20 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN MALTA sanitary conditions. There were so many people packed in there that diseases started spreading and I got the scabies. I never thought that would ever happen to me. But I saw a doctor twice, and each time he gave me one single tablet. My health was getting worse and I could not take it anymore. I did not know how long that would continue. People around mentioned one year and half and I went mad. I had not slept in days and I knew that if I stayed, I would die.” Davin Mohamed, originally from Syria According to a recent report on detention in Malta87: “Asylum-seekers and other third country nationals, who have over-stayed their visa, are detained in the same military barracks, which are overcrowded, offer inadequate sanitation and hygiene facilities, and allow no privacy for the detainees. Whilst detainees are provided with a bed each, there is little space in between the beds and no place where they may store their personal possessions. Detainees are provided with cleaning materials and are expected to take care of the cleaning of the centre. Although detainees are issued with basic items of clothing upon arrival, there is no systematic or consistent practice for the distribution of clothes which are weather-appropriate. Most of the clothing which is provided to detainees is donated on a charitable basis to the detention service management and is then distributed accordingly. Moreover, there is little to no heating or ventilation, exposing migrants to extreme cold and heat.” In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Malta under Article 3’s prohibition of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment with regard to the conditions of the dormitories, the lack of female staff, the lack of access to open air, the exposure to heat and cold and the overall creation of suffering in this hostile environment:88 “In view of all the above-mentioned circumstances taken as a whole which the applicant, as a detained immigrant, endured for a total of fourteen and a half months, and in the light of the applicant’s specific situation, the Court is of the opinion that the cumulative effect of the conditions complained of diminished the applicant’s human dignity and aroused in her feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her and possibly breaking her physical or moral resistance. In sum, the Court considers that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Hermes Block amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention”.89 3.8 CONDITIONS OF RELEASE AND REDETENTION But in Malta, after everything that happened to me, detention, being beaten up, arrested, jailed and released, I had no more chance than in Gambia. Twice the Police called the Sierra Leonean Embassy, once when I was in prison, and then again when I was back in detention. Twice I cooperated and explained everything to them. Twice, they did not recognise me as one of them. But I stayed in detention nonetheless. I did my time, now, I would just like to be given a chance, a good job, an opportunity to start all over again.” Ibrahim Suzo, originally from Sierra Leonne As explained above, detained migrants may be released from detention for various reasons: determination of minor age or vulnerability; positive asylum decision; or duration of the asylum process. Failing any of these, the maximum detention period of 18 months would apply. It is also mentioned above that 2014 brought about important changes in law and practice that dramatically altered the operation of detention, by introducing a detention review that assesses a detainee’s returnability (largely on the basis of nationality). From the perspective of a stateless person, or someone at risk thereof, any of the first three release conditions is relevant. Questions may arise as to the applicability of the review process in the context of persons whose nationality, and therefore prospects of return, is unclear. Since registration procedures rely on personal declarations, as opposed to verified links with countries of origin, there are high risks of stateless persons ‘failing’ the review process on the basis of a presumed returnability, resulting in prolonged detention. In relation to re-detention, it has been explained above that following release from detention – for whatever reason – Immigration authorities would apprehend and re-detain a person where the prospects for his/her return materialise. Technically this possibility should present no risk to a stateless person, in view of the ‘due diligence’ principle in return proceedings requiring real prospects of return for the migrant’s detention to be in conformity with legal norms. However, in view of Malta’s overreliance on administrative detention, including with an unclear and arbitrary legal and policy framework, it would be unwise to rely on full compliance with this principle. Instead, a more cautious approach should be encouraged, with a view towards strict implementation of legal norms regulating pre-removal detention.