26 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN BULGARIA humiliating, is the unnecessary limitation of the internal freedom of movement in the detention facilities, including access to sanitary premises. In the interview with Mr. A., a stateless person who spent about seven years in immigration detention in Bulgaria, he complained that during his detention from 2005 to 2012 he had to urinate in a bottle, because he had no access to the toilet at night. The problem is also described in a report on monitoring visits to the detention centres in 2011: The male detainees interviewed, however, raised a serious concern – the access to the toilet during the night depended on the police officer on duty. Some interviewees reported that they either had to use an empty bottle or endured without going to the toilet until the morning, as none of the staff on duty would respond to the bell or alarm button. Staff members commented that there was indeed a temporary problem with the bell, but a technician had been called and had fixed it. Custody visitors, however, continued to register complaints concerning this issue throughout the reporting period (up until June). The problem at the Special Centre for Temporary Accommodation of Foreigners Lyubimets was identical, with the exception that it also concerned the women detained at the centre. Bedrooms were locked at night and if someone wanted to use the toilet, they had to ring a bell. An interviewee said that the whole facility was guarded and it made no sense for them to be locked in as this was not a prison but an accommodation centre.”120 The same problem has been registered also in a 2016 report, according to which, detainees in Bulgaria complain that “[b]edrooms are locked at 10 PM and this creates difficulties when people want to use the bathroom facilities at night time. Some use bottles or the windows as toilets.”121 In her report for 2015, the Ombudsman observed “significant deterioration in material living conditions” in the immigration detention centres in Bulgaria.122 She observed that the centres were overcrowded, bedrooms and bathrooms were dirty, there was insufficient personal space, there was a lack of hot water and no sanitary products. A significant problem related to detention conditions in Bulgaria over the years has been the arbitrary use of solitary confinement as a form of punishment.123 For example, in the case of Mr. Kadzoev, the Bulgarian NGO ‘Assistance Centre for Torture Survivors’, issued a certificate which stated that Mr. Kadzoev’s detention and the degrading treatment that he suffered while detained in Bulgaria had led to his re-traumatisation. During his detention the authorities at the detention centre subjected him to disproportionate punishments and excessive use of force. He was forced to be in solitary confinement several times, for a total of at least nine months. Some reasons for his punishment were as trivial as being in possession of a lighter. He was also placed in solitary confinement for inquiring about his asylum claim and prolonged detention, beaten by the authorities and handcuffed to the bed and the heating facilities. In none of these instances was a paper or document, which stated the punishment and the reasons for imposing it, served to him. No official charges were ever communicated to him. His mental and physical health severely deteriorated, however, he did not receive special medical treatment. In January 2008 he suffered from gallstones, a doctor from the emergency aid told him that he needed surgery, but this surgery never happened. In a landmark judgment124 of 7 January 2016 the SAC repealed the regulation of solitary confinement in the Ordinance125 adopted by the Minister of the Interior because it was unlawful. The SAC noted that the regulation of the issue for the first time in an Ordinance adopted by the Minister and not in a law adopted by the Parliament contradicted the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. As highlighted in the ENS Regional Toolkit,126 conditions of immigration detention must reflect its non-punitive nature. As stateless persons are likely to be detained for longer than most others, the poor environment in which they are compelled to live can have a massive impact on them and can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In view of the case studies presented in the report, Bulgaria should revise the conditions of immigration detention in order for them to comply with international standards. 3.7 CONDITIONS OF RELEASE AND RE-DETENTION Immigration detainees always ask what the use or purpose of their time spent in detention is. If by law immigration detention is not a punishment, then what result does their detention produce in relation to their immigration status? They expect to finally receive a solution to their legal limbo situation. Unfortunately, their expectations are not met by Bulgarian law. When released back in Bulgaria, stateless persons, like undocumented migrants, receive no papers. This is seen in the cases of all former detainees studied in the report. For example, Mr. Auad was released after the elapse of the ‘18 months’ time limit of detention; his residence status had been withdrawn and he was not given any surrogate legal status. When Mr. A. was released, he did not receive any documentation and was in a legal limbo without access to welfare or decent legal employment. “Why did they hold me seven years and gave me nothing,” Mr. A. asked during