Although the plight Malta had found itself in over the Africa-Europe migratory phenomenon has subsided into near nothingness over the last two years, the overriding human rights issues that are so intricately tied to the phenomenon have far from subsided.

And Malta is still very much in the thick of it, and it could very well find itself once again struggling to cope with arrivals should Libya choose to open its sea borders once again, if its negotiations with the EU over billions of euros in funding fall through.

Should that happen, Malta will once again need to appeal to its fellow EU member states for the long-sought burden sharing that has eluded it by and large so far.

But if incidents such as that highlighted by Amnesty International this week recur or are allowed to go by unaddressed, Malta runs the risk of damning itself in the eyes of much of Europe. The report - Seeking Safety, Finding Fear – Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Libya and Malta – basically pigeonholed Malta with Libya in the maltreatment of migrants and alleged complicity in denying migrants their legitimate right to apply for asylum. The report has received considerable international media attention this week.

The incident in question dates back to July, when Libya and Malta basically split up a boatload of migrants like so many heads of cattle after rescuing them at sea. Half were sent back to Libya, where they were reportedly beaten and tortured by electric shock and where they have no opportunity to apply for asylum, and the other half to Malta, where they were released with international protection after some two months.

Malta claims the separations were of a voluntary nature, but accounts from migrants tell a different story. How, for example, would a husband and seven-month pregnant wife have conceivably consented to be separated – with the wife going back to Libya and the husband to Malta? Tragically, their child was stillborn in Libya two months later.

As Amnesty put it this week, under international law countries that have effective control, authority, or power over third country nationals intercepted at sea have certain responsibilities. These include ensuring access to a satisfactory asylum determination procedure; and to not return anyone, directly or indirectly, to a country where they would a real risk of persecution or serious harm. Neither right is afforded in Libya, which has an extremely dubious human rights record and is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.

The presumption also emerged from the report that Malta only took on half the migrants that day under figurative duress - after migrants threatened to commit suicide if they were returned to Libya. An inquiry into the matter is still perfectly warranted.

Although Malta has been relieved to a great extent by Italy’s controversial practice of pushing migrant boats back to Libyan shores, the country stands on a very slippery moral slope in doing so.

Malta must not become party to such actions, on its own steam or by acting in tandem with Libya or Italy. If it does, it will lose any stake it has claimed on any sort of moral high ground on the issue of the migration phenomenon, and its arguments for burden sharing will be frowned upon more than usual by its European counterparts.

If Libya were to indeed open the gates once again, , last July’s highly questionable actions will come back to haunt Malta, with political forces in burden sharing-resisting states using the incident to drag Malta and its handling of refugees once again through the dirt, and to deny Malta its legitimate right to having its burden shared.

That prospect is a Pandora’s Box that needs to be kept closed.