What this newspaper, other sections of the media, human rights organisations and other NGOs have been trying to raise awareness on for years was this week, at long last, reinforced and justified by the European Court of Human Rights.

The conditions in which Malta keeps migrants in detention are degrading, inhumane and have a dramatic affect on the physical and psychological wellbeing of those held in detention, the court found in a first ruling against Malta in the matter.

Earlier this week, the ECHR ruled against the state of Malta in two cases and awarded damages amounting to €60,000.  In reply, the government, perhaps correctly, placed the onus on the previous administration and said that it would work to remedy the state of affairs highlighted by the ECHR. 

It also said that it would be considering all legal avenues open to it, which would include a request for the judgement to be referred to the Court’s Grand Chamber for appeal, which would be rather distasteful considering the gist of the judgements.

Without delving too much into the fine details of the rulings, which have been reported by the media this week, in the case of a Somali woman, the ECHR found that “the possible exposure of detainees to cold conditions, the lack of female staff, a complete lack of access to open air and exercise for periods of up to three months, an inadequate diet...for 14 and a half months amounted to degrading treatment.”

The barracks at which she was kept, the court found, had been oppressively hot in summer and very cold in winter, with no blankets having been supplied at a time when she had suffered a miscarriage and was vulnerable due to her physical and mental health.

She, the court ruled, “lived in those conditions for 14 and a half months in an immigrant detention context and not as someone who had committed a criminal offense.  Taken as a whole and in light of her specific situation, the cumulative effect of those conditions had diminished her human dignity and made her feel anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her and possibly breaking her physical and moral resistance, thus constituting degrading treatment.”

The second case, filed by a man from Sierra Leone, had similar descriptions. 

The court also, in both cases, ruled against Malta over the speed of its asylum application process and called on the country to “adopt new measures to improve the conditions of detained asylum seekers and allow them to obtain speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention”.

It is indeed a cause for national disgrace that the ECHR has ruled against Malta, a civilised country that holds its humanitarian credentials in high esteem, in such harsh terms in both cases, and something must be done immediately to remedy the situation. 

While the new government, in the wake of the rulings, said that it is “working to improve detention conditions so the errors of the past are not repeated”, its tone in repeatedly saying that it cannot do it alone, without help from the European Union, is not acceptable.  This new government must step in and show that it is on the higher ground morally.

But if it does not act of its own accord, more pressure may be brought to bear in the foreseeable future.

As the ECHR stated in delivering its rulings: “The Court considered that the problems detected in this case[s] could give rise to further similar applications.  Therefore, it requested the Maltese authorities to establish a mechanism to allow individuals seeking review of the lawfulness of their immigration detention to obtain a determination of their [asylum] claim within a reasonable time limit. 

“It further recommended Malta to take the necessary steps to improve the conditions and shorten the length of detention of asylum seekers.”

The ECHR’s decisions were degrading to Malta itself, it is hoped that the authorities take the necessary action they have pledged in light of the judgements as soon as possible lest the country is shamed more than it already has been.