribute to Detention.MT, please get in touch on info@aditus.org.mt.
Photo Credits: Darrin Zammit Lupi for the man in an orange t-shirt standing at a detention centre gate; people wearing orange and blue life-jackets; two sleeping men; detained man in a grey t-shirt; group of detained praying men; people on a boat wearing orange life-jackets. All others, aditus foundation.
We would like say a big thanks to our friends at PROASYL for generously supporting our work in detention and for making Detention.MT a reality.
Thanks are also due to Alastair Burnett for his time, patience and commitment in putting together Detention.MT. As always, Jean Paul Borg does an amazing job with the Maltese pages. For perfectly framing migrant journeys, Darrin Zammit Lupi.
Malta’s administrative detention is regulated across various laws, including national norms transposing relevant EU legislation. The Principal Immigration Office (PIO) may detain non-nationals under the Immigration Act, under the Reception Regulations and under the Returns Regulations.
Immigration legislation authorises the detention of any person who, arriving by plane, is not granted permission to land in Malta. Article 10 of the Immigration Act specifies that the purpose of detention is to ensure the person’s removal either on the same flight on which they arrived, or on the next available flight. The same article specifies that persons arriving by any other means and not granted leave to land may also be detained.
Article 10 states that all persons detained under this article are in legal custody and are deemed not to have landed. No appeal or review is mentioned in Article 10.
2023 amendments to the Immigration Regulations allow border officers to detain any person whilst conducting border checks. In such cases, the detention must be for the purpose of taking the person before a police officer or until the police officer arrives. Anyone may be also detained if they refuse to stop in order to provide information requested or in order to prevent their entry to Malta where they do not meet entry requirements.
Until 2018 aditus and other NGOs enjoyed full access to all detention centres and all persons detained there. We could organise group information sessions in living quarters, more readily identify vulnerable persons and persons needing in-depth legal assistance. Our access also allowed us to flag material living issues: showers, clothing, food, health, access to outdoors, etc. It also allowed us to builder closer relations with our clients.
Since our access today is limited to a board room is Safi Detention Centre, we are unable to provide further information on the facilities’ structures. Most of the below information is gathered from various reports of the Council of Europe’s anti-torture Committee (CPT).
However, we can confirm that Malta’s detention centres are heavily militarised spaces prioritising security and confinement over well-being and dignity. All environments are carceral, sombre interiors with heavy metal doors, barred windows and not idea of element of comfort. Detainees are handcuffed when moved from place to place and they are wholly dependent on the Detention Services Agency for all aspects of their lives, including at times the possibility to meet lawyers and NGOs.
Living conditions in these places are covered under a separate theme.
The Places of Detention Designation Order designates places of detention in terms of the Immigration Act, yet only a few are actually used as such. There are also detention centres not designated as such.
Malta International Airport
Designated
Yes
In Use
Yes
Who
Men, women and children
Why
Denied entry at the airport, to be returned on the same or next flight back to the country they had flown to Malta from
Ħal Far Initial Reception Centre
Designated
Yes
In Use
Yes
Who
Men, women and children
Why
Newly-arrived persons not deemed manifestly vulnerable, asylum-seekers, persons pending removal
Safi Barracks
Designated
Yes
In Use
Yes
Who
Men, women, unaccompanied children
Why
Asylum-seekers, persons pending removal
Ħal Far Open Centre (HOC)
Designated
No
In Use
Yes
Who
Anyone deemed manifestly vulnerable, overspill from Safi Barracks
Why
Newly-arrived persons for medical screening, overspill from Safi Barracks
Special Assignment Group Quarters
Designated
Yes
In Use
No
Victoria Police Station
Designated
Yes
In Use
Not for immigration detention
Courts of Justice
Designated
Yes
In Use
Not for immigration detention
Police Headquarters
Designated
Yes
In Use
Not for immigration detention
Seaport
Designated
Yes
In Use
No information available
Lyster Barracks
Designated
Yes
In Use
No
Police Complex at Fort Mosta
Designated
Yes
In Use
No information available
A room in the airport’s basement with having 7 beds, 2 metal benches, 2 tables, 2 showers and a toilet.
We have never seen this room.
The largest detention centre, within the compound of the Armed Forces of Malta headquarters. It is composed of several Blocks with a total capacity of around 1,000 persons, with a block reserved for unaccompanied children and another for women.
Blocks A, D and C are large dormitories with various zones within each block.
In Block A, several rooms in the zones have 2 sets of lined-up 10 bunk beds in around 40m2. Each room has a few cupboards, tables and chairs. Windows and doors are barred, the latter leading to a shared corridor with some benches and tables. There are shared toilets and showers. Each block has a bare tarmac exercise yard, shared amongst the 4 zones per block for a few hours each day.
Block B (female), holding up to 12 women, is made up of pre-fabricated units surrounding a partly shaded tarmac yard, with an outside table, benches and small library. Rooms have wall-mounted air conditioners and heaters.
Block (B), two warehouses holding up to 550 persons, is filled with rows of bunk-beds. One warehouse is internally split into smaller units. In both, there are shared toilets and showers.
Block C, with a capacity of 70 persons, is packed with rows of bunk beds. There are a few tables and chairs, shared showers and toilets and a washing area for detainees to wash their clothes.
Block G is the Close Monitoring Unit (CMU), holding up to 7 people. There are 3 single-cell rooms of around 4.8m2 each and 2 double cells of around 7m2. The latter have two bunk beds and unscreened toilets without lids, and both areas are under 24/7 CCTV monitoring. There is a small outside yard with a table, two benches and a washing machine.
Block D is actually the Ħal Far Initial Reception Centre.
This is a separate detention facility, yet formally designated Block D within Safi Barracks. HOC is made up of 3 zones (A-C) with a total capacity of 170 persons.
Zone C has 4 open rooms measuring around 18m2 each, with 6 sets of bunkbeds. There is a large common area that is generally used as the dining area, and the Zone is equipped with double and single shower rooms and 6 toilets.
There are various ways to appeal or challenge detention legality, based on the legal framework under which the person is being detained. Some measures are intended to be automatic whilst others require action by the detained person.
Whilst degrees of effectiveness vary considerably, in practice persons detained illegally have very little recourse to justice. Neither the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) nor the national Courts are able to provide detained persons with the required speedy judicial review of their detention.
Furthermore, the European Court of Human rights has clearly said, in J.B. and Others (2025), that the IAB does not fulfil Convention requirements of a ‘judicial body’ due to serious concerns with its lack of independence and impartiality, calling on Malta to introduce legal amendments that bring the IAB in line with Convention requirements. These concerns were also flagged by the Venice Commission.
We believe a serious implication of this judgement is that the IAB is also unable to provide the judicial review of detention required under EU law. On this basis, it is clear that Malta’s detention regime is unlawful under both the Convention and EU law. We have repeatedly brought this issue to the attention of the Maltese authorities and of the EU Commission.
We are happy to see a commitment to draft legislation revising Malta’s quasi-judicial bodies is included in Malta’s updated recovery and resilience plan.
Detention ordered under the Reception Regulations or under the Returns Regulations may be appealed before the Immigration Appeals Board within three working days. The Board has the power to order the person’s immediate release, but not to declare a rights’ violation or grant compensation.
The Immigration Act specifies that the Board’s decision are final, blocking access to the Courts for further review.
The three-day time limit makes is almost impossible for most detained people to use this procedure.
Detention Orders issued to asylum applicants should be automatically reviewed by the Immigration Appeals Board after seven working days, which may be extended by another seven working days. A second review should be held after periods of two months.
Detention based on Removal Orders should be reviewed on application or ex ufficio by the Principal Immigration Officer after three months and from six-months’ detention onwards the reviews must be supervised by the Immigration Appeals Board, although the law does not specify what this supervison should look like.
The Immigration Act specifies that the Board’s decision are final, blocking access to the Courts for further review.
This is far from a speedy and effective process. At times, the reviews simply do not happen and we have had cases pending an IAB decision for weeks or months. Reviews of children pending age assessment are often not held. IAB decisions are rarely motivated in fact and in law and on several occasions the Board hears and decides cases en masse.
We rarely represent detained clients for their first review, as we are denied access to newly-arrived people for days and at times weeks.
Article 409A of the Criminal Code creates a Malta’s urgent and swift habeas corpus procedure whereby any detained person may request the Court of Magistrates (Criminal Jurisdiction) to verify the detention’s legal basis. Negative decisions may only be appealed by the State.
Court decisions disagree as to whether the Court should merely verify the existence of a detention legal basis or whether it should also explore its quality. For example, in a 2024 application, we flagged the legal basis’ violation of the Constitution and the Convention, and urged the Court to rely on its obligation to refer the question to the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction). The Court rejected our request, saying that the mere existence of a legal basis was sufficient for it to pronounce itself without bothering to question whether the legal basis was legal or otherwise.
In J.B. and Others, the ECtHR determined that detained persons need not rely on this procedure to exhaust domestic remedies, as it considered it not to be the ordinary remedy for immigration detention.
We used this procedure very effectively to challenge Malta’s use of public health legislation to detain people. This led to a string of decisions, some powerfully worded, condemning this practice. In the end, this form of detention was removed following our case at the ECtHR, A.D. v. Malta (2024).
Following release from detention, any person may institute a human rights case before the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) on the basis of the Constitution, the ECHR and/or the EU Charter. If a violation is found, the Court may order compensation.
The ECtHR has repeatedly determined that this procedure does not constitute an effective remedy for in on-going detention as it is far from speedy, often lasting longer than three years.
We successfully used this procedure in the Ayoubah Fona case (2025).
There are no procedures that may be relied upon by persons detained at the airport. None are created by law and, since they are usually only detained for hours or days until they are returned to the country they had flown to Malta from, it is close to impossible for them to contact or engage any legal services.
We have no way of knowing who is detained at the airport, where they are being returned to or how they are treated.
Malta’s current rules on access to detention facilities cut off detainees from much-needed information and services, resulting in serious gaps: information on the asylum procedure; identification of vulnerable persons; prioritisation of applicants with complex cases; legal remedies to challenge detention; tight legal deadlines. Applicants can go through their entire asylum procedure without ever being given any independent legal advice or information.
Requiring us to call each zone to identify people needing legal services expects detainees to reveal personal information in a public and at times dangerous manner. It also favours enabled persons whilst omitting the more vulnerable. In many situations, we are only aware of detained people after our calls, including people picked up during road-blocks and women detained in the context of human trafficking.
Furthermore, this regime complements a more aggressive approach urging newly-arrived asylum-seekers to sign up for voluntary return, often when they would not have met either UNHCR or NGOs. For example, in December 2025 a group of 44 migrants were removed after they had been rescued at sea only two weeks earlier. They spent their two weeks in a detention centre cut off from our attempts to reach them.
Despite the legislation, access to detention centres is in practice regulated by a 2023 policy adopted by the Detention Servies Agency.
Regulation 30 of the Detention Service Regulations grants detainees the right to receive visits and communications, save as necessary for security considerations. Regulation 12(5) of the Reception Regulations confirms this right for family members, legal advisers, UNHCR and NGOs albeit in the context of reception centres.
Detention Service Regulation 49 requires anyone wishing to visit a detention centre to obtain authorisation from the Detention Services Agency or the Principal Immigration Officer acting on the advice of the Home Affairs Minister. Further, Regulation 53 also states that the Home Affairs Minister may, for security purposes, limit a person’s access to a detention centre or to a detainee.
Photos within detention centres are prohibited, unless permitted by the Head Detention Services.
Reception Regulation 6A(5) allows detainees to receive visits from family members and friends.
Reception Regulation 6A(4) grants UNHCR the right to visit and communicate with detained applicants. Detention Service Regulation 49(2) requires international organisations and NGOs to obtain authorisation from the Detention Services Agency or the Principal Immigration Office acting on the advice of the Minister.
UNHCR is only permitted to visit detainees after they formally lodge their asylum applications thereby denying access to newly-arrived persons who might need information on their rights. UNHCR is also not permitted to visit living quarters, preventing the Agency’s monitoring function.
Under Reception Regulation 6A(5), legal advisers, counsellors and NGOs may visit and communicate with detainees whilst Detention Service Regulation 34 ensures confidential interviews between detainees and their legal advisers – albeit with the possibility of these being held “in the sight of an officer”. NGO access is however only granted following authorisation from the Detention Services Agency or the Principal Immigration Office acting on the advice of the Minister.
NGOs are only permitted to appoint lawyers as visitors to detention. Other professionals – social workers, doctors, nurses, youth workers, etc. – are banned from visiting and providing services. In 2024 and 2025 the Detention Services Agency repeatedly denied access to a vulnerable LGBTIQ+ person by the Malta LGBTIQ Rights Movement (MGRM), claiming that support services were being adequately provided by the Agency.
Our lawyers are only allowed to visit identified clients, but we are not informed or made aware of newly-detained people. So how are we supposed to identify detainees needing our services? Every week, we call each detention zone requesting information from groups of people over the zone’s public phone. Police numbers, exact names, detention grounds, overview of asylum claim, vulnerabilities, countries of origins and other details have to be continuously registered and updated for our lawyers to be able to prioritise the 6 detainees we’ll visit in our next visit.
We are only able to visit our clients on the days/hours when the detention centre board room is available, and there have been occasions when we could not visit for weeks due to lack of availability. The board room is equipped with cameras and we are not able to confirm whether audio recording is turned off or otherwise.
These may request access to detention centres to the Head Detention Service who may grant such access on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Principal Immigration Officer.
A 2023 a Media Protocol reforms journalists’ access to detention facilities. Written requests need to be made to the CEO of the Detention Services Agency. Approved visits are required to respect various rules:
In Emanuel Delia vs L-Onorevoli Byron Camilleri et (2023), Malta’s Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) found that an absolute ban on media access to Detention Facilities violated a journalist’s ECHR Article 10. The Court ordered the head of the Detention Services Agency “to grant the applicant access in order for him to visit the above-mentioned facilities and to allow him to take necessary photos, always in respect of the detainees’ privacy.” The judgement was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in October 2025.
The 2023 DSA Visitors Policy was adopted in 2023 after months of difficult negotiations between NGOs and the Home Affairs Ministry. The Policy’s stated aims are to ensure operational security and the safety of all persons within the Detention Facilities. NGOs agreed to sign the new policy, with reservations, whilst UNHCR continued its discussion with the Government towards the signing of an MoU.
All visits must be requested on the prescribed forms at least 2 days before the visit, and each visit will only permit a maximum of 6 persons. All meetings with detained persons are to be conducted in a room equipped with a CCTV camera and no personal equipment, including mobile phones, is permitted inside the room. These must be left in cabinets, and all visitors are to be frisked before entry. Emergency visits for “pending legal issues” may be requested. Photos and “contraband items” will lead to expulsion and a ban on all future visits.
Only identified detainees may be visited. This requires visitors to provide a detainee’s police number, name and surname.
Malta’s administrative detention is regulated across various laws, including national norms transposing relevant EU legislation. The Principal Immigration Officer (PIO) may detain non-nationals under the Immigration Act, under the Reception Regulations and under the Returns Regulations.
Immigration legislation authorises the detention of any person who, arriving by plane, is not granted permission to land in Malta. Article 10 of the Immigration Act specifies that the purpose of detention is to ensure the person’s removal either on the same flight on which they arrived, or on the next available flight. The same article specifies that persons arriving by any other means and not granted leave to land may also be detained.
Article 10 states that all persons detained under this article are in legal custody and are deemed not to have landed. No appeal or review is mentioned in Article 10.
2023 amendments to the Immigration Regulations allow border officers to detain any person whilst conducting border checks. In such cases, the detention must be for the purpose of taking the person before a police officer or until the police officer arrives. Anyone may be also detained if they refuse to stop in order to provide information requested or in order to prevent their entry to Malta where they do not meet entry requirements.
We have never visited the detention space at the Malta International Airport. Since these procedures usually happen within a very short timeframe, sometimes hours or days, we are rarely aware of people detained here. It is not clear what information is given to detained persons in terms of their right to seek asylum and other related rights, yet if anyone expresses a wish to seek asylum, they are generally referred to the International Protection Agency.
According to Regulation 6(1) of the Reception Regulations, asylum-seekers may be detained only on the following grounds:
The Reception Regulations specify that detention may only be imposed following an individual assessment, where if it proves to be necessary and if other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively. They also underline that administrative procedures relevant to the grounds for detention set out in the Regulations shall be executed with due diligence.
Malta adopts a blanket policy of automatically detaining all persons rescued at sea. Only persons deemed to be vulnerable following a prima facie visual assessment by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum-Seekers (AWAS) are exempt from this initial detention. The PIO provides all persons with a Detention Order indicating the grounds for their detention, generally being a combination of above-mentioned grounds (a), (b) and/or (e).
In terms of an unwritten policy, and confirmed by our own observations, persons having high chances of being granted international protection – based on their nationality – are generally released after two months’ detention whilst all others remain detained throughout their asylum procedures. A detained person who is deemed to be vulnerable by AWAS may seek release from the PIO. Whilst this is often granted, we have seen cases where the PIO refuses to release vulnerable persons, arguing that they are able to receive sufficient care and support in detention.
The PIO also often detains asylum-seekers at the moment of lodging their asylum applications, including regularly-staying persons. PIO argues that this is done when there is suspicion that the asylum application was submitted towards the end of regular stay in an attempt to frustrate an eventual return. Many potential applicants approach us seeking advice as to whether they should apply for asylum, fearing their immediate detention. Whilst we sometimes succeed in preventing their detention through calls and interventions with the PIO, we are largely unsuccessful.
We have also observed the systemic detention of Dublin returnees, although the PIO denies a polity of detention for these groups of people.
Regulation 11(6) authorise the detention of persons in order to carry out their return and removal, on the following grounds:
Detention may only be imposed where other sufficient and less coercive measures may not be applied and should only subsist as long as the removal procedure is in progress and being executed with due diligence. This is further complemented by Regulation 11(14) clarifying that detention is only permissible where and for as long as there is a reasonable prospect of removal, in law and in practice.
The somewhat contradictory Regulation 11(7) states that a Removal Order shall lead to the person’s detention, doing away with the discretion and conditions required in Regulation 11(6). We believe this provision is not in conformity with the Returns Directive and with European human rights standards.
Most detained rejected asylum-seekers would have already been in detention during part of or all their asylum procedure. Although the Regulations require a reasonable prospect of removal for pre-removal detention, this is automatically imposed on all rejected asylum-seekers and persons in an irregular immigration situation, often with a mere e-mail sent to the relevant Embassies.
We are often successful in securing the release of persons not identified by their State representatives, including stateless people.
