Eggarter Rainer 06.07.2011
-
Upload
hicham-rihan-hicham -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Eggarter Rainer 06.07.2011
-
Diplomarbeit
zur Erlangung eines Titels des Magister der rechtswissenschaftlichen
Fakultt an der Karl-Franzens-Universitt Graz
am Institut fr Vlerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen
ber das Thema
Case Studies on the Implementation of European Human Rights
Standards for Irregular Migrants in Detention,
eingereicht von
Rainer Eggarter (Matrikelnummer: 9813001)
Betreuerin: Ass. Prof. DDr. Renate Kicker
Graz, 06.07.2011
1
-
Ehrenwrtliche Erklrung
Ich, Rainer Eggarter, erklre hiermit, dass ich die vorliegende wissenschaftliche Arbeit selbststndig
angefertigt und die mit ihr unmittelbar verbundenen Ttigkeiten selbst erbracht habe. Ich erklre
weiters, dass ich keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Alle aus gedruckten,
ungedruckten oder dem Internet im Wortlaut oder im wesentlichen Inhalt bernommenen
Formulierungen und Konzepte sind gem den Regeln fr wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zitiert und
durch Funoten bzw. durch andere genaue Quellenangaben gekennzeichnet. Die wissenschaftliche
Arbeit ist noch keiner anderen Prfungsbehrde vorgelegt worden. Diese Arbeit wurde in
gedruckter und elektronischer Form abgegeben. Ich besttige, dass der Inhalt der digitalen Version
vollstndig mit dem der gedruckten Version bereinstimmt.
Unterschrift Graz, 30. Juni, 2011
2
-
Danksagung
Diese Diplomarbeit mchte ich meinen Eltern widmen. Ihrer Geduld und Untersttzung in allen
Lebenslagen verdanke ich den Abschluss meines Studiums.
Ausserdem mchte ich mich bei meiner Betreuerin, Prof. DDr. Renate Kicker, fr ihre Hilfe,
Geduld und ausdauernde Untersttzung bedanken.
3
-
Case Studies on the Implementation of European Human
Rights Standards for Irregular Migrants in Detention
Table of Contents:
A) Introduction 6
B) European human rights law and standards for irregular migrants in detention 8
B1) Legally binding rules in international law 8
B1a) The right to liberty and security: Art 5 ECHR, Art 9 UDHR and Art 9
ICCPR 8
B1b) The prohibition of torture: Article 3 ECHR 9
B1c) The fundamental principle of non refoulement 10
B1d) The twenty guidelines on forced return 11
B1e) The DUBLIN II Regulation 12
B2) The Committee for the Prevention of Torture ( CPT) 13
B3) The CPT standards regarding irregular migrants in detention 14
C) Case Studies in the Light of the Implementation of the Standards set by the CPT 19
C1) Greece
C1a) Visit 25/08/2005 09/09/2005 20
C1b) Visit 20/02/2007 27/02/2007 33
C1c) Visit 23/09/2008 29/09/2008 46
C1d) Visit 17/09/2009 29/09/2009 54
C1e) The public statement by the CPT concerning Greece 67
C1f) Conclusions regarding the Cooperation between the CPT and Greece 68
4
-
C2) Italy
C2a) Visit 16/06/2006 23/06/2006 70
C2b) Visit 14/09/2008 26/09/2008 77
C2c) Visit 27/07/2009 31/07/2009 81
C2d) Conclusions regarding the Cooperation between the CPT and Italy 88
D) Conclusio 89
E) Sources 92
5
-
A) Introduction
Migration of people has always existed in the history of human kind. Especially in the last decades
the phenomenon of a massive migrative movement of human beings from developing countries
towards industrialized nations has augmented dramatically.
Today the topic of illegal immigration has become a key issue of European politics.
Regarding the facts of economic development, globalisation and also climatic change, this
phenomenon is becoming more and more important not only to single European countries, but to
the European Community as a whole.
The European Union is facing an urgent problem in the case of how to cope with this situation as
well. European states, which are, because of their geographic position, more affected by the
migrative movement than others, urge for a common assessment of the situation.
In fact, the total numbers of immigrants who have reached the shores of for example Greece, Spain
and Italy have risen dramatically in the last 10 years.
Today, the civil societies of European states are aware of the fact of increasing immigration which
is affecting Europe, but they are not the only ones.
Political parties, mostly from the 'right wing' have discovered the topic of immigration, using it as
an argument for national policies based on inequality and discrimination.
The European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment ( ECPT) is the legal framework for the CPT a monitoring and standard setting body -
provided by the Council of Europe, for securing general standards of human rights for detained
persons.
These are human rights standards, which offer guidelines for the countries who are members of the
Council of Europe.
Civil society needs to understand that human rights do not exist only to protect some minorities
from ill treatment, but that human rights standards are functioning as a safeguard for a
democratic society itself.
In my thesis I want to take a closer look at the work of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture1
1 Further on referred to as the 'CPT' or 'Committee'
6
-
in the countries of Greece and Italy, simply because these countries are two of the most effected
ones in the EU by irregular migration.
Which are the benefits of the work of the CPT? Did it contribute to improving human rights
standards in these countries?
Which are the single safeguards for irregular migrants in detention and which international treaties
contribute to them?
Another important aspect is, to what extent the principle of non refoulement is being respected
and put in practice by European countries, which are parties to the U.N. Convention about the
Status of Refugees and /or it's Protocol of 1967.
In my thesis I am trying to find out if / how human rights standards in this case a bundle of
safeguards, set by the CPT - are being implemented by two member states of the Council of Europe
and the European Union: Greece and Italy. This I intend to achieve by looking into the reports of
the CPT following their visits to these two countries and the states' responses which follow the
reports.
This is an opportunity to find out about the ability and willingness of states regarding the
implementation of certain human rights standards, set by the CPT.
Further on it provides at least to a certain extent comparable data regarding the quality of
cooperation of two different countries with an expert body.
The CPT' s definition of 'irregular migrants in detention': This is the term to denote persons
who have been deprived of their liberty under aliens legislation either because they have entered a
country illegally (or attempted to do so) or because they have overstayed their permission to stay in
the country in question.2
Further on it needs to be clear, that asylum seekers are not irregular migrants, although they may
achieve the same status, if their application for asylum is rejected.
2 19th General Report of the CPT's activities ( 2008 - 2009), paragraph 76
7
-
B) European human rights law and standards for irregular migrants in
detention
B1) Legally binding rules in international law
B1a) The right to liberty and security: Art 5 ECHR, Art 9 UDHR and Art 9 ICCPR
Unlike the detainment of a person awaiting trial for being suspected of having committed a crime or
incarceration after a conviction, administrative detention means the deprivation of liberty by state
authorities without trial.
Art 5 (f) ECHR states: 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by
law:
(f): the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the
country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or
extradition.
Administrative detention may only be ordered after an individual examination, if this measure was
necessary to ensure that a removal order was executable. Further on, the measure needs to be based
on national law and may only be ordered, if no other measure but administrative detention can
assure the execution of the removal order effectively.
Art 93 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( UDHR)4 and Art 95 of the International
3 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.4 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December, 1948. 5 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
8
-
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR)6 provide, that administrative detention may only
be applied in a very restrictive way and following clear rules, not to be qualified as arbitrary arrest.
B1b) The prohibition of torture: Article 3 ECHR
One year after the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1949, the European Convention on
Human Rights was signed in Rome. It entered into force on September 3, 1953 and guarantees a
number of fundamental human rights to every person within the territory of the countries which
have ratified the ECHR.
Article 3 ECHR the prohibition of torture - is crucial for my thesis: No one shall be subjected to
torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Art 3 ECHR is forming an absolute rule, which means that it is not accessible to any kind of
reservations or exceptions. This means that every person has to be protected from torture, inhuman
treatment or punishment, who is deprived of his / her liberty.7
In detail, Art 3 ECHR is prohibiting three different types of treatment:
As torture a certain measure can be qualified, if it is a deliberate treatment, which evokes serious
and cruel suffering.8
Cases, which have been qualified as torture by the European Court of Human Rights ( ECtHR) are
for example the rape of a female detainee by the police.9
Inhuman treatment is called a measure, which causes intense mental or physical suffering. In the
case Gfgen vs. Germany ( June 2010) the ECtHR qualified it as inhuman treatment, when police
officers threatened the applicant with imminent pain for the purpose of extracting information.10
It has to be kept in mind that it greatly depends on the individual case, if a measure can be called
'inhuman treatment'. For example state of health, sex and age need to be considered if a certain
treatment was able to cause fear and humiliation. An example for inhuman treatment was seen by
the ECtHR in the case of interrogation of a detainee by the police, where a person had to stand
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
6 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December, 1966.7 UNHCR, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law, December 2001.8 Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskonvention, 2007, 209 ECtHR, Aydin vs. Turkey, September 25 1979, App. No. 23178/9410 http://echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc
9
-
blindfolded for several hours with a high noise level.11
As degrading treatment or punishment a measure is qualified, which possibly provokes fear,
anguish and the strong feeling of inferiority and might break the physical and moral resistance.12
As degrading treatment or punishment the ECtHR qualified court ordered physical punishment.13
B1c) The fundamental principle of non refoulement
Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of Refugees states: No contracting
state shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his/her race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Article 33 (2) of the same Convention provides a number of exceptions from Art 33 (1): Basically a
refugee may be returned forcibly, if he constitutes a serious threat to the security of the country he
tries to enter, or to its community.14
It must be underlined, that the provision of Art 33 (2) is to be applied in a highly restrictive way. A
country, trying to apply this provision has to prove that there is a direct connection between the
refugee' s presence in a certain country and a national security threat to that very country.15
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the United Nations Human Rights Committee
have interpreted the articles regarding the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment - namely Art 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a way, declaring the
principle of non refoulement as an inherent part of these articles.16
11 ECtHR, Ireland vs. United Kingdom, Jan 18 1978, App. No. 5310/7112 Jim Murdoch, The tretament of prisoners European standards, 2006, p. 11913 ECtHR, Tyrer vs. United Kingdom, April 25, 1978, App. No. 5856/7214 The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable
grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
15 Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Implications of European Union Internal Security Proposals and Measures in the Aftermath of the 11 September Attacks in the United States, November 2001, http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/eusecurity.htm
16 ECtHR decisions in:1.: Soering v. United Kingdom, 7 July 1989; Cruz Varas v. Sweden, 20 March 1991;
10
-
Further on, a derogation from Art 3 ECHR or Art 7 ICCPR is not allowed under any circumstances.
This makes the principle of non refoulement an absolute rule and is also widely recognised as
common law.17
B1d) The twenty guidelines on forced return
The Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return - adopted by the Ministers of the Council of Europe on 4
May, 2005 - are meant to be a useful tool for the governments of the member states of the Council
of Europe to implement laws and best practices in accordance with international human rights
standards.18
According to these guidelines, administrative detention may only be ordered after an individual
examination, if this measure was necessary to ensure that a removal order was executable. Further
on, the measure needs to be based on national law and may only be ordered, if no other measure but
administrative detention can assure the execution of the removal order effectively.
The state must provide for the possibility of legal remedy against the order of administrative
detention. In case of such an appeal, a court must decide speedily, if the measure of detainment was
lawful. If the court denies the lawfulness of it, the detainee must be released immediately.
The length of administrative detention must be kept as short as possible. On a regular basis it should
be examined if the measure was still necessary.
At the moment of the detainment of an irregular migrant, the person must be informed rapidly about
his situation and his rights in a language he can understand.
These rights are in detail: Access to a lawyer; access to a medical doctor; the right to inform a third
2.: Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, 30 October 1991;3.: Chahal v. United Kingdom, 15 November 1996; 4.: Ahmed v. Austria, 17 December 1996;5.: TI v. United Kingdom (Admissibility), 7 March 2000;6.: Saadi v. Italy, 22 February 2008;7.: Ben Khemais v. Italy, 24 February 2009, 8.: O. v. Italy, 24 March 20099.: Sellem v. Italy, 5 May 2009. 17 UNHCR, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law, December 2001.18 The 20 Guidelines on forced return, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 May 2005
11
-
person of one's situation.
Regarding the detention facility, states should always keep in mind, that the detained must not be
treated like criminal suspects. Therefore the centre of detention should not have the character of a
prison and be adequately furnished and clean.
Carefully selected staff regarding language skills and adequately trained for the difficult task are
indispensable.
The detainment of irregular migrants together with criminal suspects should be avoided.
B1e) The DUBLIN II Regulation
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 ( also known as DUBLIN II
Regulation)19 is establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State
responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-
country national, based on Art 78 (1)20, (2a)21 of the consolidated Treaty of the European Union -
(ex Articles 63, points 1 and 2, and 64(2) TEC22):
One of the Dublin II regulation' s main purposes was the fast determination of which member state
was responsible for an asylum application, to resolve the problem of various applications for
asylum in different EU member states.
According to this Regulation, in most cases, the responsible member state will be the one where the
asylum seeker entered the territory of the EU for the first time.
19 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R0343:EN:HTML20 1. The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a
view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.
21 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures for a common European asylum system comprising:
(a) a uniform status of asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union; 22 TEC: Treaty of the European Community.
12
-
B2) The Committee for the Prevention of Torture ( CPT)
Article 3 of the ECHR states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Based on this Article, on September 26, 1987, the member states of the Council of Europe adopted
the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment ( ECPT).23
Article 1 of the ECPT states : There shall be established a European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as "the
Committee"). The Committee shall, by means of visits, examine the treatment of persons deprived of
their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture
and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
According to Article 4 of the ECPT, the members of the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CPT) are elected by the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The number of members equals the number of parties to the
convention so there are currently 47 members of the CPT, one from each state which is party to
the ECPT.
The CPT is an expert body, obliged to visit places of detention of the member states of the Council
of Europe. These visits are made by delegations -which are consisting of several members of the
CPT, accompanied by staff and interpreters, if necessary and are usually carried out periodically
every 4 years per member state, but additional ad hoc visits are also possible, if necessary. As
defined by the Convention, places of detention are all places where people are being held against
their will by a public authority. After each visit, a report is to be drawn up about the findings,
followed by recommendations on how to improve the actual situation in detention facilities. These
recommendations are underlining the fact, that the standards, set by the CPT, are not legally
binding.
The basic principles of the work of the CPT are cooperation and confidentiality, aiming at helping
member states to improve the situation of human beings in detention, rather than condemning states
for having failed to do so on their own. Still, if a member country refuses to meet the
23 http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/ecpt.htm
13
-
recommendations made by the CPT, according to Art 10 (2) ECPT, the Committee may decide, after
the party has had an opportunity to make known it' s views, by a majority of two thirds of it' s
members, to make a public statement on the matter.
Although the report regarding the situation of detained people in the different member countries of
the Council of Europe would be confidential, almost all member states agreed to make them
accessible to the public reports and states' responses can be found on the internet.24
For a better understanding of the steady process of cooperation between the expert body of the CPT
and the single states, I'm applying the following form of writing in my thesis:
Every recommendation regarding a special topic is being followed immediately by the relevant
state's response in cursive letters.
At the end of my thesis I will try to compare the level of cooperation between the two countries
with the CPT. Are the recommendations of the expert body accepted and applied?
All the work of the Committee depends on the willingness to cooperate which the governments of
the countries show, who have signed and ratified the Convention on the Prevention of Torture.
B3) The CPT standards25 regarding irregular migrants in detention
The standards regarding the guidelines on how detained persons are to be treated and accomodated
is regularly updated by the CPT.26 Since the CPT had published its' view regarding the rights and
safeguards for irregular migrants in the 7th General Report in 1997 and after numerous visits to
places of detention for these people, the Committee has reached the opinion that Irregular Migrants
are an especially vulnerable group to various forms of ill treatment, from the moment of
apprehension, during their time in detention to when being deported.27
Although the phenomenon of massive migrative movement is a serious and difficult task in the
24 http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/visits.htm25 According to the 19th General report on the CPT's activities (2008 2009), paragraphs 77ff26 http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/docsstandards.htm27 19th General report on the CPT's activities, paragraph 75
14
-
majority of European Council member states, there is still no comprehensive legal instrument which
would provide the standards and safeguads regarding irregular migrants in detention. Clear,
applicable rules can only be found in the 2006 European Prison Rules. These can be applied to
Irregular Migrants who are being held in prison, but it has to be pointed out that Irregular Migrants
generally shouldn't be held in prisons at all. Since according to Art 5 (1) f28 of the ECHR the
reason for the detention of an irregular migrant is completely different from the reason for the
detention of a criminal suspect or convicted offender, Irregular Migrants should never be kept in
the same facility or even the same cell with a convicted person or suspect.
In some member states of the Council of Europe, authorities apply a policy of locking up all
irregular migrants awaiting deportation, without regarding a time limit or judicial review. This
'administrative detention', according to the CPT, is opposing the case law of the ECtHR, if
authorities do not check for its' necessity in each individual case.
Either way, if administrative detention is considered necessary, the facilities for the detention of
irregular migrants should reflect the legal status and situation of this group of people. Restriction of
movement should be minimized, contact with NGOs and the outside world as well as various
activities should be made possible.29
In practice, the delegations of the CPT found irregular migrants detained in various types of
facilities: In police stations, prisons, special holding centres for Irregular migrants or holding
centres at points of entry. It has to be clarified, that a migrant who refused entry into a country and
is held in an 'international zone' of an airport, is also being deprived of his/her liberty. The argument
that such a person was not deprived of his/her liberty, since it could take any international flight to
leave, has been denied by the ECtHR:"The mere fact that it is possible for asylum seekers to leave
voluntarily the country where they wish to take refuge cannot exclude a restriction ("atteinte") on
liberty ....holding the applicants in the transit zone .... was equivalent in practice, in view of the
restrictions suffered, to a deprivation of liberty".30
Point of entry holding facilities like on international airports have been visited by delegations of the
28 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (f): the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
29 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraph 2930 Amuur vs. France, judged by the ECtHR on 25 june 1996: Breach of Art (5) 1f ECHR
15
-
CPT various times. In most occasions these facilities were completely inappropriate for the
detainment of people for more than 24 hours. Lacking means for the storage of luggage; inadequate
sanitary and washing facilities; inadequate provision of food and medical assistance were usual
deficits at these places.31
In some countries irregular migrants were forced to stay in police stations. Apart from the fact that
these places are not equipped for the detention of persons for more than 24 hours, many times the
material conditions were poor and the migrants even had to share cells with criminal suspects,
which is unacceptable for the reasons explained before. In various cases irregular migrants were
detained for more than a week or even months.32
In various cases irregular migrants were being kept in prisons. Apart from the fact that a prison
usually is not equipped for the needs of Irregular Migrants like especially trained staff it is not a
place where to keep a person who has not committed any sort of crime.33
In the view of the CPT, irregular migrants should generally be accomodated in centres specifically
designed for that purpose. These places should provide adequate material conditions, a suitible
regime and and especially trained staff which is able to assist the detained a task which is hardly
possible to be fulfilled by a normal prison guard. It is easy to understand that the personnel of such
facilities needs to be well selected and trained, regarding different languages, but also conflict
management. Many detainees might find it difficult to accept that they were being detained without
having committed any sort of crime. Also, ethnic tensions between migrants of different cultures
and nations may occur.34
Authorities also should seek to build these facilities in a way to avoid a carceral environment. The
CPT is pleased to see that various member states are following its' recommendations regarding
these special detention centres.
The basic safeguards for Irregular Migrants in detention are as for every detained person access
to a lawyer; access to a medical doctor; the right to inform a third person of one's choice about the
detention measure.35
The right to have access to a lawyer is effectively provided, if the detainee is allowed to talk to a
lawyer in private and to have him present when being interviewed by state authorities. Also, legal
31 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraph 2632 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraph 2733 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraph 2834 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraph 2935 CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 54, paragraphs 30, 31
16
-
advice regarding residence, detainment and deportation needs to be provided. In the case that the
detained person can not affort to pay for the legal support, free legal aid must be provided.
Access to a medical doctor means, that every migrant should be examined by a doctor or a qualified
nurse at the beginning of his/her detention. This measure is crucial not only for the detainee's
health but also for every other person at the detention site, be it detainee or staff. Regularly,
Irregular Migrants are suffering from traumas due to torture or ill treatment which they had
suffered in their countries of origin. Especially trained medical personnel should be available in a
centre for the detainment of Irregular Migrants.
Confidentiality of medical information needs to be kept in mind. The medical record of a detainee
should not be accessible by anybody else but the medical staff.
For the purpose of fighting torture and ill treatment by state authorities, medical personnel needs
to record the results of medical examinations in every case of alleged ill treatment. Even if the
detainee does not claim having been ill treated, but the results of a medical examination give
reason to believe that maltreatment may have occurred, the relevant judicial authorities need to be
informed.
The right of informing a third person of his/her choice about his situation includes the detainees
right to maintain contact with the outside world. That means that NGOs and relatives must be
allowed to visit the detainee. Also, these persons should be allowed to make phone calls for that
purpose authorities should allow newly arriving migrants to keep their mobile phones if they have
one.
When arriving at a detention centre, every detainee should be informed about his rights in a
language he/she understands. To achieve this, the CPT recommends state authorities to provide
documents providing this information in languages which the arriving migrants usually understand.
Further on, authorities should draw up a detention order for every detainee which is to be kept
available at the centre the individual migrant is detained.
The CPT also recommends that authorities draw up clear house rules at the detention centres in
various languages. That measure is known to facilitate greatly both the detainees stay and the work
of staff. Clear rules and possible disciplinary sanctions need to be known and explained before
being executed. A possibility to appeal against a measure should be installed as well.
The CPT encourages member states to install independent monitoring bodies. These should be
17
-
allowed to visit the centres of detention for Irregular Migrants frequently and without previous
notice and to talk to the detainees in private. Such an independent body could monitor the overall
situation of the detained people regarding their basic rights as well as the material conditions.
The prohibition of torture and ill treatment, provided by Art 3 ECHR includes, that a state must
not return an irregular migrant to a country where he/she is running a serious risk of being tortured.
Any communications addressed to the CPT in Strasbourg by persons alleging that they are to be
sent to a country where they run a risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment are immediately
brought to the attention of the European Commission of Human Rights36 . The Commission is better
placed than the CPT to examine such allegations and, if appropriate, take preventive action.
If an immigration detainee (or any other person deprived of his liberty) interviewed in the course of
a visit alleges that he is to be sent to a country where he runs a risk of being subjected to torture or
ill-treatment, the CPT's visiting delegation will verify that this assertion has been brought to the
attention of the relevant national authorities and is being given due consideration. Depending on the
circumstances, the delegation might request to be kept informed of the detainee's position and/or
inform the detainee of the possibility of raising the issue with the European Commission of Human
Rights (and, in the latter case, verify that he is in a position to submit a petition to the Commission
). 37
Anyway, the CPT's job is rather to check, if the legal process and structures within a member state
provide a guarantee that a migrant is not being sent to a country where he might suffer torture or ill
treatment. That includes that a decision ordering the deportation of a person is appealable and that
state authorities have the necessary information about the human rights situation in a third country
in question.
Having in mind these guidelines the CPT cannot tolerate the policy of intercepting refugee boats at
sea and returning them to Africa, which is currently being applied by certain member states. Such a
policy must be qualified as a breach of the crucial principle of non refoulement. Especially, if the
refugees are sent back to a country which is not party to the 1951 Geneva Convention to the status
or refugees.
Regarding the execution of expulsion orders, the CPT had to remind the member states that certain
36 Since 1 November 1998: "European Court of Human Rights"37 CPT standards: CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2010, page 56, paragraph 33
18
-
measures are completely unacceptable. The force and measure applied by state outhorities must not
be extensive. Beatings to enforce a person to enter a plane or to punish him/her for not having done
so are completely unacceptable. Gagging is known to be a highly dangerous measure from the
medical point of view and can not be accepted having in mind medical ethics.38
Finally, regarding the detainment of children, the CPT wants to make it clear that the detention of a
minor39 is hardly ever justified. Due to Art 3 (1)40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, a
detention order against a minor just because of the absence of a residence status, is unacceptable.
Member states need to have in mind the special vulnerability of children, especially if they are not
accompanied by parents, relatives or other persons taking care of them.
Specifically trained personnel should interview the child of course in a language it can understand
assessing the child's vulnerabilities due to violence, trafficking or traumas. Access to legal help
should be provided in a fast and simple way. In case the child is unaccompanied a representative
should be named, taking care of the child's needs such a process needs to be controlled regularly.
In places for the detainment of children, a regular presence of psychologists and social workers is
crucial. Mixed gender staff and the separation from adult inmates showed positive results regarding
the social climate in such facilities.
Of course, if a child is separated by it's parents or other relatives, separating them should be
avoided.
C) Case Studies in the Light of the Implementation of the Standards set by
the CPT
In this chapter I am trying to show in detail how the CPT is developing it's standards regarding the
treatment of irregular migrants in detention. The specific recommendations regarding a single place
of detention in the visited state is immediately followed by the state' s response in case there was
38 13th annual report on the CPT's activities, Strasbourg, 10 September, 2003 paragraphs 32ff39 Which means: Younger than 18. In case of doubt, the person should be treated like a minor.40 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of
law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
19
-
any.
By presenting the information in this way I believe that the reader can get a good impression on
how time consuming and sometimes frustrating the work of the delegations must be. Still, various
positive results which are achieved during the years show that the Committee in some cases only
by formulating recommendations achieves far more than someone would have expected.
Going into detail, in the reports and governmental responses regarding Greece, the reader will find a
lot of information about irregular migrants being detained in police and border guard stations a
policy which is being systematically critizised by the CPT.
Italy, on the other hand, is showing a different approach regarding the detainment of irregular
migrants: Not only that irregular migrants are generally being detained in specific centres, apart
from other detained people like criminal suspects, but also by the fact that in Italy NGOs - instead
of employees of the state like in Greece - are running the centres of detention for irregular
migrants. In detail, the UNHCR representative' s role is to identify and to assist potential asylum
seekers, the IOM representative's task is to provide information about the Italian immigration
legislation and to assist in voluntary repatriations. The Red Cross representative' s job is to take care
of unaccompanied juveniles and other general humanitarian tasks.
C1) Greece
C1a) Visit 27/8/2005 09/09/2005
Police headquarters and stations, which were only supposed to hold criminal suspects for short
periods, are also in use for prolonged detainment of irregular migrants.41
In general, the conditions in police headquarters and stations still have to be called less than
satisfactory. In some cases the situation can even be called inhuman and/or degrading. The CPT' s
recommendations in previous visits had generally been the same, regarding occupancy rates,
material conditions, hygiene and the possibility of exercise.
The current situation is being qualified as having slightly improved, compared to previous visits, but 41 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, Paragraph 23
20
-
still there's a lot of work ahead, according to the CPT.42
At Athens Police Headquarters ( 3rd floor Juvenile Department), Chios Town , Corfu Town,
Komotini Town police stations , the situation of detainees was being qualified as acceptable in the
case of a short stay. Only basic repair work to ensure the functioning of of the lighting and showers
was necessary in some cases.43
On the opposite, Alexandroupolis Police Station offered hardly any access to natural light and the
sanitary installations were extremely dirty. Mytilini Police Station was described as acceptable in
the case of short period stays, if the hygienic situation would be improved (clean blankets, cleaning
of detention area, enlargement of toilet area).
The Committee was told by the Greek authorities, that both stations, Mytilini and Alexandroupolis,
were to be closed within a year after the visit.
At Athens Police Headquarters (7th floor) and Drapetzona Police Station improvements compared to
the visit in 2001 could be noticed.
Still, since these places are not suitable for prolonged stays, for example because of the lack of
outdoor exercise, the CPT was concerned about the fact that in August 2005, 55 irregular migrants
had spent more than 3 days in these facilities and one even 22 days.
Drapetzona Police Station seemed to be used almost only for detaining irregular migrants and was
constantly overcrowded. The lack of reading materials, television, outdoor exercise, was worsening
the situation even more.
At Kypseli Police Station improvements could be noticed regarding the basement detention area,
compared to the CPT's previous visit in 2001. Still, access to natural and artificial lighting and
ventilation had to be quoted as insufficient. The efforts made to achieve hygiene and cleanliness
could not be seen as satisfactory, but the Committee's biggest concern regarded the situation that
irregular migrants were being kept in their cells for periods up to three months, without the
possibility of activities like the access to an exercise yard.44
A situation which could be described as amounting to inhuman and/or degrading treatment was
found at Omonia Police Station in Athens. The detention area in the 1st floor, with an official
capacity of 34 persons, was in a bad condition. With hardly any fresh air due to an inefficient
42 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 2243 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 2444 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 24
21
-
ventilation system, a lack of natural light and poor artificial light, the atmosphere was hot and
humid, with the cells in semi-darkness. Male detainees claimed that at night they had no access to
the toilet. Since the in-cell toilet was broken and due to the lack of call bells in the cells it was
impossible to call a guard to open the cell door at night time. Female detainees complained that they
had to drink from the toilet due to the lack of food and water. Four detainees had been there for 75
days, while they had no access to an outdoor exercise yard or any other activities.
Finally, the delegation noted a pair of handcuffs in a holding room above the detention area
attached to a bench. A handcuffed person would be forced to take a very uncomfortable position or
lie down on the floor.45
In their response to the report of the CPT, the Greek authorities described the detention area at
Omonia Police Station as a newly built facility with ventilation, air condition, baths, toilets and
access to natural and artificial light. Since the number of occupants was being watched closely all
the time, overcrowding was being impeded effectively by the measure of redistribution to other
centres of detention when necessary.46 The pair of handcuffs, the delegation of the CPT had found
in the holding room above the detention centre, had already been removed.
Like Police Headquarters, Border Guard Police Stations were considered only as acceptable for
short period stays by the Committee.
In detail, the toilets and showers of Tychero and Iasmos were dirty, but the detention areas were in a
good condition and had good access to natural light and ventilation. In Soufli the hygienic and
material conditions were fine. In contrast, at Ferres Border Guard Station, various problems were
encountered: The sanitary area was filthy and there were only 12 mattresses for 15 detainees at the
day of the CPT' s visit. Also, the delegation noted that there were no heating devices for the winter
time at Ferres and Iasmos.
Like in the case of Police headquarters and stations, at Iasmos and Ferres especially women and
family groups appeared to be forced to stay in these places for up to 3 months. An unacceptable
situation, since these facilities lack the equipment and the outdoor areas for such kind of use.47
Regarding the detention areas at Tychero, Iasmos, Soufli and Ferres, the Greek authorities
responded, that all four centres had already been equipped with a functioning heating device and
45 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 2546 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 11 47 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 27
22
-
that every arriving person was now being handed over cleaning items and provided clean bedding.48
As an example for Greek Holding Facilities for Aliens, the delegation visited the Hellenikon
holding centre for irregular migrants. Compared to previous visits, when the CPT criticized the state
of furniture, the temporary lacking of hot water and the filthiness of the Hellenikon centre49, the
CPT noted the installation of plinths to put the mattresses on50. Further, next to the old structure
there had been built a new facility with a capacity of 123 persons on 213 square meters. Having in
mind that the CPT is considering that each detainee in a multi-occupancy cell should be given the
space of 4 square meters, the occupancy rate in the new centre is far too high.
Access to fresh air, natural and artificial lighting was satisfactory, but clean bedding was not
provided since many of the mattresses appeared to be old and dirty. The fact that also in this new
building the toilet was installed outside the detention cells, causes the same problems as in other
centres: At night access to sanitary installations is difficult and in general each detainee going to the
toilet requires a guard accompanying him / her.
Still, the major problems found were the lack of useful activities and distraction and no health care
service.51 Finally, the delegation found a small cell of the size of 3,5 square meters. Since a cell of
this size was too small to accommodate a detainee for a longer period, it asked the Greek authorities
to explain what this cell was being used for.
The Greek authorities responded, that the Hellenikon holding Centre had already been provided
with new mattresses as requested by the delegation. The detainees were regularly given the
opportunity to outdoor exercise, when the weather was fine. The 3,5 square meter cell the
delegation found at Hellenikon, was only being used for storing clothing items, not as holding cell
for a detainee.52
The holding areas at Athens International Airport were described as clean and in a good material
state. The fact that these facilities were originally planned and built for short term stays is the reason
why there is, like in many other Greek detention facilities for irregular migrants, no exercise yard
for the detainees who have to stay for longer periods.
48 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 1149 CPT/Inf (2002) 31, paragraph 32 50 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 2851 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 2952 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 12
23
-
The situation in the cell block of the Terminal, which is sited one and a half kilometres away from
the airport, was much more worrying: The nine cells, each measuring 9,5 square meters, had only
one plinth each, which indicates that these cells must have been planned for only one person, while
in practice the official capacity was 5 persons per cell. This number is already too high, keeping in
mind that there should not be less than 4 square meters per detainee.
In practice, in the month of May 2005 up to 9 persons were forced to stay in one cell. Also, the
sanitary facilities were outside the cells, and detainees were complaining that access to a shower
was very limited and that guards did not react rapidly when detainees needed to get to the toilet.
The smell in this detention area made the detainees' s complaints very credible.53
The government's response to the report of the CPT did not make any reference to the situation at
the Holding Areas at Athens International Airport.
During its stay in Athens, the CPT had the chance to visit a new centre of detention, named Petro
Rali special holding facility, which was due to be opened54 on 27 September 2005, only a few days
after the visit.
Petro Rali was built for a capacity of 560 persons, 380 of them supposed for irregular migrants.
The CPT was concerned, that this whole new facility did not meet most of the Committee' s
recommendations regarding centre's of detention for irregular migrants.
The fact that there were no communal spaces, difficulties to reach the exercise yards and a carceral
atmosphere in the visiting area, preventing any physical contact, made the CPT believe, that in
Petro Rali, like in many other places of detainment of irregular migrants in Greece, detained
persons will be forced to spend most of the day in their cells. Further, there were neither in-cell
sanitary installations, nor call bells.
The CPT' s comment on this new site of detention was clear: The CPT considers the Petro Rali
facility as a missed opportunity for the Greek administration to construct an appropriately designed
centre for the administrative detention of aliens.55
For the purpose of avoiding an atmosphere of a prison, the Committee recommended the Greek
authorities to provide access to radio and television, further to reading materials and other forms of
distraction and recreation.
53 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 3054 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 3555 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 36
24
-
The Greek response to the CPT' s arguments regarding Petro Rali consisted in pointing out that the
recently finished facility met the technical and medical basic needs of a place of detention, like the
installation of a ventilation system, 13 card-phones for the detainees or the fact that detained
persons were provided articles for their personal hygiene like toothbrushes, soap and shampoo.
The lack of call bells in the cells was not considered as a problem, since the detainees would be
under constant surveillance by the staff anyway.
Regarding health care at the Centre a medical team was on duty four days a week and every
detainee was planned to undergo a lung check once a month. Also, a personal medical file was to
be opened on each detainee.
The Greek authorities made no reference to the CPT' s worry that Petro Ralli was never meant to
meet the special needs for the administrative detention of aliens.
Since the surveillance of the coastal areas is the duty of the Greek Coast Guard, it is also part of it' s
responsibility to stop and detain persons for short periods, who entered Greek territory without
permission, until they can be transferred into police custody.
The CPT visited two Establishments under the Ministry of Merchant Marine, namely in Chios
and Mytilini. For the purpose of being able to attend larger numbers of irregular migrants arriving at
once, Chios Port Authority acquired a container of 28 square meters, lacking any kind of furniture.
According to the CPT, by installing a proper ventilation system and providing some furniture to sit
on, this facility would be suitable for a detainment of a few hours.
The fact, that before the CPT' s visit, irregular migrants were kept in this facility for more than 24
hours or even during the weekend, had to be commented as unacceptable.56
During the visit of the current establishments, the Commission was informed, that the coast guard
was planning the construction of new, permanent, facilities replacing the old ones.
The CPT asked for a copy of these new plans.
The detention cell of the Port Authority of Mytilini had to be qualified as completely unacceptable
even for short stays of a detained person: The cell was extremely dirty, lacking natural light and
ventilation. Also, the toilet facility was not functioning. Due to this situation, the CPT
recommended the immediate closure of this facility till it' s renovation.57
56 On 21 June 2005, 25 persons spent more than 24 hours in this facility - CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 46 57 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 46
25
-
Finally, a specific custody register regarding the detained individuals was lacking in the Port
Authority' s facilities.
In its response to the report of the CPT, the Greek authorities responded, that a prefabricated
dwelling had already been constructed at Chios, which met the needs of irregular migrants during
their stay. The reception centre was being kept clean, detainees were provided clean bedding. The
disinfection of the place was being undertaken on a regular basis.
Regarding the facility in Mytilini which the CPT regarded unacceptable, the Greek authorities
responded that this very facility was not being used for prolonged stays of detainees, but only for
short periods of some 2 or 3 hours. Since it had also been cleaned and renovated since the
delegation' s visit, it was regarded as acceptable again.58
The Special Holding Centres for Immigrants are functioning for the administrative detention of
immigration detainees, who are being transferred there by police and Coast Guard forces after a
short stay at Border Guard stations or the detention facilities of the Coast Guard. Irregular migrants
remain in these facilities for up to 3 months.59
In 2005 the CPT visited the holding centres of Mytilini, Peplos, Venna and Chios. According to the
current legal situation, the operational duties were divided between the Region and the Police. The
Committee noticed a lack of coordination between the regional administration - which was
responsible for the provision of hygienic products, health care and food supply - and the police
forces, who were responsible for custodial affairs60. A new Greek Law on Aliens, namely Law No
3386, was about to enter into force in January 2006, which included Article 81, which bave all the
competences regarding Alien detention centres to the national level. Further information regarding
the different competences was requested.
In its response regarding the legal situation coming into force with Article 81 of Law No 3386, the
Greek authorities reported of a meeting held on 13/06/2006 at the Ministry of Interior, Public
Administration and decentralisation with representatives of all competent state authorities
regarding irregular immigration, for the reason of setting up new Holding Centres for illegal
immigrants.
According to the government' s response, the Ministry of Public Order was responsible for the
registration and deportation of irregular migrants. The regional administrations were responsible
58 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 1559 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 4860 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 48
26
-
for the jurisdiction of the operation and the provision of food and medical care. No reference was
made to the lack of coordination between Greek authorities, as mentioned by the CPT.61
The CPT asked for further information regarding arrangements for the management of the foreigner
detention centres since these centres should be staffed by adequately qualified personnel. According
to the legal state of irregular migrants the situation of their accommodation should also not have the
character of a prison, and the single facilities should be clean and in good state of repair.
Instead, none of the detention centres which had been opened during the 4 years before the CPT' s
visit in 2005, met these recommendations. While in the first years of massive arrivals of irregular
migrants on Greek territory, immediate, temporary measures to cope with the new situation had
been necessary, the CPT cannot accept the ongoing ignorance of generally accepted principles and
standards regarding the treatment of irregular migrants.
Greek authorities did not respond to the questions regarding staff, nor the fact that none of the
recently opened holding centres for Aliens met the recommendations of the CPT.
Various cases of ill treatment were discovered in Venna special holding centre for aliens. In it's
report, the CPT described 3 of these cases:
One person claimed that he had been repeatedly beaten with a stick and kicked on his legs, which
the affected person alleged had happened in the six days before the Committee' s visit.
A second person claimed that he had been beaten on his shoulder and arm four days before the
CPT' s visit and a third person said that besides having been beaten with a stick on his shoulder and
back, he had also received a blow on his forehead with a knee, two days ago.
The examinations, immediately undertaken in these 11 cases by two medical members of the CPT,
showed physical proof of the accusations made.62
As a consequence of it' s findings, the CPT requested an immediate forensic - medical investigation
of the cases and transmitted the names of the 11 detained persons to the highest ranking officer of
the Rodopi police station as well as to the responsible officer at the Ministry of Public Order in
Athens, but when, only two days later ( on 6 September 2005) the Committee returned to check on
the results, it had to find out that the person with the most serious signs of maltreatment had not
61 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 1662 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 52,a), b), c)
27
-
been examined at all. Three days later, at the end of the CPT' s visit, the results of the medical
examinations could be checked by the delegation and it was surprised to find out not only that the
results and conclusions found by the forensic medical services of Thrace were completely different
from the CPT' s findings only a few days before, but also that, although the delegation had
repeatedly claimed the examination of the detainee showing the most serious signs of ill treatment63, that very person still had not been examined at all.
In detail the the results of the medicare carried out by the Greek authorities showed signs of injuries
only in 5 of the 11 cases, presented by the CPT. Further on, the examiner dated the moment of the
infliction of these injuries some 20 to 25 days ago, which meant in all cases that the cause of all
injuries found lay before the first day of detainment on Greek soil.64
On 21 September 2005 the delegation for the 3rd time transmitted the full list of names of the
detained persons who had to be examined. The Ministry of Public order responded on 3 November
2005, saying that all the 11 migrants had been examined by state authorities, only the names had
been mixed up. During it' s follow up visit the delegation was told by the detained person, which
had shown the most serious injuries, that he had explicitly been forbidden by guards, seeing a
doctor.
Regarding the above mentioned happenings, the Committee asked the Greek authorities to comment
on
the Committee's concern, that the Greek forensic doctor recorded no injuries in respect of
six of the foreigners, when only the day before the medical members of the CPTs delegation found
that all six of them displayed recent injuries;65
it's disagreement with the conclusion in the Greek forensic medical report, that the injuries
displayed in respect of the five foreigners, occurred some 20 to 25 days prior to the examination.66
Also, the Committee pointed out, that the medical examination report, transferred by the head of
Thrace Forensic Medical Service, was lacking the minimum standards of good practice in the
field67, which should include demographic information on the patient; the patients account as to
how the injuries found were received; a detailed description of each injury and a reasoned
63 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 52 a)64 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 5465 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 5666 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 5667 CPTcf. Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (General Assembly Resolution 55/89, December 4 2000).
28
-
conclusion as to the cause and time of the injuries.
Like in Venna, cases of ill treatment also seemed to have occurred in Mytilini Special Holding
Facility for Aliens: 2 detained persons claimed to have been beaten by a senior officer, who was not
stationed at the facility. A baton, like the one described by the detainees, was found by the
delegation in one of the facilities. When asked for an explanation, guards responded that it was only
being used to intimidate inmates.
By letters from 9 October 2005 and 12 January 2006, the Greek authorities informed the Committee
that 'Sworn Administrative Examinations' had been opened regarding the CPT' s findings of ill
treatment in Venna and Mytilini Special Holding Facilities for Aliens. The CPT was looking
forward to receiving information about the outcome of these examinations, reminding Greek
authorities of the Committee' s recommendation regarding cases of ill treatment: A special
awareness to ensure the application of a law enforcement policy, aiming at stamping out all forms
of ill treatment. This includes not only the adoption of appropriate laws, but also its serious
application in practice.68
The Greek authorities did not mention the allegations of ill treatment made by the CPT.
The material conditions of the Special Holding Facilities in Peplos, Mytilini, Chios and Venna
were described by the delegation as at least unsatisfying.
In detail:
Peplos is a former industrial warehouse complex with an official capacity of 70 persons. At the time
of the delegation' s visit the number of detainees was 128. The facilities were very dirty, without a
working heating system and with broken windows. Because of its bad state of repair, only one
shower could be used and there was no warm water. Blankets and mattresses were dirty and bug
infested, due to overcrowding, some of the inmates had to sleep next to the leaking toilets or
showers, while others didn't even have a mattress at all. During the day, detainees were allowed
only to spend very little time outside their cells, approximately less than an hour per day.69
Regarding the hygienic situation the delegation was told by the authorities that the inmates
themselves were responsible for keeping their living area clean, while there was partly even a total
lack of hygienic articles like detergents, toothpaste or toothbrushes. For example, inmates were
68 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraphs 58, 16, 1769 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 60
29
-
forced to share even toothbrushes, an unacceptable situation regarding the risk of transmissible
diseases like HIV. Also, clothes and shoes were not being provided by state authorities, but charity
organisations, on an irregular basis.
Mytilini, also a former industrial complex, had a capacity of 200. The number of detainees was
varying, holding 588 at 1 January 2005, 602 in the middle of the same month and 437 on 31
January 2005. At the time of the delegation' s visit the number of inmates was only 112. Male
detainees were held in 4 large concrete facilities, which were in a bad state of repair and very dirty.
Like in Peplos, the delegation found broken windows and no working heating device. Also, the
sanitary installations were defect. Female detainees were kept in 2 dormitories, which were in a
good state of repair, but out of sight and hearing of the guards. Further on there were no call bells
installed. The state of mattresses and blankets provided to male and female detainees was as bad as
at Peplos and there was hardly any possibility to spend time outside the cells. Since it was seen as
the inmates' s job to keep their living space clean, due to a steady shortage of detergents and other
cleaning products, the sanitary installations were filthy. Finally, the CPT found that detainees were
lacking clothing. Some detainees even had to share one pair of shoes, clearly a result of the current
policy that only private organisations were providing clothing and shoes from time to time.
Due to the situation found at Peplos and Mytilini the delegation felt the need to act according to
Article 8 (5) of the Convention.70
The Greek authorities answered in 2 letters from 9 November 2005 and 12 January 2006, saying
that at Peplos, the heating device, the broken windows and the toilets had been repaired as
requested. Still, there was no information regarding Mytilini.
The situation at Venna was better than at Peplos and Mytilini. The Centre with a capacity of 400
held 92 people at the time of the delegation' s visit. The facilities for men consisted of 6 containers,
adjacent to an outdoor exercise yard. Still, the detainees were kept in their cells for several days in a
row without a possibility to use the outdoor yard. The separate building for female detainees had an
outdoor exercise yard too, but the detainees were allowed to use it only when female guards were
present. Also, there was no warm water.
70 If necessary, the Committee may immediately communicate observations to the competent authorities of the Party concerned.
30
-
Chios Temporary Reception Centre consisted of 12 furnished containers, each divided into 3 small
rooms as living area, a toilet and a shower. The centre was planned for a maximum capacity of 120,
holding 127 people at the time of the delegation' s visit. The material and hygienic situation
appeared to be acceptable, but detainees claimed that there was too little and too bad food.
Sometimes there was also no drinking water available.
The CPT called the Greek authorities to improve the situation at each of the 4 visited Centres of
Detention, so they would meet the basic material standards for Irregular Migrants in Detention,
regarding hygiene, clothing, footwear, food and clean water.
In its response the government of Greece answered to the recommendations made by the CPT about
Mytilini, saying that all repair jobs regarding broken windows, sanitary installations and the
heating system were being carried out under the authority of the Prefecture Administration of
Lesbos. Clean bedding had also been taken care of.71
The recommendations for the Holding Centres of Chios, Venna and Peplos were not being
mentioned.
Great deficits had to be noted by the delegation regarding the Health Care Regime in the holding
centres visited. In the four centres, only at Venna there were a doctor and a nurse employed on a full
time basis. In Mytilini, Chios and Peplos, medical staff only visited the facilities 2 times a week for
a few hours.
Medical staff in the delegation found various inmates suffering from skin diseases, tooth ache and
other injuries.. Having in mind the high number of detained people in the different Centres, the
number of medical staff, attaining these people, was far too low.72
Also, the delegation was very worried about the fact, that a general regime of medical examination
of irregular migrants, when getting into custody of state authorities, was missing. The example of a
border guard at Evros, who fell ill of a transmissible disease shows the urgency of this problem.
With this policy, state authorities are putting at risk not only the health of their executive personnel,
but of the civil society as a whole, not to speak of the irregular migrants.
71 CPT/Inf (2006) 42, page 1672 CPT/Inf (2006) 41, paragraph 65
31
-
Finally, not one of the 4 centres visited was maintaining a regime of ongoing medical files about the
single detainees. Instead, doctors were putting down their medical findings in personal note books,
making an effective treatment of detainees impossible.
The CPT called the Greek state authorities to take their medical recommendations seriously and to
implement as soon as possible the changes needed.
The Government' s response did not go into the CPT' s recommendations regarding the Health Care
Regime in the Holding Centres visited.
A regime, like it is recommended in the Standards, set by the CPT, could not be found in any of the
establishments visited in Greece. There was no reading material, functioning television sets or any
kind of organized activities.
Regarding other Safeguards, the CPT' s attention was called by leaflets, informing the single inmate
about his rights, since in none of the leaflets there could be found the right to apply for
asylum. On the contrary, the delegation was explained various times that an immigrant could only
apply for asylum before reaching a special holding facility, although the Greek authorities had
assured, that the application for asylum would be possible from within the centres too.
In their response, the Greek authorities reassured that the application for asylum was possible not
only before reaching a special holding centre for irregular migrants, but at any time during his or
her stay on Greek soil. Regarding appeals against negative decisions, a regime of time limits had to
be respected: Within 30 days in case of a normal procedure, within 10 days in case of a speedy
process, within 5 days, if the applicant is in a transit hall of an airport, having been denied
entrance.
At Chios and Mytilini detainees had access to a telephone, but not in Venna and Peplos. Finally,
numerous complaints were made that non governmental organizations would be impeded the
access to the Holding Centres by state authorities.
Regarding these safeguards the CPT asked the state authorities of Greece for further information.
The Greek authorities answered that card-phones had been installed at Chios, Mytilini and Venna.
32
-
Finally, talking about the special holding centres for Aliens, the CPT referred to the staff at these
Centres: The number of personnel on duty in the four Holding Centres was completely inadequate.
At Mytilini and Chios a shift consisted of 2 police officers (with official capacities of 200 and 120
immigrants). At Peplos the number of officers on duty per shift was 5 (with a Centre's capacity of
128 immigrants).
Besides, the officers at work were regular police officers or border guards, which meant that they
had not been provided with any kind of special training to cope with the difficult tasks they were
confronted with: A great number of people from different countries with differing cultural
backgrounds and native languages. The border guards had not even received the basic training for
custodial duties. At two of the centres visited, the language barrier became explicitly noticeable, as
members of the delegation were contacted directly by detainees which asked for the possibility of a
voluntary return to their countries of origin.
The CPT explicitly recommended that the holding centres for aliens were staffed with an adequate
number of well trained staff, which were able to meet the special requirements of that job.
In their response Greek authorities did not refer to the CPT' s recommendations regarding the
staffing of the Centres of detention.
C1b) Visit 20/02/2007 27/02/2007
According to paragraph 7 (1) of the Convention73, the CPT returned to Greece in February 2007.
Before going into detail, the report talks about the facts that many recommendations made by the
CPT in its last report in 2005, had already been included in earlier reports, like the apparent absence
of consequences for executive personnel in the case of allegations of ill treatment.
Like in the report of 2005, the Greek authorities were informed that in case the CPT' s
recommendations were not put into practice, the Commission would have to take action according
to Art 10 (2) of the Convention.74
Since 25 recommendations of the 2005 report remained without response, on December 18, 2006,
the president of the CPT, Silvia Casale, sent a letter to the permanent representative of Greece,
73 Art 7 (1): The Committee shall organise visits to places referred to in Article 2. Apart from periodic visits, the Committee may organise such other visits as appear to it to be required in the circumstances.
74 Art 10 (2): If the Party fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the Committee's recommendations, the Committee may decide, after the Party has had an opportunity to make known its views, by a majority of two-thirds of its members to make a public statement on the matter.
33
-
asking for further information.
Regarding police establishments the president was criticising, that most recommendations for
safeguards against ill treatment in police custody remained unmentioned in the Greek
Government' s response.
The Greek authorities' s response to the CPT' s recommendations regarding foreigner holding
centres was also mentioned in the letter: The contradictory explanations given by Greek authorities
and Thrace Medical Forensic service regarding the cases of alleged ill treatment in Venna Special
Holding Centre were not put in question in the Government' s response the delegation' s concerns
were completely ignored. Besides calling attention to this incident, the president asked for further
information on newly planned special holding centres for immigrants, which had been mentioned in
the response to the 2005 report, meeting the special needs of irregular migrants in detention.
Until 8th of February, 2008, when the report about CPT' s visit from 20/2/2007 27/2/2007 was
finished, no response had been received, except for a letter from the Greek minister of Justice,
answering to some other of the CPT' s recommendations from the 2005 visit.
In their response from 8th of February 2008, the Greek authorities made reference to the letter of the
president of the CPT, saying that since there had been no time limit for answering the letter and
since high level talks between the Greek authorities and representatives of the CPT were about to
be held in February 2007, the content of this very letter was understood as agenda for this meeting.
During the 2007 visit, the delegation was granted immediate access to the establishments visited,
ending with constructive consultations with the Minister and the Secretary General of Public
Order, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice, the Director General of the Prison Service
and other senior officials of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice and Public Order.
Although the cooperation with state officials was qualified as good, the case of a possible victim
of ill treatment, detained at Omonia Police Station, called the attention of the CPT: The man was
threatened with his immediate deportation by the Commander of the Station in case he wouldn't tell
the delegation that he no longer wanted to see a doctor.
In the response to the report, the Greek authorities argued that since the delegation' s visit
happened without prior notice, and the delegation' s conversation with the detainees took place
34
-
without the commander of the station present at the time of the interview, there had been no
possibility that the commander could have threatened the detainee.
The death of a detained person in police custody - also at Omonia police station raised the
delegation' s attention. When members of the CPT wanted to look into the files regarding the death
of the inmate, the same Commander of the station removed certain papers from the file. These
incidents had to be called a clear breach of Art 375 and Art 8 (2d)76 of the Convention. Following
these incidents, the CPT called the Government of Greece to make it's law enforcement officials
fully aware of of the obligations of the parties to the Convention.77
The Greek authorities had a different point of view: According to the Government' s response the
Commander of the police station was offering all relevant documents about the detainee who had
died in custody. When the president of the delegation asked to see also the Commander's personal
documents regarding the case, the Commander requested to write down the controversial
documents in order to be proved - assured that none of the documents was concealed; however, the
delegation's members denied the official notation and made do with improvised notes.78
The CPT felt the need to call the Greek Government' s attention to the Commission' s impression,
that there seems to be no office in any Ministry of Greece, holding the responsibility to maintain
steady contact with the CPT. Instead, officials seemed to be appointed for each visit, holding this
post only for short terms, which makes an ongoing, constructive cooperation impossible.
Regarding this topic, the Greek authorities answered that the relevant office is the D3 department
at the Greek ministry for foreign affairs, which is responsible for OSCE and Council of Europe
affairs.
Various allegations of torture and other kinds of ill treatment were found by the delegation during
it' s visit:
75 In the application of this Convention, the Committee and the competent national authorities of the Party concerned shall co-operate with each other.
76 Art 8 (2): A Party shall provide the Committee with the following facilities to carry out its task: (d): other information available to the Party which is necessary for the Committee to carry out its task. In seeking such information, the Committee shall have regard to applicable rules of national law and professional ethics.
77 CPT/Inf (2008) 3, paragraph 7 78 CPT/Inf (2008) 4, paragraph 2 e
35
-
A detained person at Alexandroupoli p olice station said, that he had received several punches to his
body and head by police officers. Further on his trousers were pulled down, followed by threats of
an Officer to rape him. The situation came to a halt with a Senior Officer's intervention after loud
protesting of the detainee, but beatings continued after this Senior Officer had left the room again.
In an other case an employee of the Greek police told the delegation of him witnessing how a
foreign detainee had been beaten by Police Officials. When a few days later he accompanied this
very detainee to court, neither the judge, nor the detainee' s lawyer made any comments on the
visible injuries of the detained person.
Regarding the CPT' s finding at Alexandropouli, the Government responded: By virtue of an order
of the Head of the Administrative Support Branch, the Police Division of Alexandroupoli was
ordered to investigate the accusations about a foreign detainee' s assault at the Police Station of
Alexandroupoli. The case is still pending. It stays unclear, to which of the cases this response is referring to.
These and several other cases made the CPT repeat with urgency, what it had already requested
from Greek authorities in it' s visit reports in 2005 and before: A thorough and determined policy to
fight ill treatment of people in police custody.
In detail, this means that whenever a case of alleged ill treatment is coming to light, the case has
to be investigated properly. Judges and prosecutors have to have a close eye on signs of torture and
ill treatment and request medical examinations whenever necessary.
As a second step it is indispensable, that a member of state authority, who has tortured a person in
state custody, faces harsh consequences for his actions.
A climate of impunity for these officials would impede any positive effect of Greece' s campaign to
stamp out ill treatment, committed by state authorities.
Further on, the delegation found various cases of persons in detention, who claimed to have been
beaten in custody showing clear signs of these beatings. Still, without the intervention of the
delegation' s doctors, there wouldn't have happened a medical examination, nor a documentation of
these allegations, not to speak of a medical treatment of the injuries, by Greek authorities.
The case of a Bangladeshi national at Petru Rali detention centre could be named an alarming
example: When the delegation' s doctors examined the person, various injuries could be found,
36
-
giving great credibility to the detainee' s telling of having been ill treated by police officers at
Athens International Airport, when refusing to be deported. The delegation requested his immediate
treatment at a hospital, but when returning to see the detainee two days later, they had to learn that
the detainee still remained without treatment, after 3 doctors at the hospital had examined the
detainee, concluding that the patient showed no injuries at all.79
Again, the delegation insisted that the detainee was being sent to a hospital for treatment. This time
the delegation accompanied the person to the hospital and during the examinations by 4 different
doctors, which this time came to the unanimous conclusion, that the Bangladeshi national showed
injuries, which were giving great credibility to the allegations of ill treatment.
Like in previous visits, the delegation had to experience that in Greece, a presumed victim of ill
treatment apparently had very little chance of receiving the necessary medical treatment for his
injuries, since in the current case the delegation had to intervene even two times to achieve a normal
medical treatment for the detainee. The report of the CPT is even telling about a police officer,
trying to influence a doctor during the examination of the detainee, even though members of the
delegation were present in the same room.
Since things like that had already been to be experienced by the delegation in previous visits, the
CPT recommended, that the Greek authorities take appropriate steps to ensure that threats and