memorandum, by Mr Østergaard
1. The large-scale arrival of
migrants and asylum seekers on Europe’s southern shores has become
a regular phenomena, with almost daily accounts of arrivals and
tragedies at sea being reported during the spring, summer and autumn
2. The countries most concerned by these arrivals are Italy,
notably on the island of Lampedusa, Spain, in the Canary Islands,
Greece, Malta and also Cyprus and Turkey.
3. The number of arrivals has grown considerably in recent years,
peaking in 2006. National and international concerns have focused
on the number of persons arriving and how to accommodate and process them,
settle or return them. Concerns are constantly raised about the
growing number of casualties involved in the increasingly long and
dangerous journeys by these boat people as Europe seals its borders
more effectively, making it harder and harder for irregular migrants
and asylum seekers to enter Europe.
4. It is not, however, only the tragic loss of life that is of
concern. The reception facilities available have been put under
enormous strain, and states have struggled to cope with the large
number of irregular migrants and asylum seekers arriving. States
have been calling loudly for help and responsibility sharing from
their European partners. Small countries such as Malta have been
particularly affected. These countries and the regions hosting these
irregular migrants and asylum seekers have come under increasing
scrutiny from civil society and the international community and
have often had to shoulder strong criticism of the way in which they
are handling the situation and the conditions under which they are
receiving and detaining the irregular migrants and asylum seekers.
The Council of Europe has shown a particular interest in this
mixed flow of irregular migrants and asylum seekers. The European
Court of Human Rights has, for example, received individual petitions
from people detained in Lampedusa and later returned to Libya.Note
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has visitedNote
some of the main places of detention in
Greece, Italy, including Lampedusa, Malta and Spain. The Council
of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has also, as part of his
mandate, conducted visitsNote
to various detention
facilities and has taken up the issue of the rights of irregular
migrants and asylum seekers as one of his priorities.Note
Other international organisations, such as the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International
Organization for Migration (IOM), have extended their presence to countries
or regions where large-scale arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers
are taking place. The UNHCR has also adopted a “Ten Point Plan”Note
dealing with mixed
flows of migrants and asylum seekers, precisely because of the challenge
of this phenomena of large-scale arrivals. The European Parliament’s
Committee on Civil Liberties and Human Rights (LIBE) has conducted
a series of visits, including to Ceuta and Melilla, Lampedusa, Malta
and the Canary Islands.
7. The aim of this report is to complement the monitoring already
carried out, providing in a single report information from the main
countries where arrivals are taking place. By doing this the rapporteur
hopes to contribute to a better understanding of the problems being
faced by asylum seekers and irregular migrants, on the one hand,
and the countries of destination, on the other.
The rapporteur has taken into account the important work carried
out in this area by the Assembly in the past. In this respect he
refers to Recommendation
on access to assistance and protection for asylum seekers
at European seaports and coastal areas (rapporteur: Mr Danieli,
see Doc. 10011
) and Resolution
on mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern
shores (rapporteur: Mr Chope, see Doc. 11053
9. The rapporteur considers it
important to say a word about the terminology of the report. The
original title of the report was “Unexpected large-scale arrival
of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in Europe”. For the sake
of clarity the rapporteur, with the agreement of the committee,
has changed the title clarifying that the report is concerned with
arrivals by “sea” and removing reference to “unexpected” arrivals
as they have become regular phenomena. Responses by the authorities
concerned should therefore no longer be viewed as “emergency responses”
but should be drawn up in advance in the knowledge that the phenomena
are no longer unexpected.
3 Countries chosen for examination
in the report
10. The rapporteur, decided to
focus his examination on Italy (Lampedusa), Malta, Greece, Spain
(Canary Islands) and Turkey, because of the large number of arrivals
and, in the case of Turkey, because it is a country of transit for
those making their way towards mainland Greece and the Greek islands.
Much of what is said and recommended in this report could also be
of relevance to Cyprus, which allegedly sees many arrivals from Turkey
through northern Cyprus across the Green Line and the Buffer Zone.
4 Preparations for the report
11. In preparing this report, your
rapporteur undertook a number of visits. The first visit was to
Athens on 10 and 11 May 2007, then Lampedusa on 3 and 4 September
2007 and finally Malta on 15 and 16 October 2007. In addition, the
rapporteur visited Frontex (European Agency for the Management of
Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States
of the European Union) on 20 June 2007 in Warsaw.
12. The rapporteur would like to thank all those representatives
of governments, non-governmental organisations, international organisations
and parliamentarians who provided him with information and views essential
for the preparation of this report. He would also like to pay tribute
to the work and commitment of all those involved in the search and
rescue, and reception of what have become “Europe’s boat people”.
5 Draft guidelines for parliamentarians
when monitoring reception and detention centres for irregular migrants
and asylum seekers.
The rapporteur considered that
it was important to have a framework on which he could base his
visits to reception and detention centres for irregular migrants
and asylum seekers. It is for this reason that he prepared draft
can be used by parliamentarians carrying out similar monitoring
visits to reception and detention centres across Europe. The opportunity
for refining further these guidelines exists in the context of a
report being prepared by Mrs Anna Catarina Mendonça (Portugal, SOC)
on detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in Europe.
6 Death at sea
It is impossible to put a figure
on the number of people who lose their lives trying to cross the
seas in order to reach Europe. UNITED NGO publishes a listNote
of deaths of people seeking to enter
the European Union (mostly by sea) and the total since 1993 now
tops 8 800 people.
15. The Maltese authorities estimate that around 600 people die
every year off the coast of Malta.
Figures from Greece indicate the number of deaths is rising,
with 44 people found dead and 54 missing in the first nine months
17. The trend is for longer trips as new routes open up (for example,
departures for the Canary Islands are moving further south from
Mauritania to Senegal and Guinea). The boats being used are smaller
and in many instances totally unseaworthy (with rubber dinghies
being used to reach Lampedusa and purpose-built fibre-glass boats
increasingly arriving in Malta). All of this adds to the dangers
of the sea crossings.
18. The rapporteur welcomes, supports and encourages the establishment
of tracing services to allow families to access information on the
destiny of those seeking to enter Europe through irregular means.
The Italian Red Cross, for example, has an investigation office
which makes enquiries within Italy and abroad about missing persons
and liaises with the Central Investigation Agency of the Red Cross/Red
Crescent and the Investigation Offices of National Societies of
the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The rapporteur encourages the opening
of such investigation offices at all major points of arrival of
irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
7 Statistics on arrivals
19. The number of people arriving
in Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta has climbed steadily in recent
years, peaking in 2006.
In 2006, Italy received 22016 people, and Spain over 39 180.Note
received 1 780 and Greece received 9 049 people “arrested at sea
borders” according to information from the Greek Ministry of Public Order.Note
There has, however, been a significant fall in numbers in
2007 for Spain (53.9% less than in 2006) and Italy with 18 057Note
and 19 617 persons arriving
respectively. Malta has seen a slight drop in the number of arrivals
with a total number of 1 715 arrivals during 2007. Greece has seen
the greatest growth in numbers, with 12 484 people arriving by the
end of October 2007.Note
Turkey, which is a country of transit for many of those heading
for Greece and its islands, and also for Italy, has seen the number
of undocumented migrants apprehended fall from 94 514 in 2000 to
51 983 in 2006, although there was a slight rise in numbers again
a proportion of these people will, however, have been planning a
sea journey onwards to Greece or Italy.
In the light of these statistics some comments can be made.
The first comment relates to the accessibility of this data and
the need for it to be frequently updated and easily accessible.
Other comments relate to the specific countries. Malta, because
of the size of its population and its territory, has a particularly
large responsibility to shoulder. As the Maltese authorities pointed
out to the rapporteur, the impact of one arrival in Malta would
be equivalent to the impact of 200 people arriving in Germany.Note
rapporteur is also aware of the responsibility faced by regions
such as the Canary Islands and Lampedusa, which are the gateways
to Spain and Italy respectively.
24. It is difficult to be certain of the reasons for the fall
in numbers, particularly to Spain, in 2007. Numbers may be affected
by the opening of legal channels for regular migration and the dissuasive
effect of return agreements. Increased sea controls, including by
Frontex, have almost certainly had an impact, in particular during
the periods of operations. There are indications that boats (and
in particular large boats) are no longer so readily available and
people may also be less ready to take the longer and more dangerous
routes to enter Europe. Furthermore, routes are constantly changing
and as noted earlier, sailings for the Canary Islands are increasingly
taking place further south. The Greek islands are also seeing a
marked increase in the number of boat arrivals and Sicily and Sardinia
are becoming new points of destination for those travelling from
8 Origins and profile of boat
25. The vast majority of people
arriving are young single men in their 20s. The majority would appear
to have little or no education. It was reported to the rapporteur
in Italy that an increasing number of pregnant women and unaccompanied
minors are arriving. It was suggested that these vulnerable people
are being included as passengers on many boats to increase the likelihood
of rescue and assistance if needed.
26. The arrivals generally take place between April and October
each year and the journey times to Malta or Lampedusa vary between
two to five days for boats coming from Libya. For those boats heading
towards the Canary Islands, the journeys take on average fifteen
27. For Greece the departure points are generally Turkey, but
also Egypt. For Malta and Italy the departure points are almost
always Libya although a few boats leave from the coast of Tunisia.
For the Canary Islands, the departure points are moving southwards
from Mauritania to Senegal and Guinea.
28. For those arriving in Italy in 2006, the largest numbers came
from Morocco, Egypt, Eritrea and Tunisia.
29. For those arriving in Malta in 2006, the largest number came
from Eritrea, Egypt, Somalia, Morocco and Ethiopia.
30. For those arriving in the Canary Islands in 2007, many came
from Senegal, Mali and Guinea.
For those arriving in Greece, the largest number came from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, Egypt and then Turkey.Note
It should be pointed
out that the identification of country of origin may not always
be accurate as many people claim a different origin or nationality
to avoid being returned.
9 Interception, search and
32. The rapporteur had the opportunity
of meeting with representatives from the different naval rescue services
in Italy (Lampedusa) and Malta.
33. In Italy, he witnessed the early morning arrival of a Guardia
di Finanza vessel in Lampedusa, which had picked up the occupants
of a boat of irregular migrants in distress from Libya. He noted
the good practice of allowing staff of the Italian Red Cross to
go on board these vessels. He also went out to sea in a Guardia
di Finanza vessel. He heard worrying reports that the authorities
increasingly have to rescue sinking boats or are forced to intervene
when boats are scuttled to ensure rescue. Concern was also raised
that traffickers increasingly use the rescue services as ferry boats,
embarking on journeys and once out to sea calling the coastguard
with a satellite mobile phone to come to the rescue.
The rapporteur considers it important to recall that under
international maritime conventionsNote
is an obligation on ships’ masters to render assistance to those
in distress. There is also a corresponding obligation of states
to co-operate in rescue situations to relieve the master of responsibility
to care for survivors and allow those rescued to be delivered to
a place of safety.
The government responsible for the search and rescue region
(SAR) in which survivors are picked up is responsible for providing
a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided.Note
36. While this is the basis of international law, in practice
there are many problems and concerns that can be raised. There is
a growing reluctance of ships’ masters to go to the aid of boats
in distress, notwithstanding an obligation to do so, and many boats
in distress report that their distress signals have been ignored
by passing vessels. The inconvenience and financial consequences
of picking up people in distress can be substantial. Ships’ masters
may have to take a detour to land those in distress, the authorities
may not accept disembarkation and in extreme circumstances the ships’
master may even run the risk of being charged with trafficking irregular
37. In July 2006, for example, when the Spanish fishing vessel Francisco y Catalina rescued 51
irregular migrants in international waters close to Libya, Malta
would not let them disembark until agreement was obtained on relocation
of those rescued. Some 29 people were ultimately transferred to
Spain, five to Portugal and five to the Netherlands.
38. A more worrying incident occurred in May 2007 when 27 shipwrecked
Africans had to cling to the tuna fishnets of a Maltese fishing
vessel because the ship’s master refused to let them board. Libya,
Malta and Italy argued over responsibility until an Italian naval
vessel ultimately rescued those concerned.
Allegations have been made that Malta sometimes ignores distress
calls and escorts boats to Italian territorial waters rather than
allowing them to enter Maltese territorial waters. Malta has responded
by saying that they have no responsibility for boats that are not
in need of rescue on the high seas and that they comply with all
international obligations. They also state that some boats when
they see that a Maltese vessel has come to their rescue prefer to
keep going towards Italy, rather than be taken to Malta.Note
40. The rapporteur notes that Malta has a vast search and rescue
area of approximately 250 000 square kilometres and far fewer naval
resources than, for example, Italy. Malta has called for more responsibility sharing
and proposes that people rescued or intercepted in the high seas
be taken to the nearest port and then distributed to member states
of the European Union on a pro rata basis. This idea has not, however,
met with support at the European level. Malta has also set about
working with the Libyan authorities to offer training in search
and rescue in the hope of tackling the boats at the outset of their
journey and hopes that the European Union’s External Borders Fund
will allow the Maltese authorities to obtain increased funds to
manage its naval borders and carry out search and rescue operations.
In the waters between Greece and Turkey, there are reportedNote
of Greek coastguard vesselsNote
endangering the lives of irregular
migrants and asylum seekers by towing back to Turkish territorial
waters boats with those they have apprehended. These people have
reportedly been apprehended in Greek waters or even on dry land
and have allegedly not been given an opportunity to explain their
illegal entry into Greece, raising additional concerns relating
42. The rapporteur concludes that there is room for serious concern
over the issue of search and rescue and that this applies both to
the responsibility of ships’ masters and also to rescue vessels
operated under the authority of member states. Clearer guidelines
are needed to avoid incidents such as the tuna fishing incident. Furthermore,
all allegations that naval authorities have failed to meet their
obligations to rescue individuals and push people back to the territorial
waters of other states should be investigated.
43. Frontex is the European Agency
for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders
of the Member States of the European Union. It became fully operational
in October 2005 and is based in Warsaw.
44. The rapporteur had the opportunity of visiting the headquarters
of Frontex in June 2007 during which time he was briefed extensively
on the work of the agency.
45. Frontex has a number of tasks that are of particular importance
when looking at the issue of large-scale arrivals of irregular migrants
and asylum seekers. These tasks, however, are not meant to take
away the states’ responsibility for border protection and management.
46. Frontex has the role of co-ordinating operational co-operation
among member states of the European Union in the field of management
of external borders. It also has an important role in developing
common training standards for border officials. Furthermore, it
has the task of providing member states of the European Union with
the necessary support in organising joint return operations.
47. In terms of operational co-operation, Frontex set up a number
of naval and air operations in three geographical areas where large-scale
arrivals take place. The joint operation Nautilus covered the central Mediterranean
(off the coast of Malta and Lampedusa), the joint operation Poseidon
covered the eastern Mediterranean area’s (between Turkey and Greece)
land and sea borders, and the Hera operation covered arrivals to
the Canary Islands and included joint patrols by air and sea.
These operations were not permanent and they were carried
out in different stages. They contributed to rescuing many boats
in distress and they contributed to stopping many boats taking hazardous
journeys. They have also contributed to the apprehension of many
irregular migrants seeking to arrive in Europe by sea. To give concrete
the joint operation Hera III off
the coast of the Canary Islands during the period February to May
2007 succeeded in intercepting 2 020 irregular migrants and diverting
back to departure ports in West Africa a total of 1 559 persons.
As another example, during the joint operation Nautilus 2007, which ran
for two periods totalling sixty-nine days, 2 942 irregular migrants
49. These operations are not necessarily limited to air and sea
operations, but can also include assistance in interviewing those
who have arrived and establishing their identity and analysing how
the boat crossings have been facilitated.
50. Assets from different members states are used. In the first
phase of joint operation Nautilus 2007, for example, five offshore
patrol vessels, two helicopters and four aircraft were used with
contributions from six member states, including Germany, Spain,
France, Greece, Italy and Malta. The costs of these exercises are not
negligible and the budget for the first stage of this operation
lasting thirty-three days amounted to €2 230 000.
51. Frontex has a Centralised Record of Available Technical Equipment
(CRATE). This is effectively a list of resources available from
member states that Frontex can call upon. These resources are not
available free of charge and need to be paid for from the budget
of Frontex. The preliminary draft budget for 2008 is €39.7 million,
which is a relatively small sum when one considers the cost of running
planes, helicopters and naval vessels.
In the view of the rapporteur it would be wrong to consider
that Frontex can provide an answer to the large-scale arrival of
migrants and asylum seekers examined in this report. It is a relatively
new agency with limited resources. Its mandate is not to police
the external borders of Europe and it is certainly not its role
to replace the many hundreds of thousands of border officials employed
across Europe. It does not pretend to cover any of the above as
its executive director has said, “Frontex activities are supplementary
to those undertaken by member states. Frontex doesn’t have any monopole
on border protection and is not omnipotent. It is a co-ordinator
of the operational co-operation in which member states show their
53. While Frontex in itself may not be the answer, the rapporteur
is convinced that it is an important tool, in particular as those
countries on the front-line of this mixed flow of migrants and asylum
seekers are constantly calling for assistance and responsibility
sharing from their partners. Frontex can therefore contribute not
only to a more co-ordinated approach to border control, but can
assist states in responding to some of the exceptional and urgent
situations through its joint operations and through mechanisms such
as the rapid border intervention teams (Rabits) containing experts
from different countries. Great care should be taken, however, to
ensure that Frontex operations and interceptions do not lead to
the return of people in need of international protection under the
Geneva or other international conventions.
54. The rapporteur therefore considers that the resources of Frontex
need to be increased to allow greater assistance to those states
that are struggling with the large-scale arrivals covered in this
report. It should widen its operational capacities to include EU
accession countries. The rapporteur also considers it important
that further awareness-raising work is carried out so that there
is a greater understanding of the work of Frontex, its mandate and
the limits within which it works.
55. The rapporteur would also like to mention the work being carried
out by Frontex on training border guards and establishing common
training standards. During the rapporteur’s meetings with staff
of Frontex, a request was made for input from the Council of Europe
in the development of a common core curriculum for border guards.
The rapporteur is pleased to note that this request has been followed
up by the Council of Europe and that expert input is being provided
by the secretariat of the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture (CPT) and that this work is ongoing. It is essential that
border guards have a basic training in human rights and refugee
law and are in particular aware of the need to respect the principle
56. As the rapporteur has noted, Frontex is a new agency with
a new mandate. The impact of its work is still difficult to gauge
and the consequences of outsourcing border controls have yet to
be evaluated. Frontex’s work needs to be monitored and because its
work has human rights implications, it is important that it develops close
working relationships with human rights organisations at the national
and international level.
Detention of irregular migrants
and asylum seekers cannot be justified solely on the basis of irregular status
under national immigration law. Detention may only be justified
under the European Convention on Human Rights under two circumstances,
which are to prevent unauthorised entry into the country or when action
is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.Note
Detention should only be used
as a last resort, it must always be in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law and after a careful examination of the necessity
of deprivation of liberty. It should be judicially authorised and
should be for the shortest possible period of time. Alternatives
to detention should always be considered and vulnerable persons
should not be detained, except in exceptional circumstances.
The European Court of Human Rights has recently clarified
its position on the circumstances in which detention can be justified
in the case of Saadi v. the United Kingdom
this judgment, the Court highlighted that the two parts of Article
5, paragraph 1.f
unauthorised entry and action with a view to expulsion), must be
looked at in the same manner. Detention should not be arbitrary
and as such it must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely
connected to the purpose (preventing unauthorised entry or with
a view to expulsion), the place and conditions of detention should
be appropriate, bearing in mind that the people concerned have not
committed a criminal offences but are aliens who, often fearing
for their lives, have fled from their own country. Furthermore,
the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for
the purpose pursued.
Asylum seekers should not be detained simply because they
have applied for asylumNote
and the UNHCR considers
there to be only four possible justifications for detention, namely
when it is necessary to verify the identity of the asylum seeker,
determine the elements of the claim, deal with cases of lost, destroyed
or fraudulent documents used to mislead the authorities, or protect
Alternatives to detention should
be provided for expressly in the law.Note
Notwithstanding these basic principles, detention policies
for irregular migrants and asylum seekers differ widely across Europe.
In relation to length of detention, Spain has a maximum period of
detention of forty days. Italy has a maximum period of sixty days
and Greece has a maximum period of administrative detention of three
months. In Greece, illegal entry is also classified as a crime with
possible imprisonment of between three months and five years although
charges are not pressed unless other offences have been committed. Malta
has a policyNote
detaining irregular migrants for up to eighteen months and asylum
seekers for up to a year.
61. The rapporteur is aware that a relatively short period of
detention may inhibit the authorities from identifying the origins
of an irregular migrant or an asylum seeker and, where appropriate,
organising a return. A relatively short detention period may also
act as a pull factor for irregular migrants who know that they will
be released from detention if the authorities are unable to confirm
their identity and arrange their return. They will then be able
to find work as an irregular migrant, notwithstanding they are under
an obligation to leave the country and may have been issued with
an expulsion order.
The rapporteur is also aware that long periods of detention
pose serious human rights concerns and the CPT has highlighted in
respect to lengthy detention the “damaging effects on the physical
and psychological health of foreign nationals concerned”.Note
63. The rapporteur is particularly concerned by the length and
systematic use of detention in Malta for irregular migrants and
asylum seekers. For the most part, there is little prospect of the
majority of asylum seekers and irregular migrants being expelled
and a large proportion of those in detention are ultimately granted
refugee status or other international protection status. The problem
of lengthy detention is exacerbated by the conditions in detention,
which are manifestly inappropriate for long-term detention. This
matter will be examined further later in this report.
12 Conditions in detention
64. The rapporteur was able to
visit various detention and reception facilities and witness at
first-hand the conditions in some of these centres. The rapporteur
also received extensive materials from third parties, which he also
refers to in the course of his report.
65. The rapporteur had the opportunity,
thanks to the openness and assistance of the Maltese authorities, to
visit a number of detention facilities in Malta in October 2007.
At the time of the visit 1 780 people were being held in detention
at three camps. Some 850 people were being held at the Safi barracks,
863 at the Lyster barracks and 67 persons at the Ta’ Kandja police
facility. Another police facility at Hal Far was under refurbishment.
66. The rapporteur visited the Lyster barracks and the Safi barracks,
which are run by the Detention Services, a body set up in 2005.
The conditions in these centres have been heavily criticised
in a number of reports, including by the CPT,Note
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human RightsNote
by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice
and Home Affairs.Note
68. Notwithstanding the efforts made by the authorities to provide
for the basic needs of the irregular migrants and the asylum seekers,
the conditions in detention fall short of acceptable European standards.
They are totally inappropriate for long-term detention.
69. Overcrowding is a particular problem, exacerbated further
by the long periods of detention and lack of any proper detention
regime (vocational, educational, sporting, cultural or other recreational
70. The rapporteur was particularly concerned about condition
in the Lyster barracks, in the tent accommodation where 446 people
were housed under canvas. There were supposed to be 28 people to
a tent, but the rapporteur counted over 40 beds, two high and two
side by side, pushed together. There was only just enough space
to squeeze between every four beds. These tents are freezing cold
in the winter and suffocating in the summer.
71. Overcrowding was not only a problem in the tents but also
in the rest of the accommodation provided. While most of the inmates
had access to fresh air, this was limited for certain inmates. In
the Lyster barracks block, a system of rotation limited access to
Sanitary facilities were clearly inadequate, badly kept and
in a poor state of repair. The rapporteur was aware of efforts by
the authorities to refurbish some of the sanitary facilities, but
for the most part those seen by the rapporteur were in a poor state
of repair. Basins were coming away from the walls, water was leaking from
pipes, taps were broken, water heaters were not functioning, doors
and shower curtains were torn or missing and sewers were blocked
and leaking. The authorities explained to the rapporteur that the
inmates did not take good care of the facilities and that they were
also responsible for cleaning the facilities. However, in view of
the quality of the material, the large number of people using the
facilities and the lethargy of inmates brought about by long-term
detention without a proper regime, the poor state of the sanitary
facilities is not surprising. Much greater attention needs to be
given to providing adequate sanitary facilities and ensuring that they
are kept in serviceable repair and regularly cleaned and looked
after by inmates, or by inmates with the regular assistance of outside
contractors, or if necessary simply by outside contractors.Note
73. A particular problem exists in relation to sanitary facilities
for women as they have to share these with men in accommodation
housing families and single women. Shower curtains, for example,
provide the only form of privacy in communal sanitary facilities.
This is of great concern to the rapporteur, not simply as an issue of
privacy but because it represents a heightened risk of sexual violence
for the women concerned.
74. The rapporteur was informed that on arrival detainees are
provided with the basics such as towels, soap, shampoo, clothes,
toothpaste, pillows, sheets, mattresses, blankets, etc. The Red
Cross provides further clothes as necessary.
75. The rapporteur noted that some inmates did not have beds and
had to sleep on mattresses on the floor. Other inmates did not have
sufficient blankets or no blankets at all and were cold at night.
Inmates complained of lack of clothes. There was also a lack of
other basic furniture such as tables and chairs, and places where the
detainees could keep their belongings.
76. The authorities have taken steps to improve the food provided
to inmates, moving to a system of serving food in individual containers
and providing alternative food for those with particular dietary
needs. Notwithstanding these improvements, there were complaints
that the food was not sufficiently varied, too bland and often not
cooked enough. There were recurrent requests for food such as tomatoes
and tuna fish.
77. Notwithstanding complaints from detainees about the quality
of the water, the authorities assured the rapporteur it was drinkable.
Some concerns were raised at the high levels of nitrates in the
water, which made it dangerous for pregnant women. The rapporteur
therefore considers that suitable alternative water should be given
to pregnant women.
78. Another complaint raised with the rapporteur was the lack
of clear guidelines on discipline and punishment in the centres.
This needs to be addressed by the authorities.
79. Inmates also raised a number of other issues, including the
lack of contacts with the outside world, problems of isolation of
various language groups in the detention centres (for example, pockets
of francophones finding it difficult to communicate with other detainees
and guards), lack of clothes and also lack of toiletries. These
are all issues that the authorities should look at closer.
80. The rapporteur is also concerned about allegations of violence,
questionable forms of punishment and inadequate access to medical
treatment following an incident at the Safi barracks on 24 March
2008. The rapporteur calls on the authorities to investigate fully
the allegations that have been raised by the Jesuit Refugee Service
(JRS) Malta office, and take appropriate action to ensure that such
incidents are not repeated if the allegations are confirmed.
81. The rapporteur understands fully the burden and responsibility
involved in providing reception and detention facilities. He welcomes
that there are plans to build new accommodation facilities and encourages the
authorities to make full use of the funding available from the European
Union to improve the conditions of reception and detention, including
through the European Refugee Fund and the External Borders Fund.
82. Furthermore, the rapporteur reminds the Maltese authorities
that the Council of Europe Development Bank may be in a position
to provide loans for improving the facilities offered for reception
and detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
12.2 Lampedusa, Italy
In previous years, the detention
facilities in Lampedusa came under heavy criticism from various quarters,
including the CPTNote
and the European Parliament’s
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.Note
included overcrowding, lack of adequate sanitation, lack of access
to the centre by NGOs, international organisations and the media,
and the lack of legal safeguards for those held in the centre. Since those
reports, however, the authorities have invested heavily and built
new reception facilities. These new facilities were opened in August
2007 and visited by the rapporteur in September 2007.
84. The rapporteur congratulates the Italian authorities for the
improvements they have made and for the integrated approach they
have adopted for running the centre, enlisting the legal, medical
and social support of the IOM, the UNHCR and the Italian Red Cross.
85. The new centre can house up to 800 people and there were 266
males, 33 females and 11 minors present when visited by the rapporteur
on 3 and 4 September 2007. The centre is now classified as a reception centre
and the aim is to keep people in the centre for only up to forty-eight
hours. Persons can, however, end up staying for up to two weeks
if there are no suitable places for them in other detention centres.
86. The centre is guarded by the authorities but run by a private
agency called “Accoglienza”. The number of people working in the
centre varies, but in general 11 people work during the morning,
11 in the afternoon and five in the evening with higher numbers
during peak times such as in August. Staff at the centre are mostly young
and committed, although, as they admit themselves, lacking some
experience and training.
87. The accommodation in the centre and the sanitation facilities
are good. There is a canteen where people can collect and eat their
food three times a day. On arrival each person receives clothes,
bedding, a towel, toiletries. Each inmate is provided with a €5
phone card. Inmates spoken to were appreciative of the treatment and
the conditions in the centre.
88. Pre-identification (name, number, picture and finger printing)
takes place before the arrivals are allowed into the centre. Those
with possible communicable diseases are quarantined. Full registration
takes place later after the inmates have had the possibility of
89. Notwithstanding this favourable report on the centre, you
rapporteur considers that a number of improvements could be made.
The registration process before people are allowed to enter the
camp can be slow, and for those who have endured long journeys in
open boats the procedure should be speeded up to allow them to enter
the camp as soon as possible in order to rest and recover. Separate
facilities for women and unaccompanied minors are provided for,
but there are no facilities for families, meaning that men are separated
from the women and children. There is currently no separate eating
area for women and children who have to eat in their accommodation,
which is outside the boundary of the main reception facility.
90. The rapporteur has a concern about the legal status of the
reception centre in Lampedusa. It falls outside the scope of legislation
providing for identification centres and temporary stay and assistance
centres (CPTAs). From the rapporteur’s understanding there is no
legal basis for detaining people in the Lampedusa centre. This is
an issue that needs to be clarified and settled.
12.3 Canary Islands, Spain
The rapporteur wishes only
to highlight the findings of the UNHCR and the LIBE Committee of
the European Parliament in respect of conditions of detention in
the Canary Islands. A UNHCR report concluded in 2006 that despite
the provisional character of some of the internment centres, the
reception conditions for new arrivals were adequate. The report
from the LIBE Committee delegation, which visited Tenerife and Fuerteventura
from 7 to 10 June 2006, echoed this conclusion:Note
overall impression is that the centres are correctly run and clean,
and that they meet the most basic needs of those held there. The
Spanish authorities cope adequately with a very difficult situation.”
92. The rapporteur hopes that it will be possible for the committee
at a future stage to look more closely into the issue of reception
and detention conditions in Spain and the Canary Islands.
The rapporteur has serious
concerns about reception and detention conditions for irregular
migrants and asylum seekers in Greece,Note
particular in the light of the large increase in the numbers of
arrivals in 2007.
According to an independent report prepared at the request
of the rapporteur,Note
and detention facilities for irregular migrants and asylum seekers
range from totally unacceptable (Vrissika in Evros) to almost satisfactory
(Chios). For the most part, centres were not originally designed
for detention or reception purposes and are therefore not suitable.
Some examples can be given: storage compartments for local industry
or agriculture (Vrissika in the Evros prefecture, Venna in the Rodopi
prefecture), abandoned public buildings (old detention centre in
Samos), night clubs not in operation (Patmos) and prefabricated
tin constructions inside a barbed wire enclosure (Chios). According
to this report, women, families and minors are generally kept in separate
rooms when they remain in detention, but this is not always possible
when numbers are particularly high. No dining or recreation rooms
are available and furniture is extremely limited or non-existent.
Beds are often not available and detainees often have to sleep on
mattresses or even blankets placed directly on the floor. Access
to the telephone is not always possible and sanitation and washing
facilities are often, but not always, insufficient or in a bad state
of repair. Furthermore, there are limited or no recreational facilities
and often detainees are only able to spend limited time outside
in the fresh air.
95. A number of ad hoc detention premises are also used, including
abandoned hospitals, public schools, central buildings not in operation
and hotels hired by the authorities. The rapporteur is also aware
of the ongoing concern that some of the old centres that have totally
unacceptable living conditions reopen occasionally (such as Vrissika
in Evros) when there are large numbers of new arrivals.
The rapporteur’s concerns in relation to Greece are even stronger
after a recent report published by the CPT following a visit to
Greece from 20 to 27 February 2007.Note
report is highly critical of the conditions in detention of irregular
migrants and asylum seekers. The report also raises serious concerns
about the treatment of detainees by guards and the lack of co-operation
by the authorities in order to solve the different issues raised
during previous visits of the committee.
97. The rapporteur is particularly concerned by allegations in
this report of violence and ill-treatment at the hands of guards
and the lack of adequate medical treatment for people who claim
to be victims of violence and ill-treatment.
In terms of conditions in detention, the CPT reaches conclusions
both on border guard establishments and holding facilities for aliens.
Concerning border guard stations, the CPT concluded that “conditions
in the border guard stations visited were, in general, unacceptable
even for short periods” and referred to lack of natural light and
ventilation, dirty blankets and filthy mattresses on the floor,
overcrowding, poor sanitation and lack of access to the outside.Note
The CPT also focuses on a number of special detention centres
for irregular migrants and asylum seekersNote
and visited a number of centres including
a recently opened centre, at Petru Rali, and a centre that at the
time of the visit had still not opened, at Filakio.
100. In respect of the new centre at Filakio, the CPT concludes
that the design is not appropriate for the needs and notes the lack
of personal space for detainees when running at full capacity, lack
of privacy and lack of association rooms for activities. Similar
criticisms were raised in relation to the centre at Petru Rali where, inter alia, the lack of in-cell
sanitary facilities, mattresses on the floor, and a lack of clean
sheets and blankets were commented on. The rapporteur had the opportunity
of visiting the Petru Rali centre himself on 11 May 2007 and can
confirm the conditions noted by the CPT. Alongside the carceral
environment of this centre the rapporteur was concerned with the
lack of any communal areas for people detained, the lack of recreational activities,
and the total lack of access to the outside. An outside roof area
with high walls was shown to the rapporteur but it was not in use
due to security concerns. The rapporteur is, however, pleased to
note that since his visit limited access to the outside has now
101. At the other centres visited by the CPT, recurring problems
noted include lack of light, dirty mattresses and bedding, sanitation
and access to toilets and lack of access to the outdoors for fresh
air and exercise.
102. It is clear from the recent report of the CPT and from other
sources and from the rapporteur’s own visit to Petru Rali that the
Greek authorities need to urgently address the issues and recommendations
made by the CPT to improve the conditions in detention and stamp
out illtreatment of detainees. The rapporteur understands that a
“regulation for the holding centres for aliens” is in the process
of being drafted. Priority should be given to adopting these regulations,
which will establish and clarify the authorities’ obligations and the
rights of detainees and raise the standards of detention and reduce
the differences in practices between different centres.
According to an independent
report prepared at the request of the rapporteur,Note
migrants and asylum seekers in Turkey are housed in special facilities
referred to as “guest houses” to distinguish them from detention
facilities for criminals. These “guest houses” generally have an
accommodation capacity for between 20 and 100 people. Meals, clothing
and basic necessities are catered for and provided by the governorships of
the cities in which they are established. Access to phones is provided
and common rooms are generally provided for watching television
and socialising. Access is restricted to these “guest houses”, which
are de facto detention centres.
Very little information is available on the actual conditions
in these “guest houses”. The European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture has not as yet reported on these centres. A recent worrying
report has, however, been made public by the Helsinki Citizens’
Assembly entitled “Unwelcome guests: the detention of refugees in
Turkey’s ‘foreigners’ guest houses’”.Note
report was based on interviews with 40 detainees after their release
from these guest houses. This report, which is contested by the
authorities, alleges many deficiencies regarding conditions in detention.
In essence, these criticisms include allegations of overcrowding, dirty
and infested living and sanitation areas, lack of access to safe
drinking water, poor nutrition, lack of exercise and recreation
activities, the mixing of adults and children, as well as the mixing
of convicted criminals and migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
There are also criticisms about the lack of adequate medical treatment
and allegations of ill-treatment by the guards, including an incident
at Kirklareli Osman Pas “guest house” on 15 May 2007 in which eight
women and men detainees were reportedly severely beaten.Note
105. The rapporteur notes that NGOs do not have free access to
these “guest houses”, which is one of the reasons why the Helsinki
Citizens’ Assembly report is based on interviews of those who are
no longer in detention. The rapporteur considers that much greater
access is needed to these places of detention by civil society and
monitoring bodies to ensure transparency and to clarify the conditions
in detention. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population
should look further into the conditions in these centres in the
future. Furthermore, the CPT should be encouraged to visit a number
of these centres during a future country visit to Turkey. The Council
of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights may also wish to examine
the situation of persons in these “guest houses” in the course of
one of his future visits.
13 Levels of staff and their
competencies in the detention and reception centres
106. The rapporteur was struck during
his visits by the importance of having sufficient and appropriately trained
staff working in the detention and reception centres. This applies
not only to guards, but also to all those who come into contact
with the people being held, whether they are medics, administrative
helpers, cultural mediators, interpreters or others.
107. In Malta, the rapporteur noted that there were very few staff
available to run the detention centres, with an emphasis being given
to guarding inmates rather than providing assistance and support.
A much greater role could be given to NGOs to provide further assistance
and support, and they should be adequately trained and equipped
to give this support.
In Greece, the CPT noted in its 2007 report that none of the
staff in the centres visited were provided with any special training
in working with foreigners from different cultures and backgrounds.Note
In Turkey, the lack of training of staff
and their regular rotation has been identified as a particular problem,
along with the lack of trained interpreters to help in all forms
109. The rapporteur noted in particular the lack of cultural mediators,
people with both the language skills and cultural knowledge, in
the different centres he visited. In Malta this task was largely
left to detention officers to carry out. In Lampedusa, notwithstanding
that there were six cultural mediators (each speaking Arabic and
half speaking French and half speaking English) there was still
an expressed need for more people to work in this area and to cover
other languages (such as Somali) as many people do not speak Arabic,
English or French.
110. The need for fully qualified staff is particularly important
bearing in mind that many of the people arriving on the boats are
traumatised from their journeys, their experiences in their home
countries or their experiences in countries of transit (Libya in
particular). Many have faced exploitation and violence, including
sexual violence, and are in need of special assistance. Violence
and sexual and gender-based violence may also be an issue in the
detention centres and staff should be sensitised and trained to
deal with these issues. Staff of national societies of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent can provide important support to the authorities
and to the migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and this is one
of the reasons why it is important that they have access to the
111. The rapporteur noted that some staff working with irregular
migrants and asylum seekers consider the task a step down from other
responsibilities in the prison or other services. The rapporteur,
however, considers that the qualities (human in particular) and
skills (intercultural and other) required for looking after irregular migrants
and asylum seekers are probably greater than those required for
detaining criminals. It is therefore necessary to reevaluate upwards
the status and standing of those working with irregular migrants
and asylum seekers.
112. Much greater training is needed for staff in the detention
centres including psychological support for staff dealing with emotive
and difficult issues linked to the arrival of migrants, asylum seekers
and refugees. This training should be treated as a priority by the
113. Linguistic barriers were problematic in all the centres visited
by the rapporteur. There is therefore a clear need to ensure the
recruitment of an adequate number of appropriate interpreters with
the skills and sensitivities necessary to communicate with detainees.
14 Detention regimes
114. The rapporteur is aware that
detention regimes (vocational, educational, sporting, cultural or
other recreational activities) need to be appropriate for the length
of stay of inmates.
115. In Lampedusa, recreational facilities were limited to televisions,
balls for playing football and some reading material (newspapers).
A number of cultural musical evenings were also organised from time
116. In Malta, almost no activities were offered to detainees.
This was particularly alarming for the rapporteur in view of the
length of detention of most detainees. Television appeared to be
the main and perhaps only diversion for most inmates. Very little
reading material was apparent, and although there was access to
the outside for most detainees, the opportunity for any sporting
activities, such as football games, was limited. The rapporteur
understands that a new project on cultural orientation (language
learning and cultural training) and vocational training will be
offered in the future, but that this is dependent on assistance
from the IOM and funding from the European Union.
In the detention facility at Petru Rali in Athens, the rapporteur
noted the lack of regime activities. This would appear to be a general
problem in Greece as evidenced by the CPTNote
in its 2007 visit to Greece where it concluded
that, “there was no regime offering purposeful activities in any
of the centres visited; no books, newspapers or other reading material”.
118. From what the rapporteur has seen and experienced, far too
few regime activities are offered to detainees. Not only do detainees
need activities to help them pass the time of day, but they need
activities to help them prepare for the day they leave the centres
and either return to their countries of origin or are settled in
their new host country. Within the regimes offered, there needs
to be much more scope for contacts with the outside world, including
links with civil society actors who can offer support, advice, education,
entertainment or other diversions. The rapporteur considers that
with minimum resources and with assistance from civil society, a
range of regime activities can be introduced that will not only
alleviate boredom, tackle lethargy and depression but also prepare
inmates for their future.
In Turkey, there also appears to be few recreational facilities
according to information available to the rapporteur.Note
15 Health care
120. The rapporteur was aware that
the authorities in the countries he visited had taken steps to improve
the health care available for irregular migrants and asylum seekers.
121. In Lampedusa, as soon as the boats arrive in the port, Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF) provide an initial medical screening on the
dockside looking out for dehydration, hypothermia, traumas from
burns, etc. They also look out for scabies, hepatitis and cater
for the particular needs of pregnant women. Those in a serious condition
are flown off the island by helicopter. There are, however, no formal
tests for tuberculosis or HIV and the rapporteur understands that
evaluations on health status are not forwarded to subsequent reception
and assistance centres, which is an issue needing attention.
122. In the new centre, health care services have been greatly
improved with a sick-bay (with a waiting room and a ward) serviced
by two doctors and two nurses provided under a newly negotiated
private contract. Furthermore, MSF have also recently signed an
agreement with the authorities allowing them access to the centre
to provide additional assistance through the services of two extra
doctors, a nurse and a cultural mediator. The rapporteur understands,
however, that MSF may leave the island in 2008 and if this is the
case, additional health care assistance will be needed.
123. In Malta the rapporteur was pleased to learn that health services
had been improved through outsourcing to a private company with
a doctor and a nurse available in the Lyster and Safi barracks between
8 a.m. and 1 p.m. every day. The rapporteur, however, heard that
the structure was under strain and there were complaints about the
limited hours for consultations, the lack of pharmaceutical products
available and delays in receiving these products. There were also
complaints about delays in receiving treatment, including dental care.
Inmates also reportedly had problems in communicating with the guards
to let them know they needed treatment.
124. The rapporteur understands that in Malta arrivals are screened
for tuberculosis (TB) and scabies. There is no screening for HIV,
but if cases are found, those concerned are put on appropriate medication,
although no counselling is available.
Médecins du Monde has recently produced a critical reportNote
health care and human rights in the centres in Malta. They have
offered assistance to the Maltese authorities but this assistance
has been turned down by the authorities who do not want to confuse
the health care process by having different providers of health
care. The rapporteur considers that this offer of assistance should
be reconsidered by the authorities and that there is great scope
for strengthening the health care in the centres.
126. One other matter of concern to the rapporteur in relation
to Malta is the reported handcuffing of detainees when they are
taken outside the camp for medical or other treatment. This handcuffing
of people who do not represent a danger to the public is unnecessary,
except in extreme circumstances. This handcuffing furthermore serves
to reinforce public fear and perception that these people are criminals
and dangerous. The rapporteur therefore urges the Maltese authorities
to review its policy in relation to handcuffing and to keep the use
of such measures to a strict minimum.
127. In the Canary Islands, the rapporteur understands that all
those accommodated in reception centres must undergo HIV tests,
TB and hepatitis tests, X-rays and stool tests.
In Greece, medical screening of new arrivals would not appear
to be systematic. Furthermore, only very limited health care is
often provided and sometimes only by NGOs and not as a complement
to public health care.Note
In Turkey, detainees have complained of lack of medical services
and the indifference of the authorities to requests for medical
treatment. The cost of health care has also been identified as a
130. A common concern raised with the rapporteur in the countries
he visited was the lack of psychiatric support for victims of torture
and violence, including sex-based violence. Staff have little training
and interpretation may not always be available, leading to the result
that problems are not identified and not treated.
131. The rapporteur notes that the level of medical screening and
tests vary from one country to another. It is clear that a systematic
screening process is needed in all countries to ensure that transmissible
diseases are picked up and other emergency health concerns are identified.
Adequate follow-up needs to be assured for all diagnoses, including
counselling for those who may for example be found to be HIV positive.
Furthermore, for those found to be HIV positive, confidentiality
needs to be respected and considerations of ethics and non-discrimination
need to be taken into account post-diagnosis. More generally, as
levels of screening differ from one country to another, the rapporteur
considers that agreed guidelines on minimum levels of screening
could be useful for all countries concerned.
16 Treatment of vulnerable
132. The potential list of vulnerable
people is long. The rapporteur is pleased to note certain additional safeguards
put in place for vulnerable people by the authorities of the countries
he visited. That said, there are still many steps that could be
taken to improve the situation of vulnerable people, and in particular
steps for unaccompanied minors and safeguards against sexual and
133. In Malta unaccompanied minors, families with children, pregnant
women, people with special needs and the elderly are considered
to be vulnerable groups. It can be welcomed that there is ongoing
discussion to add to this list victims of torture and sexual violence.
Vulnerable people are released from detention once it is established
that they are not suffering from a communicable disease such as
TB. The delay, however, may be as long as six weeks and those with
particular medical needs are not always included as vulnerable people. The
authorities are therefore encouraged to review the category of vulnerable
people and where it is necessary to keep them in detention, ensure
that this is for a minimum period of time, in particular when pregnant
women, babies and minors are concerned.
134. In Malta, the Organisation for Integration and Welfare of
Asylum Seekers (OIWAS) has responsibility for vulnerable persons.
The rapporteur had the opportunity of visiting an open centre housing
unaccompanied minors at Dar il-Liedna, Fgura. A separate part of
the house also housed families with children. Some 18 unaccompanied
minors were lodged in the house when the rapporteur visited. It
was clean and tidy with ample space, sanitation and cooking facilities.
The unaccompanied minors with whom the rapporteur spoke were relaxed
and considered themselves well looked after and had the opportunity
to follow some form of education. Staff were welcoming. The rapporteur
wishes to commend the authorities on the accommodation at Dar il-Liedna,
although he understands that more could be done to prepare minors
for their integration on leaving the centre.
135. The rapporteur has specific concerns about the vulnerability
of single women and wives with husbands who are housed together
at the Lyster barracks detention centre without separate sanitation
facilities. This is a situation that needs to be addressed as soon
as possible and separate sanitation and accommodation needs to be
136. Italy has seen an increase in the arrival of minors and unaccompanied
minors. Their age is determined by statements made by the minors.
In case of doubt, bone scans are carried out, with the consent of
the minors. In Lampedusa, they are kept in separate accommodation
with the women before being sent to Sicily to stay in group homes.
137. In the Canary Islands, the issue of unaccompanied minors has
created some concern in the light of the recent report of Human
Rights Watch entitled “Unwelcome responsibilities, Spain’s failure
to protect the rights of unaccompanied migrant children in the Canary
Islands (2007)”. In this report, there are allegations raised of ill-treatment
and bullying. Problems of age assessment (bone scans) are highlighted
and the lack of information on rights and lack of confidential complaints
mechanisms is criticised. Problems in relation to guardianship are also
highlighted. The rapporteur welcomes the fact that a UNHCR-Save
the Children Seminar on Unaccompanied Minors was organised recently
in Tenerife and that a follow-up seminar is planned. This will contribute
to solving some of the issues raised in the report of Human Rights
138. In Greece, according to the authorities a new accommodation
centre for minors has been established in Amygdaleza in Attica.
Further centres include the Minor’s Hosting Centre in Anogeia in
the area of Rethymno in Crete, the Greek Institute for Solidarity
and Co-operation (ELINAS) in Athens, the Volos Child Care Association
in the area of Volos and the Association for Minors’ Care in Athens.
The situation of unaccompanied minors has nonetheless become a particular
concern for the Greek Ombudsman and local NGOs as facilities on
many of the islands are not adapted to the reception needs of unaccompanied
minors. Furthermore, there are problems over the appointment of
guardians and the lack of child welfare structures. A further concern
notified to the rapporteur is the lack of care after unaccompanied
minors are released. At Petru Rali detention centre in Athens the
rapporteur had discussions with a number of unaccompanied minors awaiting
deportation. In one instance he learnt that a young boy’s mother
was being detained in another detention facility in Greece. On raising
this issue with the authorities they agreed to take steps to unite
him with his mother.
are allegations that unaccompanied minors are regularly detained
with adults and that when bone tests for age are carried out, no
margin of error is allowed by the authorities in favour of minors. This
allegedly leads to minors being wrongly identified as adults and
being detained with adults. Furthermore, it is alleged that other
vulnerable detainees, such as torture survivors and detainees with
mental health problems, have great difficulty accessing mental health
services and specialised health care.
The rapporteur considers that much greater attention should
be paid to the issue of unaccompanied minors, their age assessment,Note
conditions of reception, safeguard of their rights, guardianship
and preparations for their coming of age. The rapporteur considers
it important for the Assembly to examine the issue further building
on the work of the Assembly in Recommendation 1703 (2005)Note
and assistance for separated children seeking asylum.
17 Access to the centres and
monitoring of the centres
141. Allowing access to the centres
by NGOs (medical, legal, social, etc.), international organisations (UNHCR,
IOM, etc.), national societies of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, monitoring
bodies (ombudspersons, human rights commissions, parliamentarians,
independent monitoring boards, etc.) and the media are essential
not only for transparency but also for accountability.
142. The rapporteur has noted a growing transparency by authorities
in the period in which he has researched and prepared his report.
In Lampedusa, for example, organisations such as the UNHCR,
the IOM and the Red Cross did not originally have direct access
to the old centre. Since 1 March 2006 under the PRAESIDIUM I project,
co-funded by the European Union ARGO programme and the Italian Interior
Ministry, the UNHCR, the IOM and the Italian Red Cross have been
granted access and are now provided with offices in the centre,
which greatly facilitate their work and ensure complete transparency
in the handling of the irregular migrants and asylum seekers.Note
concrete terms, the UNHCR provides advice on asylum and distributes
leaflets in at least eight different languages. The IOM provides
information on migration in general and provides legal advice and
support to vulnerable groups, including those who may find themselves
in Italy in a vulnerable situation (those in an irregular situation
needing health care, etc.). The Italian Red Cross concentrates on
ensuring adequate health conditions, identifying unaccompanied and
accompanied minors and providing women and minors with information
and socio-sanitary assistance. Italian parliamentarians have access
to the centre in Lampedusa and a network of benevolent lawyers (ARCI)
are also regularly given access. Médecins sans Frontières also has
access to the centre. Having these different organisations working
together helps in identifying the background and needs of arrivals
and should be taken as good practice for other states to follow.
144. In Malta there is not the same level of access allowed to
outside organisations. On giving notice to the authorities, the
UNHCR and the IOM can have access to all the centres. Certain NGOs
such as Médecins du Monde have not been given continuous access.
For those organisations that do have access a practical problem
exists, namely that there is a lack of appropriate office space
for these organisations to work and meet with detainees.
145. The rapporteur understands from the authorities in Malta that
the presence of NGOs in the centres is erratic. From the discussions
the rapporteur had with inmates in the centres it was clear that
they needed to have much more contact with the outside world. The
authorities should therefore explore with NGOs how to improve the
level of access of NGOs to these centres.
In the Canary Islands, the rapporteur understands that the
UNHCR carries out regular missions to the different centres but
does not have a permanent presence on the islands. NGOs also have
access but have in the past complainedNote
the difficulties they face in entering the centres. The recent access
of a specialised asylum NGO would appear to have improved the situation,
but this should be monitored further.
In Greece, a particular problem appears to be the lack of
monitoring mechanisms for detention centres, particularly in the
border regions. The UNHCR conducted a total of 21 visits in 2007
(nine by UNHCR staff and 12 by the UNHCR Border Monitoring Officer).
The central authorities, however, are reportedly not well-informed and
rarely visit these facilities.Note
NGOs access to detention centres is
not guaranteed and practice varies from one centre to another as
there are no regulations on the issue. Access of NGOs is particularly
important as state legal aid is not provided and NGOs try to provide
legal assistance when they can have access to detainees. The rapporteur
is pleased to note that there are plans for the Greek Ombudsman
to carry out inspections of detention centres and hopes that he
will be given such a mandate as soon as possible.
148. In Turkey, there appears to be very limited access to the
detention centres, which explains the little information available
on the conditions in detention. As the rapporteur has already highlighted
earlier in this report, greater access needs to be given to these
centres to ensure transparency in the operation and functioning
of these centres.
149. The rapporteur considers that it is important that the media
also have access to the centres on a regular basis. Greater transparency
is essential for the process of improving the living conditions
of detainees and also making the public aware of the hardship and
difficulties faced by detainees. It will also help mobilise civil
society to provide greater support for the material needs, recreational
activities and external human contacts of those in detention. This
access by the media should not, however, be at the expense of the
right to privacy of those in detention.
150. In the same light, the rapporteur considers it important that
national parliamentarians are also aware of conditions in the centres
and have access and visit the centres. The rapporteur also encourages
visits by ombudspersons and national human rights commissions or
other dedicated independent monitoring boards. He welcomes in this
respect the news that the Government of Malta has agreed to establish
an independent monitoring board for this very purpose.
18 Return of those found not
to be in need of international protection
151. The rapporteur is acutely aware
of the difficulties faced by receiving countries to return irregular
migrants who do not have international protection needs. While the
numbers of people being returned by some countries is relatively
high, with Spain for example repatriating a total of 76 000 people
in 2006, this should not mask the difficulty faced in returning
certain nationals. Countries such as Malta have particular problems
in organising returns as they do not have the same political weight
and diplomatic links as countries such as Italy or Spain.
152. Returns to Libya, the major country of transit for arrivals
to Malta and Italy (Lampedusa), are particularly problematic. From
the testimonies heard by the rapporteur from persons arriving from
Libya along with concerns raised by the UNHCR and a range of NGOs,
there are significant human rights problems and concerns involved
in returning people to Libya.
For Greece the issue of returns to Turkey also poses problems,
notwithstanding that a protocol on returns between the two countries
entered into force in 2002. This protocol is not fully operational
and there is no provision for exempting asylum seekers from its
return process works both ways, although Greece seeks to return
many more people to Turkey than Turkey seeks to return to Greece.
154. In relation to Turkey, the rapporteur would like to raise
concern about a reported incident on 23 April 2008 at the border
between Turkey and Iraq in Sirnak Province. Four people drowned
when they were allegedly forced to swim across the river border
by the Turkish authorities as part of an attempt to return a mixed
group of irregular migrants and refugees to Iraq. The alleged steps
taken by the Turkish authorities raise numerous human rights and
refugee concerns that need to be investigated by the Turkish authorities.
The use and success of assisted voluntary return in the countries
examined would appear to be very limited, notwithstanding the efforts
of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). In Malta,
the IOM, which has only recently opened its office, has negotiated
only one case of assisted voluntary return, but is working on other
cases. The sums offered as an incentive are low and fixed at €500.
In Turkey, the numbers are higher with 197 peopleNote
in co-operation with IOM in 2006. In Greece, there are only limited resources
for voluntary return. In the opinion of the rapporteur, there remains
much more scope for the use of assisted voluntary returns in the
156. Frontex has a mandate to assist in joint return operations
of third country nationals and has for example worked on identifying
best practices on the acquisition of travel documents and the removal
of illegally present third country nationals. Much progress is needed
on the returns process, both in terms of voluntary and forced returns,
but this is a process that requires the co-operation of countries
of origin, transit and destination.
19 Relocation and responsibility
157. Relocation and responsibility
sharing of those with international protection needs rarely takes
place in Europe. The burden falls on receiving countries to settle
refugees and those with international protection needs. Malta is
in a particularly difficult situation because it is a small island
with a small population. A few countries such as Germany, Ireland,
Lithuania, Portugal and the Netherlands have stepped in to offer relocation
possibilities for a number of people and the United States has recently
offered to take 200.
158. The rapporteur considers that member states of the Council
of Europe could reasonably be expected to share the responsibility
with Malta by relocating some of those with international protection
needs. The rapporteur is aware of the argument from certain countries
that relocation could act as a pull factor for further waves of
irregular migration. This, however, does not appear to be a major
risk at the moment as levels of relocation are negligible.
The rapporteur also makes reference in this respect to Assembly Resolution 1569 (2007)
on assessment of transit and processing centres as a
response to mixed flows of migrants and asylum seekers.Note
In this resolution, responsibility
sharing is called for. Furthermore, there are valid reasons for
considering the creation in Malta of a processing centre with a
view to organising, at European level, either settlement in Malta
or relocation in Europe, or return of those without international
20 The use of open centres
for irregular migrants and asylum seekers
160. In Spain, Italy and Greece
after the maximum periods of detention have passed and if irregular
migrants cannot be returned to their country of origin they are
released with orders to leave the country. While civil society may
give some support to these irregular migrants on their release,
they are not taken in charge directly by the authorities for accommodation
or other support. In Spain, for example, since 2006, five NGOs have programmes
funded by the government to offer temporary accommodation for up
to two weeks. It would, however, appear that the majority of people
leave the accommodation after a couple of days.
161. In Malta, the situation differs in so far as those released
from detention, who cannot be returned, have nowhere to go and nowhere
to stay. The authorities therefore run a number of open centres
where basic accommodation is offered to irregular migrants, refugees
and those with some other international protection status. Those
with work must pay a contribution towards the accommodation. Those
that do not work receive accommodation free of charge and receive
a small allowance for food.
162. The Maltese authorities indicated out of approximately 2000
people in open centres, half of these persons are housed under canvas.
The authorities are constantly having to increase the capacity of
these open centres in order to cater for new arrivals and to ensure
that those who wish to remain may do so.
163. The rapporteur had the possibility of visiting the Hal Far
tent village, which is one of the open centres providing accommodation
to between 700 and 800 people under canvas. This centre provides
accommodation mostly for males although there are some couples living
in this “tent village”. There are separate sanitation facilities
for men and women and a new catering block was under construction
when the rapporteur visited. A small cafeteria also under canvas
exists providing meals for those who do not want to cook for themselves. There
are 20 to 24 people accommodated in each tent (in comparison to
more than 40 people per tent in the detention centre). The contrast
between the conditions in detention under canvas and the conditions
in the open centre under canvas are marked. Residents are free to
come and go, they are not cramped together in the same way as in
detention, sanitary facilities are much better and the authorities
were even considering handing over the upkeep of the sanitation
facilities to a private contractor. This, however, should not detract from
the difficulties of living under canvas and being cold in the winter
and hot in the summer and the lack of privacy and space in the tents.
Furthermore, the Hal Far tent village is far from sources of work,
health care and administration, which makes living that much more
164. In principle, the authorities would like the residents to
move out of the open centres after one year. In practice this is
difficult for many of the residents and some have been there for
four years due to the lack of alternative accommodation.
165. The rapporteur also visited a charity-based centre (“the Good
Shepherd House”) run by the Emigrants’ Commission. The commission
is responsible for 14 homes with some 400 beds. The facilities are
well run and well looked after by residents and staff. Most residents
are able to find some form of work and while much of the living
is communal, with people sharing rooms and dormitories, it is comfortable
and homely. Residents are encouraged to remain active and children
are reported to be integrating well. Residents are encouraged to move
out as soon as they can as demand is great for places.
166. A number of conclusions can be drawn by the rapporteur. Conditions
in the open centre at Hal Far are far from ideal with only limited
facilities and rudimentary accommodation available under canvas.
The conditions in the Hal Far tent village are, however, much more
acceptable than those in detention and they are clearly a much better
alternative than destitution for those released form detention.
167. The contrast between the Hal Far tent village and the charity-based
centres run by the Emigrants’ Commission also represent a major
contrast, with the latter offering far better levels of accommodation,
and providing a setting that encourages residents to move forward
with their lives, find work and improve their lot in life.
168. The rapporteur is aware that the open centre accommodation
is supposed to be for a limited period of time. There is, however,
a bottle-neck as people in this accommodation find it difficult
and are reluctant to move out. Private accommodation is extremely
difficult to find and it is reported that the local population is
reluctant to rent accommodation to migrants, refugees and asylum
seekers. Furthermore, employment to support the cost of private
accommodation is limited and not always secure.
169. While the authorities can be applauded for providing basic
reception facilities for all people once they leave detention, accommodation
is extremely basic. Steps are needed to integrate into Maltese society persons
living in the open centres. The population in open centres is growing
and there are limited possibilities for the residents to find work
and leave these centres. There is a need for social housing for
those who have international protection status and who will remain
in Malta. There is also a need for integration measures, including
language training, notwithstanding that the authorities have found
little take-up in the past in their offers for this training. A
much larger pool of jobs, not only limited to cleaning and construction,
is needed for those released from detention.
The rapporteur understands that Turkey has been granted €47.5
million for building reception, screening and accommodation centres.Note
It is not yet clear whether these centres
are to be open or closed centres. In the planning of these centres,
the rapporteur encourages the authorities to make sure that they
are constructed taking into account the standards developed by the
CPT, the UNHCR and other international bodies.
21 Racism and intolerance
171. The rapporteur is aware that
there has been a great deal of generosity and support from local communities
hosting irregular migrants and asylum seekers. This support has,
as time has progressed, been matched and in certain instances surpassed
by a growing level of hostility, xenophobia and racism, not only
in the receiving communities but also in the wider national communities.
172. This hostility has also spread across Europe with the public
perception, influenced by the media and many politicians, being
that Europe is “flooded” by “wave after wave” of “illegal migrants”.
The rapporteur does not underestimate the challenge of dealing with
this flow of irregular migrants and asylum seekers but considers
that it should be put into perspective. The number of boat arrivals
are few in comparison with the number of people entering Europe
by other means (such as through holiday visas, student work programmes, etc.)
and then overstaying and lapsing into an irregular status. Media
and politicians should therefore take care not to exaggerate the
fears surrounding these arrivals as they only serve to heighten
racism, intolerance and xenophobia.
173. The rapporteur when visiting Lampedusa found that the local
Italian population and local politicians were particularly concerned
by the impact the boat arrivals were having on the local tourist
economy. They were concerned that the image of the island risked
being tarnished by the irregular migrants and asylum seekers. There
was also concern that the irregular migrants and asylum seekers
were being better catered for than the local population in some
respects (such as in terms of health care).
In Malta the situation is particularly acute, a matter recognised
by the authorities and reported on by Amnesty International in its
2007 report on Malta.Note
extremely worrying arson attacks in 2006,Note
which took place on those working
to protect the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, have fortunately
not been repeated in 2007, but the rapporteur remains concerned
at the very high level of hostility that exists in Maltese society
towards migrants and asylum seekers and refugees. The rapporteur
found that in almost all his discussions in Malta, whether at a
political level, with university students, with people on the streets,
there was a hostility that could sometimes be classified as racist
or xenophobic. Malta, along with many other countries in Europe,
needs to pay much more attention to tackling the high levels of
hostility, xenophobia and racism in society.
175. The rapporteur believes that the media and parliamentarians
in the different countries concerned have a particular responsibility
for avoiding racism and intolerance. He considers that they should
consider adopting their own guidelines to avoid racism and intolerance.
176. For the general public, information campaigns and human rights
awareness programmes would help tackle the high incidence of racism
and xenophobia in the societies most affected by the arrival of
these irregular migrants and asylum seekers.
22 Asylum claims
177. Across Europe, the number of
asylum claims fell significantly from 2001 to 2006 although it started
to rise again in 2007. There is almost certainly a correlation between
falling numbers of arrivals and falling numbers of asylum seekers
as those with international protection needs find it increasingly
difficult to enter Europe and access asylum processes.
178. One of the consequences of this is that countries of transit
will increasingly have to strengthen their refugee status determination
procedures to deal with asylum claims. Furthermore, as Europe becomes increasingly
difficult to reach, other solutions for giving asylum seekers access
to asylum processes will need to be found. One solution could be
the processing of asylum claims in country by third country consulates
or embassies. An analysis of the limited experience to date of this
processing should be considered.
Another problem that will arise is how to deal with asylum
claims when a large boat is intercepted, for example in the context
of a Frontex operation. Where are the people to be processed and
where are they to be taken? This issue ties in to the concerns raised
in Assembly Resolution
on assessment of transit and processing centres as a
response to mixed flows of migrants and asylum seekers.Note
180. The rapporteur recognises the efforts made by states, by the
UNHCR and by NGOs to ensure that asylum seekers in the region receive
information and have access to a procedure to determine if they
are entitled to refugee or other international protection status.
Notwithstanding the efforts made, there remain problems that the
rapporteur would like to identify. There are very disparate numbers
of people claiming asylum from one country to another. There are
also differing acceptance rates, depending on the type of protection and
the level of the hearing (first instance versus appeal). There are
problems of access to a lawyer, availability of legal aid and access
181. In Malta, according to the Refugee Commissioner, about 70%
of people apply for asylum and about 47% of people obtain humanitarian
protection. Approximately, 3% receive refugee status.
182. All people receive an entitlement paper and an information
booklet from the UNHCR and a local NGO, the Jesuit Refugee Services
(JRS), translated into different languages. In practice, those in
detention have limited opportunities for contact with the UNHCR
and JRS for help with their claims. This matter was raised with the
rapporteur by a number of people in detention. The problem of access
to the centres by NGOs and others has already been mentioned earlier
in the report.
183. The rapporteur is aware that everyone in Malta has the right
to engage their own lawyer, but free legal aid is not available,
except on appeals. According to information gathered by the rapporteur
the quality of legal aid on appeals is poor and there have been
no successful appeals up to the time of the rapporteur’s visit.
184. Other problems also need highlighting, namely the length of
processing claims, the low acceptance rate for refugees and the
lack of appeal for those with humanitarian status. On a more positive
note, the UNHCR has declared itself relatively happy with the asylum
process. Steps are being taken to speed up the asylum process, prioritise
cases and recruit further staff to work on asylum claims. It should
also be noted that the proportion of people granted humanitarian
status appears high and generous.
185. The profile of people arriving in Lampedusa are similar to
those arriving in Malta, however, according to statistics for 2006
obtained from the UNHCR, only a third of those arriving by sea claim
asylum. In 2006, 10348 asylum applications were submitted with almost
47% of applicants receiving protection (8.5% as refugees and 39.1%
as beneficiaries of humanitarian protection). Top of the list was
Eritrea (2 151 applications), followed by Nigeria (830), Togo (584),
Kosovo (565) and Ghana (530). On arrival in Lampedusa all persons
are provided with information on the centre as well as an information
leaflet from the UNHCR translated into various languages explaining
how to claim asylum.
186. In Spain, the number of people seeking asylum is relatively
low. In 2006 there were 5 297 asylum applications but only 360 applications
came from the Canary Islands. Of the 4 286 decisions taken throughout Spain
on asylum claims in this period, 168 people were recognised as refugees
(3.9%) and 188 (4.4%) were given complementary protection. In 2007,
the number of asylum applications in the Canary Islands rose to
655, in part because of the access to the centres by an asylum-specialised
NGO providing legal orientation and assistance.
187. The rapporteur understands from the UNHCR that the authorities
in Spain have a positive and constructive approach to asylum and
that effective access to asylum procedures is available to asylum
seekers who receive information in a number of different languages.
There are, however, concerns over the quality of legal advice provided
to asylum seekers. Two types of assistance are offered, the first
is by the local bar associations. This has been referred to as a
“mirage on the legal assistance of asylum” with lawyers not normally
even meeting their clients. The second type of assistance is provided
by specialised NGOs, which is reported to be of better quality,
although not yet satisfactory. The rapporteur understands that steps
are being taken to address these concerns following a critical report
of the ombudsman, and a specialised course has now been run for
the General Bar Association. Another problem raised is the difficulty
for NGOs to have access to the different centres so as to be able
to offer legal advice. As mentioned earlier, access has now been
given to a specialised NGO providing legal assistance in the Canary
Islands and this has improved the situation. Furthermore, asylum
information leaflets are distributed to all arrivals, in accordance
with advice from the UNHCR.
A particular concern for the rapporteur is the small number
of people seeking asylum after arriving in the Canary Islands.Note
The issue is complicated
as it is not simply a question of lack of access to the asylum process,
but is influenced by an alternative choice facing arrivals. The
alternative is to not seek any status and hope that deportation
cannot take place (for example, because of the lack of a return
agreement with the country of origin or because of lack of proof
of identity and nationality of the person concerned). After forty
days in detention the person concerned would have to be released
and could then move onwards in Spain or Europe seeking work as an
In Greece, information bulletins concerning rights of irregular
migrants are, according to the Greek authorities, made available
in 14 languages in all reception and detention centres. Furthermore,
there have recently been new efforts to make sure that asylum seekers
are provided with information prepared by the UNHCR and the Ministry
of the Interior in six different languages.Note
UNHCR nevertheless reports problems in the proper dissemination
of this information. Interpretation appears to be a major problem
in border areas,Note
free legal aid is not availableNote
there is little voluntary legal assistance from private lawyers
or other sources. The rapporteur is also concerned by reports that
people are dissuaded from applying for asylum through the threat
of detention. For those that do apply for asylum, very few obtain
it as Greece has one of the lowest acceptance rates in Europe.Note
2006, there were 12 267 asylum requests and only 64 people were awarded
refugee status and 63 humanitarian status. In 2007, in contrast,
there were 25113 asylum requests, 140 people were awarded refugee
status and 23 humanitarian status.Note
of these cases were lodged in the border areas, confirming concerns
that people in these areas are not able to access asylum procedures.
190. The rapporteur notes that Turkey has maintained the geographical
limitation for non-European asylum seekers, notwithstanding that
it has signed and ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Non-European asylum seekers,
even if they receive refugee status, have no permanent status and
have to be resettled to third countries with the assistance of the
UNHCR. The rapporteur considers that Turkey should lift the geographical
limitation to allow both refugee status determination and settlement
in Turkey for all persons without distinction as to their geographical
origin. Furthermore, additional steps need to be taken to make sure
that asylum seekers receive adequate information about their rights
and have access to the existing asylum process.
The rapporteur wishes to highlight the need for states to
recognise their special obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees
under international law and in particular under the United Nations
Refugee Convention and more recently under EU refugee legislation.Note
Competent state organs,
especially in border areas, as well as lawyers involved in asylum
claims, have a particular role in assuring that asylum seekers can claim
and enjoy their rights, and in particular those linked to the right
192. The rapporteur has tried to
give a picture of the situation of large-scale arrivals on southern
European shores, providing a number of concrete examples of problems
and practice. The issue is fluid and changing, year by year, but
the rapporteur has noted many improvements in the approaches of
governments, international organisations and NGOs in the period
that he has been preparing the report.
193. States are better organised and willing to devote more resources,
even if much more still needs to be done, particularly in Malta
and in Greece. Partnerships between the authorities, international
organisations, such as the UNHCR and IOM, and NGOs are showing improved
results. Procedures are being strengthened to ensure that people
are able to claim asylum or other forms of subsidiary protection,
even if there remain important concerns about the level, availability
and effectiveness of legal representation. Some forms of international
co-operation and responsibility sharing are taking place, in particular
under the wing of the European agency Frontex, but much more needs
to be done to share responsibility, including relocation where appropriate.
194. Some of the conditions in detention, however, remain deplorable
and the lengthy detention practised in Malta is simply too long.
Too many people are losing their lives crossing into Europe and
there is worrying evidence that ships’ masters and even naval authorities
are not always complying with their obligations to search and rescue
those in distress.
195. The Council of Europe can make an important contribution to
the problematic large-scale arrival of irregular migrants and asylum
seekers. It can, inter alia,
assure that reception and detention conditions meet European human
rights standards, that border officials, lawyers and others in contact
with asylum seekers and irregular migrants are properly trained,
that access to the asylum process is guaranteed, that legal aid
is available, that the needs of vulnerable people, including unaccompanied
minors, are catered for.
196. The rapporteur was greatly assisted in his work by the openness
of the authorities of the different countries he visited. While
he has levelled some harsh criticism in this report, it is hoped
that it can be for the benefit of all the countries concerned as
well as for the benefit of individual migrants and asylum seekers
who will continue to land on Europe’s southern shores.
Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and
Reference to committee: Doc. 11004 and Reference No. 3274 of 2 October 2006.
Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted
by the committee on 19 May 2008
Members of the committee: Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker (Chairperson), Mr Doug Henderson (1st Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Pedro Agramunt (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Alessandro Rossi (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Tina
Acketoft, Mr Ioannis Banias, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Italo Bocchino,
Mr Jean-Guy Branger, Mr Márton
Braun, Mr André Bugnon, Lord
Burlison (alternate: Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas),
Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik, Mr Christopher Chope
(alternate: Mr Bill Etherington),
Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Telmo Correia, Mr Ivica
Dačić, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Taulant Dedja, Mr Nikolaos Dendias, Mr Mitko Dimitrov, Mr Karl Donabauer, Mr Tuur
Elzinga, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Oleksandr
Feldman, Mrs Doris Fiala, Mr Paul Giacobbi (alternate: Mr Denis Jacquat), Mrs Gunn Karin Gjul,
Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr John Greenway,
Mr Tony Gregory, Mr Andrzej
Grzyb (alternate: Mr Tomasz Dudziński),
Mr Michael Hagberg, Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva,
Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Jürgen Herrmann, Mr Bernd Heynemann, Mr Jean
Huss, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Mustafa Jemiliev, Mr Tomáš Jirsa,
Mr Reijo Kallio, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Egidijus Klumbys, Mr Ruslan
Kondratov (alternate: Mr Ivan Savvidi),
Mr Dimitrij Kovačič, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr Geert Lambert, Mr Massimo
Livi Bacci, Mr Younal Loutfi (alternate: Mrs Aneliya Atanasova), Mr Andrija Mandić,
Mr Jean-Pierre Masseret, Mr Slavko Matić, Mr Giorgio Mele, Mrs Ana Catarina Mendonça, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Hryhoriy
Omelchenko, Mr Morten Østergaard,
Mr Alexey Ostrovsky, Mr Grigore Petrenco, Mr Cezar Florin Preda,
Mr Gabino Puche, Mr Milorad Pupovac,
Mrs Mailis Reps, Mrs Michaela
Sburny, Mr André Schneider,
Mr Samad Seyidov, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mrs Miet Smet (alternate:
Mr Daniel Ducarme), Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze,
Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mrs Rosario Velasco García,
Mr Michał Wojtczak, Mr Andrej
Zernovski, Mr Yury Zelenskiy, Mr Jiří Zlatuška.
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
The draft resolution and draft recommendation will be discussed
at a later sitting.