Malta’s coveted reputation as a nation friendly to foreigners was dealt yet another blow this week when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the conditions in which it keeps its asylum-seeking migrants as degrading – that is unless one views a visitor as merely a tourist that has money to spend.

In what was once again a case for national humiliation over the country’s handling of the irregular migrant situation over the years, Europe’s court of human rights found that the conditions in which Malta keeps migrants in detention are degrading, inhumane and have a dramatic effect on the physical and psychological wellbeing of those held in detention.

The judgement reinforces what this newspaper, other sections of the media, human rights organisations and other NGOs have been trying to raise awareness on for years – that conditions in the country’s detention centres are downright abysmal.

On Tuesday, 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.

The court also went so far as to ‘recommend’ that Malta takes “the necessary steps to improve the conditions and shorten the length of detention of asylum seekers”.

While the 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 ridiculous. This new government must step in and show that it is on the higher ground morally if it is to get the kind of cooperation it is seeking from its fellow EU member states. 

It must also stop crying wolf at least until the number of migrant arrivals surpasses the average of past years, which it is drawing close to this summer. The news that Malta is to activate the European Union’s emergency mechanism is a case in point.  While it is hoped that the request is viewed favourably, if it is not Malta will have lost a little more of its credibility when it comes to the handling of migrant flows.

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

As the ECHR stated when delivering one of its ruling: “The Court considered that the problems detected in this case 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.” 

While the government has said that waiting times for asylum applications have been reduced to six months, the ECHR still found in its rulings that even six months cannot be considered to be a reasonable amount of time to keep a person, who has committed no crime, locked up in detention, let alone in such conditions.

Without delving excessively into the fine details of the rulings, which have been reported extensively 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 in 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 was by no means alone in the conditions she suffered and it could be only a matter of time before more and more similar cases are filed before the ECHR.

This unfortunate woman, 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 offence. Taken as a whole and in the 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 verdict in 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. 

The ECHR’s decisions were degrading to Malta itself, but there are lessons to be learned from them and follow up action to be taken. It is hoped that the authorities take the necessary action they have pledged in the light of the judgements as soon as possible lest the country is shamed more than it already has been.