CASE OF MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. The applicant was (to her knowledge) born in 1996 and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in Lyster Barracks, Ħal Far. 6. The applicant entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat on 27 May 2012. Upon arrival, she was registered by the immigration police, given an identification number (12H-006), and presented with two documents in English, one containing a Return Decision and the other a Removal Order. 7. The Return Decision stated that she was a prohibited immigrant by virtue of Article 5 of the Immigration Act (Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta) because she was in Malta “without means of subsistence and liable to become a charge on public funds”. The Return Decision also informed the applicant that her stay was being terminated and that she had the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure. The Removal Order was based on the consideration that the applicant’s request for a period of voluntary departure had been rejected. It informed the applicant that she would remain in custody until removal was effected, and that an entry ban would be issued against her. The two documents further informed the applicant of her right to appeal against the Decision and Order before the Immigration Appeals Board (“the IAB”) within three working days. 8. According to the applicant, the contents of the decision in English were not explained to her, although she could not understand the language. According to the Government, in practice the immigration police inform the migrants verbally in English about their right to appeal, and the migrants translate for each other. 9. The applicant was further provided with an information leaflet entitled “Your entitlements, responsibilities and obligations while in detention” in Arabic, a language she did not understand. According to the Government the applicant did not request a booklet in another language. 10. In accordance with Article 14(2) of the Immigration Act (see Relevant domestic law), the applicant was detained in Lyster Barracks. 11. During the registration process upon her arrival, in the absence of an interpreter, the applicant’s age was recorded as twenty-six (born 1986). She claims to have told the authorities that she was sixteen years old. According to the Government, it emerged from the authorities’ records (not submitted to the Court) that the applicant declared that she was born in 1986. 12. On 30 May 2012 the applicant appealed against the Removal Order and Return Decision. By the date of the introduction of the application (4 February 2013), no date had been set for her appeal hearing by the IAB. 13. A few days following her arrival the applicant was called for an information session provided by the staff of the Office of the Refugee Commissioner. She was assisted in submitting the Preliminary Questionnaire (PQ), thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under Article 8 of the Refugees Act, Chapter 420 of the Laws of Malta (see Relevant domestic law below). She stated on the form that she was sixteen years old. 14. On an unspecified date some two months after her arrival in Malta, the applicant was called for an interview with a member of Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS) staff, who informed her that as she had claimed to be sixteen years old she would be interviewed by three members of AWAS staff with a view to assessing the veracity of her claim that she was a minor. 15. About a week later, three people from AWAS interviewed her. During the interview a male detainee provided interpretation services. After the interview they informed her that as they could not confirm her minor age through the interview they would send her for a further age verification (FAV) test - an X-ray of the bones of the wrist. The applicant was taken for the FAV test about two months after her interview, on 5 October 2012. 16. At the beginning of November, as the applicant had not received any decision from the AAT, she asked a woman from AWAS (who was visiting the detention centre to conduct interviews with other detainees who had health problems) whether she knew anything about her case. The woman told her that her X-ray was being assessed and if she was found to be a minor she would be released soon. Some three weeks later, on 22 November 2012, some other people from AWAS went to the centre and told her that according to the test she was not a minor but an adult. During the latter meeting a fellow (female) detainee provided translation. 17. By the date of the lodging of the application the applicant had not received a written decision informing her of the outcome of the age assessment procedure. According to the Government a decision on the applicant’s age was taken on 14 January 2013; no date was submitted regarding notification. The Government submitted that since no care order was issued the applicant was obviously not a minor. 18. The applicant was detained in Hermes Block in Lyster Barracks (see paragraph 10 above), in conditions which she considered prison-like and basic. The Government contested this allegation. 19. She explained that the Block is divided into five self-contained zones (one on the ground floor, two on the first floor and two on the second floor) and four of the zones (B,C,D,E) were virtually identical. For the first few days of her detention she had been held in Zone E which at the time accommodated families (i.e. couples with or without children), and then she was moved to Zones C and D with other single women. 20. These zones contained a number of dormitories (containing bunk beds but no lockers or cupboards for personal belongings), ten showers and toilets, a small kitchen with one or two hot plates and a fridge (no further storage for food, which was stored in open boxes accessible to insects, was available), and a common room with six basic metal tables and benches screwed to the ground, together with a television. Blankets hanging from bunk beds were the only means of privacy. 21. Access to the zones was through metal gates which were kept locked all day, and detainees could leave the zone for one and a half hours per day, which they could spend in a small dusty yard. Windows were barred and most of them glazed with opaque Perspex (which was removed in the summer months for air, though they then let air through in the cold winter months). On the one hand, in summer the facility was often crowded and the heat would become oppressive despite the presence of ceiling fans. On the other hand, in winter it was unbearably cold as the facility was not heated and, moreover, was exposed to the elements as there were no adjoining buildings. 22. The applicant considered that the facility was shared by too many people – in summer the applicant’s dormitory (one out of three in the zone) was shared by twenty women – and agreement amongst so many different persons having cultural and linguistic differences was difficult. However, at the time of the introduction of the application, the applicant was in less crowded conditions, sharing an entire zone with only twenty-five other women, most of whom were Eritrean and Somali. 23. The applicant noted that since her arrival she had only been provided with two bed sheets, a small towel, a blanket, a T-shirt, one pillow and a pillow case, a few items of underwear and a pair of flip-flops, as well as a plastic plate, cup, and set of cutlery. Other items of clothing were distributed sporadically. She stated that she was never provided with a quilt, a bra or running shoes. While toilet paper was distributed on a monthly basis, certain basic items such as sanitary pads were missing. In winter detainees were not systematically provided with warm clothes and closed shoes, which were distributed according to what was received by way of donation and which was not sufficient to supply the needs of all detainees. Although blankets were distributed to everyone, the building was not heated and winter months were unbearably cold. 24. Detainees had little to do all day, and only limited access to open air. In particular, the applicant noted that she was let out into the small dirty yard for the first time only after a few months of detention. While in the yard, other male detainees called out names and picked on the women from the windows of their rooms overlooking the yard. The applicant referred to the report “Not here to stay: Report of the International Commission of Jurists on its visit to Malta on 26 – 30 September 2011”, May 2012 (see paragraph 45 below). 25. She also noted that although telephone cards were distributed (each of 5 Euro (EUR)), the credit they contained was often insufficient to make long distance calls and no cheaper ways of keeping contact with the family or outside world were available as they had no internet access. By the time she lodged her application she had received EUR 25 in credit. The applicant also considered inappropriate that detainees were given the same soap to use for their bodies, hair, clothes and floor. The applicant further made reference to an incident with a detention officer who had pushed her down the stairs and tried to forcefully resuscitate her by slapping her and grabbing different parts of her face leaving her in pain – she, however, admitted that she could not recognise the officer in question and that she had feared reprisal had she reported the matter. 26. Furthermore, as could be seen from the results of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Europe study on detention of vulnerable asylum seekers, the physical conditions of detention and their impact on the physical and mental well-being of detainees were exacerbated by other factors. These factors included: length of detention, lack of constructive activities to occupy detainees, overcrowding, limited access to open air, difficulties in communication with staff and with other detainees, and lack of information about one’s situation. Moreover, there was a lack of any real possibility of obtaining effective redress and inmates knew that detention was not serving any useful purpose and was in no way proportionate to the aim to be achieved. 27. The applicant submitted that all of those objective factors had had a particular impact on her because of her personal circumstances, particularly her young age, her inability to communicate in anything but Somali and the fact that as a young woman she was detained in a facility administered almost exclusively by men. 28. On 24 January 2013 the applicant was called for an interview with the Refugee Commissioner. By means of a decision of the Refugee Commissioner of 2 February 2013, the applicant was granted subsidiary protection in Malta. She was notified of this decision and released on 7 February 2013.