18 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN MALTA 3.3 LENGTH OF DETENTION When I won the Court case against Malta for the fact that they had arbitrarily detained me for more than 18 months, I earned a lot of money. And I decided to send it all to my family. I did not keep a penny of it. I grew up in very harsh conditions, in mud hut and bare furniture, struggling to eat every day. I could not possibl enjoy all this money knowing how my family is living back there. I could have had a fresh start here but I would have never sleep peacefully.” Ibrahim Suzo, originally from Sierra Leone National policy, not law, sets the maximum detention period to 18 months, although it is not clear how this maximum detention duration operates with regard to migrants who, having already been detained for the maximum period, are re-detained in the context of return proceedings. Persons receiving a positive decision on their asylum applications are released upon receipt of the decision (following medical clearance) and persons found to be vulnerable or unaccompanied minors are released at these decisions (also following medical clearance). In practice, the length of detention is therefore associated with parallel procedures thereby emphasising its arbitrariness and highlighting its unlawfulness insofar as a person’s detention is not based on the specific purpose of removal but more on the operation of other, intrinsically unrelated procedures. With regard to pre-removal detention, Malta was condemned for the extended detention of a migrant without the ability to prove or demonstrate efforts to conduct the removal process.77 The 2014 amendments to the Return Regulations added automatic review of detention at reasonable intervals not exceeding three months, with the obligation to release persons where their return is no longer foreseeable. Observed practice reveals that the reviews conducted on the basis of these amendments are largely based on the person’s nationality and the reviews conducted have in fact resulted in the release from detention of several groups of persons long before the 18-month maximum period. As 2015 did not see more than 100 arrivals at the time of writing, it is indeed difficult to assess the longer-term impact of this review and whether it will translate into a mainstream process with increased procedural guarantees. 3.4 REMOVAL AND RE-DOCUMENTATION With regard to the procedural aspects of deportation proceedings, the main challenge for the Immigration Police is the lack of communication from authorities of the countries of origin. The standard procedure for return sees the Immigration Police, through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, contacting the country of origin as declared by the migrant. If the national authorities reply, one to one interviews are organised between the migrant and the representative of the country of origin, with the assistance of interpreters where necessary. During this interview, the representative of the country will assess the plausibility of the claim of nationality, through tests of language and general knowledge on the country. If the representative is satisfied that the migrant is from the claimed country, necessary documentation for travelling back will be issued and the person detained until the removal is realised. The Immigration Police does not work on the country of former residence, limiting itself to countries of origin. In view of the unlikelihood that stateless persons will receive documentation from any state, they are protected from being detained again after their initial detention upon arrival, where this occurred following irregular entry or apprehension. As of early 2015 the Immigration Police has around 2800 pending requests for travel documents, some of which have been pending for years,78 According to the same source, the top five nationalities (or claimed nationalities) awaiting such documentation are as follows Pending requests for travel documents Nationality Pending requests Ivory Coast >500 Nigeria >300 Ethiopia >250 Eritrea >200 Sudan >200 Source: Immigration Police Malta maintains regular communications with only a few African states, namely Nigeria and Ghana. It was reported that Gambia only cooperates with the Police when the return is voluntary. The understanding of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security, whilst acknowledging the need to explore the implications of acceding to the 1954 Convention, is that the main responsibility for these persons pending return lies with their countries of origin. This position is insensitive to the particular condition and vulnerabilities of the stateless. 79 During the interview, the Immigration Police mentioned an interesting case regarding nationals from Nigeria. It seems that the Nigerian authorities would only issue reentry documentation, in a removal context, to Nigerian children registered in Nigeria. Nigerian children born in Malta but not registered in Nigeria, for whatever reason, would not be issued such documentation, rendering the removal of entire families rather problematic. Clearly, the reasons for non-registration would need to be explored in individual cases in order to ascertain whether this is due