Conditions in detention facilities

Author

aditus Visit Website

Visit Website

There is a stark distinction between the legal framework governing conditions and treatment in detention centres and the reality of detention in all centres, as clearly noted by a string of ECtHR and national court judgements and CPT reports.

Legal framework

The policy document published at the end of 2015[1] following the transposition of the Reception Regulations commits to improve the quality of living conditions in the detention centres. The document foresees that detention facilities shall comprise of, or have access to, a clinic, medical isolation facilities, telephone facilities, an office for the delivery of information by the IPA, rooms for interviews with the IPA and NGOs, facilities for leisure, and the delivery of education programmes as well as a place of worship.

According to the Reception Regulations,[2] applicants for international protection shall be detained in specialised facilities and they shall be kept separate, insofar as possible, from third country nationals who are not asylum applicants. They shall also have access to open-air spaces. Separate accommodation for families shall be put in place in order to guarantee adequate privacy as well as separate accommodation for male and female applicants.

The detention centres are managed by the Detention Services Agency (DSA), a public Agency which falls under the Ministry for Home Affairs. The DSA was set up specifically ”to be responsible for the confinement of third country nationals who entered Malta irregularly or are irregularly present in Malta, and who have been issued with an order prescribing their detention.”[3] The DS is made up of personnel civilians specifically recruited for the purpose. DS staff receive some in-service training; however, people recruited for the post of DS officer are not required to have particular skills or competencies.

The Detention Services Regulations of 2016 provide the necessary framework for adequate reception conditions to persons detained under either the Reception or Returns Regulations. Part II of the Regulations provide for rules of conduct for Detention Services officers, Part III concerns the rights of detained persons, Part IV establishes rules on maintenance of security and safety and in particular rules concerning the confinement of a detained persons for safety reasons, medical reasons or due to a violent behaviour, Part V regulates access to the detention centres and Part VI the discharge of detainees.

According to the Regulations, the ”purpose of the detention centres shall be to provide for the secure but humane accommodation of detained persons in a regime allowing as much freedom as possible, consistent with maintaining a safe and secure environment.”[4] Accordingly, female detained persons shall be provided with sleeping accommodation separate from male detained persons.[5]

The Regulations provide that every detainee must be provided with a document (known as the “compact“) setting out certain rights to be enjoyed and responsibilities to be undertaken by detained persons during their stay at the detention centres in a language they understand, and a copy of the regulations must be made available to any detained person who requires it.[6]

The Regulations provide that a personal record for each detained person shall be prepared and maintained[7] and the Head Detention Services must provide a detained person enquiring on his case, with an update on the progress of any relevant matter relating to him as follows when this is made available, this includes asylum applications and applications made under the Immigration Act and any judicial proceedings pending before the Immigration Appeals Board or the Maltese Courts.[8]

Detained persons are entitled to retain all their personal property, other than cash, for their own use at the detention centre save where such retention is contrary to the interests of safety or security or is incompatible with the storage facilities provided at the centre.[9] Furthermore, detained persons may wear clothing of their own insofar as it is suitable and clean and are permitted to arrange for the supply of sufficient clean clothing to them from outside the detention centre. Where necessary, all detained persons shall be provided with clothing adequate for warmth and to ensure the detained persons’ health in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister. Non-governmental organisations shall be permitted to distribute clothing to all detained persons in accordance with arrangements approved by the Head Detention Services. Facilities for the washing and drying of items of clothing shall be provided.[10]

With respect to the food provided to detainees, the Regulations establish that the food must be “‘wholesome, nutritious, well prepared and served, reasonably varied, sufficient in quantity” and insofar as possible “meet all religious, dietary, cultural and medical needs”. The officer in charge of a centre must furthermore inspect the food at regular intervals and must report any deficiency or defect to the Head Detention Services.[11]

The Regulations provide that accommodation must have adequate lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings adequate for health. Every detained person shall have proper regard for personal hygiene, including toilet articles, separate facilities for females and males, access to facilities to shave and have their hair cut.[12]

All detained persons must be provided with recreational, educational, and physical activities and a library should be provided in every centre. Detainees must be allowed at least 1 hour in the open air every day. Moreover, the practice of religion in detention centres shall take account of the diverse cultural and religious background of detained persons.[13]

All detained persons shall have access to public telephones at the detention centres.[14]

Regarding healthcare, the Regulations provide that every detained person must be given a medical examination by the medical officer or another registered medical practitioner as soon as possible after his admission to the detention centre. Furthermore, the medical officer must report to the officer in charge on the case of any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or any conditions of detention, especially in case of suicidal thoughts. The medical officer shall pay special attention to any detained person whose mental condition appears to require it and make any special arrangements including counselling arrangements which appear necessary for his supervision or care. The Head Detention Services must render a monthly report to the Minister on any incidents arising.[15]

In practice, the situation in the detention centres is extremely far from that envisaged in the above-described Regulations.

Overall living conditions

Despite the commitments made in the 2015 Strategy Document and the Detention Regulations, the Maltese detention centres have for several years been reported to offer substandard living conditions likely to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The situation is particularly critical for vulnerable persons.

NGOs lost access to the living quarters in 2020 and are now only able to visit detainees in a boardroom on the margin of the Safi Detention Centre. They are therefore unable to provide accurate and detailed information regarding detention conditions other than that information relayed by their clients and by those monitoring bodies permitted access. The UNHCR also does not have access to the living quarters and is only authorised to speak to applicants from the moment they lodge their asylum applications.

Upon entering a detention centre, all applicants have their personal property confiscated by the PIO. This includes documentation, items of clothing, money, jewellery and mobile phones. A receipt is given, and the items may be retrieved when the applicant is eventually released. Despite the clear Regulation saying that detained persons may keep and use their own property, throughout their detention period, applicants are prohibited from using their personal items and are required to wear the clothing provided by the DS. All items are kept in the storeroom of the detention centre. The legal basis for this confiscation is unclear.

Mobile phones are confiscated on the pretext that the Immigration Police might need to conduct investigations into possible criminal activity. NGOs however report that, following some days or weeks from their confiscation, mobile phones are transferred from the Police to the Detention Services and stay there for the entire duration of the person’s detention, seemingly because they are no longer required for investigative purposes. Furthermore, this investigative purpose is not explained, orally or in writing, to the phones’ owners.

In 2021, the Migrant Health Service within the Detention Service was launched, as well as the Close Monitoring Unit (CMU) to provide separate accommodation for high-risk persons, for persons with specific medical conditions or for persons who require separate accommodation for their mental wellbeing.

Furthermore, the Government also reports carrying out refurbishment works in various parts of the detention centres yet, due to lack of access to these parts of the centres, these statements are impossible to verify. New meeting facilities were built. These have been equipped with an open phone line system for lawyers, NGO representatives, interpreters, family members and other visitors.[16] The Ministry also noted that all visits were being recorded and purposeful meaningful activities had been introduced, such as television sets with access to educational and sports channels, board games, books and crickets sets.

The Government reported the introduction of a Welfare Officer in 2020 to maintain contact with persons held in detention centres, deal with any complaints or issues they may have, and focusing on providing support and assistance to detainees, objectives that have been met according to the Government.[17]

However, in relation to 2023, NGOs visiting detention received several reports from applicants regarding the conduct of the Welfare Officer. According to the reports, the Officer was involved in incidents of harassment and threats in particular against applicants appealing negative age assessment decisions or challenging their detention orders. He was also mentioned in relation to applying undue pressure on applicants to apply for voluntary return procedures, in a context where detained applicants were having extremely limited access to UNHCR and NGOs and therefore receiving limited independent information and advice regarding their cases.

Following release from detention, applicants often face difficulties in retrieving their possessions that had been confiscated by the Immigration Police following their arrival. These possessions may include money, jewellery, and mobile phones. Applicants are often required to rely on the intervention of NGOs to reclaim their possessions, at time months after their release from detention. The Police will inform that an investigation is conducted following every boat arrival, and that possessions can only be retrieved at the end of the said investigation, which can take more than a year.

On 2 September 2020, a dramatic incident happened at Lyster Detention Centre where an asylum -seeker died after he fell while trying to escape. The individual fell at 5am and received assistance by nurses on site but was only transferred to hospital hours later where he was certified dead at 11am. An inquiry is, as far as known, still ongoing.[18] The CPT investigated said incident and ‘cannot reassure itself that staff, including health-care staff, had reacted sufficiently promptly when crucial help was needed to attempt to save this young man’s life from the effects of suspected internal bleeding over a period of at least three hours’.[19] No charges have been brought in relation to this incident yet, and it is not known whether the Magisterial inquiries remains ongoing.

The Monitoring Board for Detained Persons

The Monitoring Board for Detained Persons is currently the only entity monitoring detention conditions, established as Malta’s National Preventive Mechanism under OPCAT. It is established by the Monitoring Board for Detained Persons Regulations[20] and falls under the Ministry for Home Affairs. The Board is composed of a Chairperson, a minimum of two and a maximum of four members, including the secretary appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs. According to the Regulations, the Board reports and monitors on conditions of detention. It is also empowered to investigate complaints from detainees and decide on such complaint. Its opinions are not binding to the Head of the Detention Services.

According to conversations with the Home Affairs Ministry, it is highly likely that the Board will assume the role of Independent Monitoring under the Screening Regulation.

The Monitoring Board’s 2024 Annual Reports, only published following a Parliamentary Question, concluded with a series of recommendations to the Home Affairs Ministry:

• Provide leisure activities for persons detained in the close monitoring unit;
• Ensure that all persons claiming to be minors are detained in areas away from adults;
• Provide training to all personnel working in detention centres on interpersonal skills and cultural awareness;
• Employ more professional staff for service-provision;
• Upgrade the monthly limit granted on phone cards provided to detainees;
• Improve contact with the outside world, including through setting up a computer room and educational activities;
• Provide facilities for sports and training;
• Provide reading and educational facilities for detainees, including electronically;
• Ensure that returns are implemented in a more humane manner;
• Provide warm cloths and bedding for the winter months;
• Ensure sufficient personnel to manage the centre and meet the needs of detained persons.

According to the Board’s 2024 Annual Report,[21] throughout 2025, a total of 1,624 persons spent time in a detention centre of which 1,518 males and 106 females. The Board also laments that “(O)ur Annual Reports have all been far too similar. Recommendations are repeated. And, regrettably, the hopes that our 16th report would be a marked change in this regard have not come to fruition.”

NGOs active in detention centres reported that dialogue with the Board was ongoing, including through meetings and referral of complaints by detained persons.

The CoE CPT and the UN Human Rights Committee

In July 2025, the CPT published the report of its visit to Malta in 2023.[22] The CPT found that while overall conditions have improved since the 2020 visit – primarily due to a reduction in the number of detainees – significant human rights concerns remain in Malta’s immigration detention facilities. The delegation received several allegations of physical and verbal abuse, particularly during an escape incident at Hal Far Initial Reception Centre in May 2023. Detainees reported being punched and kicked while restrained, subjected to tight handcuffing, and verbally abused with racist language. “A few of the allegations were also consistent with the injuries documented in the medical records.” The CPT urged Maltese authorities to reinforce a zero-tolerance approach to ill-treatment and racism.

The CPT further noted that, although occupancy had dropped, conditions in Safi and Hal Far remained carceral, with poor regimes and overcrowded dormitories: Safi’s non-operational warehouses could house up to 300 persons and lacked adequate facilities. The CPT found dirty mattresses, unsanitary toilets, non-functional showers, and limited outdoor access – especially in Safi, where males often did not receive the stipulated three hours of yard time.

The CPT reiterated that Safi is unsuitable for juveniles, especially unaccompanied minors or those undergoing age assessment. These individuals had no activities, spent 23 hours a day confined, and lacked psycho-social support. The CPT insisted they be transferred to semi-open, juvenile-appropriate facilities.

In the report, the CPT also flagged how Safi detainees had their phones confiscated, with insufficient access to fixed-line phones, making it hard to contact legal representation or family. The CPT recommended that detainees be allowed to retain their mobile phones or have access to VOIP and Wi-Fi, as implemented at Marsa. The continued lack of translated information about legal rights and detention procedures was underlined, and the CPT urging Malta to ensure qualified interpretation services and individual legal updates are available in all facilities.

Staff in some facilities were described as “distant” and often referred to detainees by numbers instead of names.

In relation to access to health services, the CPT acknowledged improvements in the medical infrastructure at Safi and Ħal Far, including better-equipped clinics and more medical staff. However, some gaps remained, especially in mental health support and continuity of care.

By way of key recommendations, the CPT urged the following:

• End detention of minors in carceral settings;
• Guarantee daily outdoor access and meaningful activities;
• Allow communication via mobile or internet-based tools;
• Ensure safeguards against ill-treatment and provide effective complaint mechanisms;
• Improve translation, legal aid access, and healthcare continuity.

Despite welcoming the improvement in detention centres in particular relating to the work of the Migrant Health Service, in 2024 the UN HRC expressed concern in relation to:

• Lack of data on the use of detention and alternatives to detention;
• Living conditions;
• Excessive use of force within the centres;
• Reliance on health-based detention, in particular the absence of remedies against this form of deprivation of liberty.[23]

The HRC made a series of recommendations, including:

• Adequate collation and publication of detention-related data;
• Increased use of alternatives to detention with a matching reliance on detention only as a measure of last resort for the shortest time possible;
• Strengthening of the principles of necessity and proportionality in relation to sue of force, with reference to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Forearms by Law enforcement Officials;
• Sustainable improvement in living conditions.

Court pronouncements

Malta’s human rights Court, the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction), delivered judgement on 13 January 2026 in the case of Ayoubah Fona, who was merely 15 years old at the time of his arrival in Malta.[24] Traumatised and unwell from a harrowing journey during which several people had died, Fona was immediately detained at China House and Safi Barracks as soon as he was discharged from hospital. In its judgement, the Court underlined the detention regime’s disorganisation and lack of sensitivity towards vulnerable persons also noting a disregard for national laws and procedures on the protection of minors. It found violations of ECHR Articles 3 and 5, Articles 34 (protection from arbitrary arrest or detention) and 36 (protection from inhuman treatment) of Malta’s Constitution and, for the first time in Malta, of Charter Articles 1 (human dignity), 4 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment), 6 (right to liberty and security) and 24 (rights of the child).

In A.D. v. Malta, delivered in October 2023, the ECtHR examined the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention, including overcrowding, lack of privacy, inadequate sanitation, and limited access to outdoor exercise. It found that the cumulative effect of these conditions, particularly over an extended period, could lead to feelings of isolation, distress, and anxiety. The applicant was detained for over a year without a clear prospect of release or deportation. The Court emphasised that prolonged detention without foreseeable removal can exacerbate the negative effects of poor detention conditions, potentially reaching the threshold of inhuman treatment. Furthermore, the Court considered reports indicating the applicant’s deteriorating mental health during detention. It noted that the authorities failed to adequately address his psychological needs, which contributed to his suffering. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the detention conditions, its duration, and the applicant’s mental health deterioration, the Court concluded that the treatment he received amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court further underlined that Malta’s health-based detention fell short of the requirements of Article 5, and adopted measures requiring Malta to bring to an end this form of illegal detention.

Similar conclusions were reached in J.B. and Others v. Malta[25] where the Court found that, in detaining the applicant children in awful living conditions that ignored their age and vulnerability, Malta had violated their rights under Articles 3 and 5. Additionally, the Court also noted that the Immigration Appeals Board does not fulfil the Convention’s requirements of an independent and impartial body for the purpose of an effective remedy against illegal detention, requiring Malta to introduce legislation amending the IAB’s structure.

In Feilazoo v. Malta, decided in March 2021,[26] the ECtHR found violations of articles 3, 5(1), and 34 ECHR in the case of a Nigerian national placed in immigration detention pending deportation for fourteen months. The applicant’s complaints concerned the conditions of his detention; not being given the opportunity to correspond with the Court without interference by the prison authorities; and being denied access to materials intended to substantiate his application. Regarding article 3, the Court considered several aspects of his detention and concluded, overall, that conditions were inadequate in particular because of the time spent in isolation without exercise (he was kept in a container seventy-five days without access to natural light or air). The Court also noted that he was later unnecessarily detained with individuals under COVID-19 quarantine, a measure that did not comply with basic sanitary requirements. The Court concluded unanimously that the conditions of his detention were a violation of the applicant’s article 3 rights. The findings in this case were also referred to in the more recent case AD v. Malta, summarised above.[27]

In May 2022, Politico published a series of pictures and testimonies of former detainees who had been held in the Maltese detention centres in 2020. The pictures and testimonies confirm the conclusions of the CPT with specific references to some of its observations.[28]

In July 2022, aditus foundation released a series of testimonies from detainees who had been held for 18 to 25 months in both China House and Safi between December 2019 and April 2022. The testimonies confirmed the living conditions had not improved sufficiently since the CPT’s visit.[29]

aditus foundation and JRS gathered further testimonies of minor applicants who were detained between November 2021 and June 2022 within the context of proceedings before the ECtHR[30] and the Civil Court of Malta (First Hall),[31] all confirming that the situation has not improved sufficiently. One of the applicants claims he was detained in complete isolation for 147 days in a container in the so-called CMU unit due to being diagnosed with tuberculosis.

NGOs noted recent positive improvements in some blocks of Safi which appear to have been refurbished but are unable to comment on the quality of the improvement since they have no access to the areas and the government has so far refused to provide any information which would indicate that the living conditions have significantly improved since Feilazoo v. Malta. NGOs therefore consider that the conditions of detention as reported by CPT are still relevant for the most part.

Additionally, NGOs reported that there is no dedicated space for minors in China House, one zone being dedicated to them in the Safi Detention Centre, offering the same living conditions as the other blocks.

In May 2023 the Public Interest Litigation Network, representing a child, filed a case against the authorities alleging a violation of the right to life when the child’s father died in detention in 2012. Mamadou Kamara died in 2021 whilst in DS and AFM custody, whilst in the back of a DS van ‘after being repeatedly kicked in the groin.’ Following the incident, an independent inquiry established that the AFM had used excessive force.[32]

Health care in detention

The creation of the Primary Health Care Migrant Health Service in 2021 and a new clinic, operating in Safi Detention Centre, saw some positive improvements in the provision of health care to detained persons. This also includes a more organised approach to medical files, documentation and medical handover following release.

In its communication to the Council of Europe in relation to the execution of Feilazoo v. Malta, the Government reported the creation of the Migrant Health Service resulted in a drastic improvement in the healthcare that was being provided to all persons residing in Detention Centres. According to the Government, the launch of such service had resulted in a reduction of around 80% of referrals to local health centres and of around 85% to the Accident and Emergency Department at the national hospital.

According to the Government, specialist clinics are also being held in the main clinic. Ophthalmic, Infectious Disease, Dermatology and Sexual Health Specialists are doing in-house clinics, which has resulted in enhanced screening and treatment of the persons residing in Detention Centres.

NGOs reported that since 2023, applicants appeared to be systematically screened upon arrival and referred to the appropriate services as part of a generic triage conducted upon disembarkation.

Third parties, including NGOs, can refer cases to the Migrant Health Service by email and feedback is usually provided when requested. Access to medical files is subject to the approval of the Head of DS and NGOs reported that their requests are generally ignored or only acceded granted several months after.

According to Government figures, in 2023 five persons were referred from detention to mental health institutions.[33] Whereas this figure, lower than the 93 referrals in 2020, may be interpreted as a positive sign reflecting improvements in the detention centres, it is also reflective of the overall lower number of persons reaching Malta and the new approach towards attempting to provide specialised health services within the detention centres themselves.

Overall, NGOs visiting detained applicants confirm the improvement in provision of health services. The main concerns relate to the fact that the improved health services within the centres further isolates applicants by permitting the authorities to argue that, since support services – including for vulnerable persons – are adequately provided in the centres, release into open reception centres is not warranted and that support services provided by NGOs or other entities are not required. NGOs commented that this is problematic on two levels.

Firstly, AWAS’ remit to assess vulnerability and recommend release from detention seems to be gradually weakening with an approach increasingly relying on reports from the services provided in detention. NGOs noted that AWASs expertise in assessing vulnerability is based on decades of experience in the sector and its institutional detachment from the DS, albeit limited in nature due to it falling within the same Ministry, provides a minimum level of independence. Secondly, NGOs note that, in a context where determination of vulnerability is closely linked to the possibility of release from detention, the impossibility of challenging a DS vulnerability determination through external and/or independent experts further limits a person’s possibility from enjoying their right to freedom.

[1] Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security, Strategy for the Reception of Asylum-seekers and Irregular Immigrants, 2015, available at https://goo.gl/FFz7qJ

[2] Regulation 6A, Reception Regulations.

[3] Detention Services Agency (Establishment) Order.

[4] Regulation 10.

[5] Regulation 17.

[6] Regulation 11.

[7] Regulation 12.

[8] Regulation 16.

[9] Regulation 13.

[10] Regulation 19.

[11] Regulation 20.

[12] Regulations 22 and 23.

[13] Regulations 24, 25 and 27.

[14] Regulation 34.

[15] Regulations 38 and 39.

[16] Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality, Feedback on the 2022 AIDA Country Report on Malta, shared with ECRE in January 2024.

[17] Information provided by Home Affairs Ministry in January 2024.

[18] Times of Malta, ‘Man dies after trying to escape migrant detention centre’, 2 September 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/31av9a5.

[19] CPT, Report to the Maltese Government on the visit to Malta carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 17 to 22 September 2020, March 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3mPtelf.

[20] Monitoring Board for Detained Persons Regulations, S.L. 217.08.

[21] The Monitoring Board for Detained Persons, Annual Report 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/46au6sv6.

[22] CoE CPT, Report to the Maltese Government on the visit to Malta carried out by the CPT from 26 September to 5 October 2023, 10 July 2025, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4jj66kvy.

[23] United Nations Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the third periodic report of Malta, 26 August 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3pp4ea4s. 

[24] Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Ayoubah Fona vs. The Minister for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et, No. 75/2022, 13 January 2026, at https://tinyurl.com/33yp3ayk.

[25] Additional details on the judgements are provided above in the section on the detention of vulnerable applicants.

[26] ECtHR, Feilazoo v. Malta, Application No. 6865/19, Judgment 11 March 2021.

[27] ECtHR, A.D. v. Malta, no 12427/22, 17 January 2024, available here.

[28] Politico, ‘In pictures: Inside Malta’s crowded migrant detention centres’, 18 May 2022, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4ya85r9j.

[29] aditus foundation, Detained Narratives, July 2022, available at https://bit.ly/3ygs3BK

[30] ECtHR, A.D. v. Malta, no 12427/22 (Communicated Case), 24 May 2022, available at https://bit.ly/3yfqjc6.

[31] Civil Court (First Hall), Ayoubah Fona vs. L-Avukat tal-Istat, 375/2022.

[32] The Shift, ‘Claim filed against the Maltese State over detained migrant’s brutal death’, 22 May 2023, at: https://bit.ly/3wH3Lnz.

[33] Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality, Feedback on the 2022 AIDA Country Report on Malta, shared with ECRE in January 2024.