8 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN MALTA status is often complex and burdensome. Lawful removal of such persons is generally subject to extensive delays and is often impossible. In many European countries, stateless persons detained for removal purposes are therefore vulnerable to prolonged and repeat detention. These factors in turn make stateless persons especially vulnerable to the negative impact of detention. The emotional and psychological stress of lengthy–even indefinite–periods of detention without hope of release or removal is particularly likely to affect stateless persons throughout Europe. It is evident that the failure of immigration regimes to comprehend and accommodate the phenomenon of statelessness, identify stateless persons and ensure that they do not directly or indirectly discriminate against them often results in stateless persons being punished for their statelessness. Thus, the European Network on Statelessness has embarked on a two year project aimed at better understanding the extent and consequences of the detention of stateless persons in Europe, and advocating for protecting stateless persons from arbitrary detention through the application of regional and international standards. Among the outputs of this project are: • A regional toolkit for practitioners, on protecting stateless persons from arbitrary detention – which sets out regional and international standards which states are required to comply with and practitioners can draw on in their work;2 and • A series of country reports investigating the law, policy and practice related to the detention of stateless persons in selected European countries and its impact on stateless persons and those at risk of statelessness. These reports are meant as information resources but also as awareness raising and advocacy resources that we hope will contribute to strengthening protection frameworks in this regard. In year 1 of the project (2015), three such country reports (including this one) have been drafted on Malta, the Netherlands and Poland. In year two, further reports will be published on other countries.3 1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS The goals of this study are two-fold: 1. 2. filling an information gap on statelessness and detention in Malta; and to serve as an advocacy tool to promote greater protection for stateless persons and those at risk of statelessness from arbitrary detention, including through improved identification and determination of statelessness. To this end, the present first chapter provides an overview of the research objectives and introduces the reader to the Maltese context. The second chapter is concerned with law and policy and existing (statistical) data on statelessness and detention. Then, in chapter three, key issues of concern are identified. The report concludes with a summary of findings and recommendations for improvement. On the basis of desk research, a presentation is provided of the existing international, regional and national legislation pertaining to Malta’s immigration control context, the specificity of statelessness, and an overview of the link between these issues. Following this preliminary analysis of Malta's legal obligations, an assessment of practice was made by interviewing various stakeholders from the public and private sectors, as well as four people identified as being stateless or at risk of statelessness. With regard to these interviews, it should be noted that no extensive legal analysis or fact check of each individual case was conducted. These stories and personal experiences are meant to inform and illustrate broader research findings. A useful meeting was also held with the Minister for Home Affairs and National Security. Research on the legal frameworks of countries of origin, although limited, was mostly relevant to assess gaps between the practice of return (and therefore the consequential implementation of a decision to detain) and the actual feasibility of such measures. In this regard, the interviewees’ accounts of their experiences in Malta and of the several countries travelled or lived in from birth, and the appreciation of each of these states in contributing to the difficulties linked to their identity, were essential to shaping this report. Notably, stakeholders generally commented that: “there are almost no stateless people in Malta”. This report would tend to support this perception that there are only a negligible amount of people that are stateless in Malta, with higher numbers falling within the ‘at risk of statelessness’ category. It also seems that the lack of awareness about statelessness among stakeholders in Malta may itself be contributing to a failure to identify relevant cases. A serious limitation to this research was the reluctance of some public authorities to participate or to give access to information. Coupled with this, access to detention was also problematic. Authorisation to visit a detention centre was initially denied, and although subsequently granted, this delayed the research process. Due to several factors, explored below, the issue of statelessness seems invisible to most stakeholders, possibly explaining their reluctance to participate in the research process. It is also relevant to note that up to mid-2014 no specific research on statelessness in Malta had been conducted.