Author
Overall conditions
The detention centres for third-country nationals in Slovakia are managed by the Police Force of the Slovak Republic, specifically the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police of the Presidium of the Police Force.
Since 1 May 2023, the Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsperson) performs the functions of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) in Slovakia pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT). In this capacity, the Ombudsperson is mandated to carry out regular and ad hoc visits to places where persons are deprived of their liberty, including immigration detention facilities, with the aim of preventing torture and ill-treatment and improving detention conditions. The monitoring has a preventive character and is typically conducted without prior notice. The Ombudsperson is entitled to access premises, documentation (including medical records), and to interview detained persons and staff. Following visits, the Ombudsperson issues findings and recommendations addressed to the competent authorities.
The Office of the Ombudsperson carried out an unannounced monitoring visit to the Police Detention Facility for Foreigners in Sečovce (ÚPZC Sečovce) between 5 and 7 June 2023.[1] At the time of the visit, 65 persons were detained, including women and seven children, out of a total capacity of 176 places.
The Ombudsperson concluded that the situation in the facility required significant reform. Multiple shortcomings were identified across different areas which, when considered cumulatively, were considered capable of amounting to disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of detained persons. The report emphasised that restrictions on rights must always be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate, conditions which were not consistently met in practice.
In the final assessment, the Ombudsperson warned that the combination of deficiencies – including lack of activities, restrictions on external contact, insufficient information on legal rights, inadequate healthcare, material conditions and the circumstances surrounding a police intervention – could cumulatively amount to a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Many of the problems were considered systemic in nature, partly linked to insufficient staffing and financial resources but also to entrenched institutional practices.
A particularly significant finding concerned the overall detention regime. Although immigration detention is administrative in nature and should not have a punitive character, the regime applied in the facility was described as restrictive and lacking meaningful activities. Outdoor access, which under national legislation should amount to at least two daily periods of one hour (and three for minors), was reportedly limited in practice to between 5 and 25 minutes depending on staff availability. Children were not allowed to use available playground facilities. The Ombudsperson concluded that this practice constituted a violation of domestic law and reflected systemic organisational deficiencies, including staff shortages.
The absence of meaningful activities represented another major concern. Detained persons reportedly spent most of their time watching television or sleeping, with very limited access to recreational or educational opportunities. The Ombudsperson noted that similar deficiencies had already been identified by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) during its visit in 2009[2] and that the situation had not improved since. Staffing limitations, including the presence of only one social worker for the entire facility, were identified as a contributing factor.
The presence of children in detention was also criticised. Facilities were not adequately adapted to children’s needs and the Ombudsperson reiterated international recommendations calling on Slovakia to cease the detention of children based on migration status and to develop effective alternatives.
Significant obstacles to maintaining contact with the outside world were identified. Mobile phones were systematically confiscated upon arrival, which the Ombudsperson considered legally questionable and disproportionate, particularly in the absence of individualised risk assessment. Communication with family members depended largely on the availability of the social worker and was inconsistent in practice. Telephone facilities allowed only incoming calls, which created financial barriers for families abroad. Restrictions on access to writing materials further limited communication opportunities.
The report also examined allegations concerning a police intervention following an escape incident in the facility. Several detainees described the use of force by masked officers, including physical violence. However, the authorities failed to provide sufficient cooperation or evidence, including the absence of video recordings of the intervention. The Ombudsperson stressed that where persons are under state control, the burden lies with the state to provide credible explanations regarding allegations of ill-treatment.
Serious concerns were raised regarding the use of isolation (separated detention regime). Decisions placing detainees in isolation were described as formalistic and insufficiently reasoned, with limited procedural safeguards and lack of information on available remedies. In some cases, placement lasted several weeks. The Ombudsperson emphasised that isolation is a highly intrusive measure capable of adversely affecting both physical and mental health and therefore requires strict safeguards, including time limits and individualised justification. The report also highlighted deficiencies in the legislative framework governing isolation in immigration detention, including vague legal provisions and absence of effective remedies.
Shortcomings were also identified in procedural safeguards more broadly, including insufficient access to legal information and legal assistance, limited awareness among detainees of their rights and obligations, and barriers to submitting complaints or requests. Healthcare provision, including access to medical services and psychological support, was considered problematic and formed part of the cumulative risks identified in the report. Material and hygienic conditions were also criticised, although some ongoing renovation efforts were acknowledged.
In its overall assessment, the Ombudsperson concluded that the combination of restrictive conditions, insufficient safeguards, limited access to healthcare, and the circumstances surrounding the police intervention could cumulatively amount to ill-treatment. Many deficiencies were considered systemic in nature, linked to insufficient staffing and financial resources but also to entrenched institutional practices and resistance to change.
A monitoring visit to the Police Detention Facility for Foreigners in Medveďov (ÚPZC Medveďov) took place on 25–26 January 2024.[3] At the time of the visit, 32 persons were detained, including one minor, out of a total capacity of 200 places.
The Ombudsperson identified a number of serious shortcomings affecting detention conditions, safeguards and access to rights. The deficiencies were considered significant in nature and partly systemic, particularly in light of similar findings previously identified in the Sečovce facility.
A central finding concerned the overall detention regime. The regime in Medveďov was described as very restrictive and lacking meaningful activities, with conditions in several respects appearing stricter than those applicable in prison detention. The absence of constructive activities, combined with a strict daily routine, contributed to a passive environment for detainees and raised concerns regarding the non-punitive nature of immigration detention. The report also indicated that certain practices were inconsistent with the legal framework governing detention under the Act on Residence of Foreigners.
Communication with the outside world was identified as problematic. The system of telephone access was described as unclear and insufficient, limiting detainees’ ability to maintain contact with family members or external actors. Restrictions on communication were further compounded by the lack of accessible information regarding detention procedures and rights. In particular, detainees often lacked information about the possible duration of detention and about how and where to request legal assistance.
Material conditions were also criticised. Accommodation facilities were described as worn and inadequately equipped, with damaged mattresses and insufficient hygiene standards posing potential health risks. The absence of freely available locks for personal storage also raised concerns regarding privacy and security of personal belongings.
The report further identified problematic practices affecting personal autonomy and dignity, including a general prohibition on wearing personal clothing. Such blanket restrictions were considered disproportionate in the context of administrative detention.
Healthcare provision represented another area of concern. The Ombudsperson highlighted insufficient access to healthcare services, including for persons with disabilities or specific health needs. The report emphasised that detained persons are fully dependent on the authorities for access to medical care and that deficiencies in healthcare provision may significantly increase the risk of ill-treatment.
Particular attention was devoted to the situation of an UAM detained in the facility. The Ombudsperson concluded that serious violations of the child’s rights had occurred, including delays in placement into an appropriate child protection facility despite medical evidence indicating minority. The monitoring team intervened directly with several authorities, including labour offices and prosecution authorities, requesting urgent action.
In its overall assessment, the Ombudsperson concluded that the cumulative effect of restrictive conditions, lack of meaningful activities, limited access to communication, insufficient healthcare, inadequate information on legal status and rights, and certain restrictive institutional practices created a situation that could raise concerns under the prohibition of ill-treatment. Many of the identified deficiencies appeared to be systemic in nature, linked to insufficient staffing and structural shortcomings in the functioning of immigration detention facilities in Slovakia.
In both monitoring reports (Sečovce and Medveďov), the Ombudsperson issued a number of recommendations addressed primarily to the management of the detention facilities, the Police Force and, in some cases, other authorities (such as the Centre for Legal Aid). Overall, the recommendations aimed at improving detention conditions, strengthening procedural safeguards and ensuring compliance with domestic law and international standards.
Across both facilities, the Ombudsperson recommended in particular improving detainees’ access to information about their rights, detention procedures and available legal assistance, including by providing written information and forms in languages commonly understood by detained persons and ensuring that such information is provided immediately upon admission. Measures were also recommended to strengthen complaint mechanisms, including the establishment of anonymous complaint boxes and the possibility to submit complaints through third parties. In the area of legal assistance, the Ombudsperson called for more regular visits by legal aid providers and improved cooperation between institutions.
Regarding living conditions and the detention regime, the Ombudsperson recommended increasing access to meaningful activities, improving outdoor exercise opportunities, and ensuring that detention conditions reflect the administrative – rather than punitive – nature of immigration detention. Recommendations also concerned material conditions, including replacement of worn mattresses, provision of adequate hygiene items, access to personal storage with locks, and improvements in accommodation standards.
In both facilities, the Ombudsperson also addressed restrictions affecting personal autonomy and dignity, recommending that blanket measures – such as limitations on clothing or other routine restrictions – be avoided unless justified by individualised risk assessment. In the context of separated regimes (isolation), recommendations focused on improving material conditions, safeguards, reasoning of decisions and oversight mechanisms.
Follow-up monitoring visits to the Police Detention Facilities for Foreigners in Sečovce (July 2024)[4] and Medveďov (13 December 2024)[5] were carried out with the primary aim of assessing the implementation of recommendations issued after the previous monitoring visits conducted in 2023 (Sečovce)[6] and January 2024 (Medveďov).[7]
In Sečovce, the Ombudsperson concluded that the overall situation had significantly improved compared to the previous monitoring cycle. The atmosphere in the facility was described as less restrictive and less prison-like, with a more sensitive approach towards families and children. Several key recommendations had been implemented, particularly in the areas of access to information, complaint mechanisms, legal assistance and contact with the outside world. Detainees were provided with written information in languages they understood, anonymous complaint boxes were introduced, and access to legal aid had improved through regular visits of the Centre for Legal Aid. The use of mobile phones had been partially liberalised, contributing positively to detainees’ psychological well-being.
Nevertheless, certain structural concerns persisted. The reasoning of detention decisions concerning minors remained insufficiently individualised, and documentation did not always convincingly demonstrate that alternatives to detention had been duly assessed. Systemic issues relating to healthcare administration and institutional coordination also remained only partially addressed.
In Medveďov, the follow-up monitoring revealed a mixed picture. A considerable number of recommendations had been formally accepted and at least partially implemented. Improvements were observed in detainees’ access to mobile phones (three times per week with Wi-Fi access), the introduction of anonymous complaint mechanisms, better written information upon admission, regular visits by legal aid providers and improved documentation of placement into separated detention regimes (isolation).
Material conditions showed signs of gradual improvement, including the planned renovation of accommodation areas, replacement of mattresses and lockers, and investments foreseen under the AMIF-funded DETENT programme (2024–2027). However, structural administrative barriers persisted, particularly regarding the procurement of hygiene items and delays in healthcare-related administrative procedures.
Certain recommendations remained only partially implemented. In particular, while outdoor access formally complied with legal requirements, in practice detainees frequently declined outdoor time, partly due to insufficient winter clothing and footwear. Meaningful activities remained limited, with leisure time still largely consisting of television watching and card games. Although minor work activities were introduced, broader social and educational programming continued to be underdeveloped.
The use of separated detention regimes (isolation) showed procedural improvements, including better documentation and the introduction of a 14-day statutory maximum period, with notification to the prosecutor required for extensions. However, legislative amendments to internal police regulations concerning procedural safeguards in isolation had not yet been fully implemented, limiting detainees’ access to clear information on remedies.
Two recommendations were explicitly not accepted in Medveďov: the general permission to wear personal clothing and the discontinuation of routine police presence during medical examinations. These issues remain areas of concern in terms of proportionality and respect for dignity.
In both facilities, the Ombudsperson acknowledged tangible progress compared to the previous monitoring cycle, particularly regarding access to information, complaint mechanisms, legal assistance and contact with the outside world. At the same time, the follow-up monitoring confirmed the persistence of structural challenges, including staffing constraints, limited availability of meaningful activities, incomplete implementation of safeguards in isolation regimes and administrative barriers affecting healthcare provision.
The Police Force provided a written response to the recommendations issued by the Ombudsperson following the monitoring of the detention facilities in Sečovce and Medveďov. The response indicates a mixed level of acceptance and implementation of the proposed measures. Several recommendations were accepted and are being implemented either immediately or within specified timeframes, while others were rejected or considered already fulfilled by the authorities.
The authorities agreed, for example, to amend internal regulations concerning placement in separated detention regimes (isolation), including the introduction of an obligation to inform detainees about available procedural safeguards in a language they understand. However, the implementation timeline was extended due to the duration of the legislative process. Recommendations aimed at improving access to communication with family members for persons placed in isolation were also accepted, including cooperation with social workers to facilitate telephone contact.
At the same time, several recommendations were explicitly rejected. In particular, the Police Force refused to change the policy of systematic confiscation of mobile phones upon admission, arguing that mobile phones may be used to organise escape attempts or otherwise undermine the purpose of detention. The authorities maintained that communication with relatives is sufficiently ensured through facility-provided telephones and tablets. Similarly, the recommendation to discontinue the routine presence of police officers during medical examinations was rejected on security grounds, with the authorities emphasising the potential risk to medical staff in the absence of police supervision.
Some recommendations were considered by the authorities to have already been implemented in practice. These included measures related to individualised security risk assessment and the role of social workers, where the Police Force maintained that police officers intervene only when necessary for security reasons and do not otherwise interfere with social work activities. Recommendations concerning information provision about available services and activities were also accepted, including plans to improve notice boards and communication with detainees.
The response further indicated partial or ongoing implementation of recommendations related to material conditions, clothing provision, healthcare arrangements and access to goods and services within the facilities. For example, clothing and footwear distribution was described as improved through cooperation with external partners, while measures concerning continuous medical presence were considered only partially feasible due to staffing constraints. Several recommendations concerning internal procedures – including documentation, training of staff, vulnerability identification tools and access to activities – were accepted with extended implementation deadlines or linked to ongoing cooperation with non-governmental partners.
Prosecutorial supervision over immigration detention is regulated both by the Act on Prosecution and by an internal instruction issued by the Prosecutor General. Pursuant to Section 18(1) of the Act on Prosecution, prosecutors supervise places where third-country nationals are detained on the basis of detention decisions in order to ensure that persons are held only on the basis of a lawful decision of a competent state authority and that applicable laws and generally binding legal regulations are respected within such facilities.
The Prosecutor General issued a specific instruction regulating the procedure of prosecutors when supervising the lawfulness of detention of third-country nationals placed in detention facilities. The instruction, adopted in May 2023 and effective from 1 June 2023, replaced the previous regulation from 2016 and applies to all detention facilities for third-country nationals in Slovakia.
Under the instruction, prosecutors are required to verify whether detention has been carried out in accordance with applicable legislation and whether the legal grounds for continued detention persist. Particular attention must be paid to the protection of the rights of detained persons, including vulnerable persons, as well as to the fulfilment of obligations by police authorities and facility management. The supervision also covers compliance with procedural requirements, including the timely execution of measures leading to the release of detained persons where detention is no longer justified, the legality of placement in separated detention regimes, and the proper handling of complaints submitted by detainees.
Competence for supervision lies primarily with the regional prosecutor in whose territorial jurisdiction the detention facility is located, although the task may be delegated to a district prosecutor. Prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office may also exercise supervisory powers where appropriate. Regular inspections must be conducted at least once every six months, while extraordinary inspections may be carried out where necessary, including on the basis of complaints, information from the media or other findings.
During inspections, prosecutors review the legal basis for detention, compliance with statutory time limits, respect for detainees’ rights – particularly those of minors and vulnerable persons – compliance with administrative expulsion procedures where applicable, and the legality of facility practices, including placement in isolation regimes. Following inspections, prosecutors are required to prepare a written report describing findings, legal assessments and any measures taken.
Where violations of the law are identified, prosecutors must adopt measures to remedy the situation without delay, including issuing instructions, initiating proceedings or filing prosecutorial protests against unlawful decisions. If indications of criminal conduct arise, prosecutors must inform the competent authority responsible for criminal proceedings. The instruction also explicitly provides for the possibility that findings may lead to prosecutorial intervention before administrative courts in detention matters.
The instruction further establishes obligations to report and notify so-called extraordinary events occurring in detention facilities, including deaths, serious injuries, suicide attempts, escapes, riots, allegations of ill-treatment, or placement in separated detention regimes. Prosecutors must be informed promptly and may take further supervisory action where necessary.
According to information provided by the General Prosecutor’s Office in February 2026 in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the HRL, prosecutorial supervision over detention facilities and asylum reception facilities is carried out on a regular basis, typically twice per year in each facility. In the Police Detention Facility for Foreigners in Medveďov, two regular inspections were conducted annually between 2023 and 2025, with additional extraordinary inspections carried out in 2023 and 2024. In the Sečovce facility, one regular and two extraordinary inspections were carried out in 2023, followed by two regular inspections annually in 2024 and 2025.
Health care and special needs in detention
Persons detained in immigration detention facilities are covered by public health insurance and are therefore entitled to healthcare under the general rules applicable to insured persons. In practice, detention facilities have access to healthcare services, including an on-site nurse. A physician is not present on a daily basis but visits the facility regularly. Where specialised medical examinations or treatment are required, detainees are transferred to external healthcare providers under police escort.
Despite the formal availability of healthcare, practical obstacles have been reported. Interpretation during medical consultations is generally not available, creating significant communication barriers between detainees and healthcare providers. Based on interviews conducted by HRL with some detainees, concerns have also been raised regarding lengthy waiting times for medical appointments and the perceived minimisation of health complaints by medical staff.
Psychological counselling is provided in detention facilities by the SHC as part of its support activities. However, no information is available regarding the effectiveness, frequency or overall impact of these services on the mental health of detainees. Access to specialised psychiatric or psychological treatment depends on referrals to external healthcare providers.
No specific mechanism for the systematic identification of vulnerable persons or persons with special reception needs in detention has been identified. HRL is not aware of any standardised vulnerability screening procedure applied either upon admission to detention or during the detention period.
In practice, vulnerable persons may nevertheless be detained. In 2025, HRL monitored the case of a torture survivor who was placed in immigration detention and whose detention was subsequently prolonged despite his vulnerability. The individual was eventually released following a court decision. This case indicates that the identification of vulnerability does not automatically prevent detention or guarantee release from detention.
Similarly, no specific information is available on dedicated support measures or special treatment systematically provided to vulnerable detainees. While healthcare and psychological support services are formally available, there is no evidence of a comprehensive framework ensuring tailored assistance for persons with special needs, survivors of torture, victims of trafficking, persons with severe illnesses or other particularly vulnerable groups while in detention.
[1] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Sečovce – Správa z monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 7 December 2023, available (in Slovak) here.
[2] CPT, Council of Europe anti-torture Committee publishes report on the Slovak Republic, 2010, available here.
[3] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Medveďov – Správa z monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 26 June 2024, available (in Slovak) here.
[4] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Sečovce – Správa z následného monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 12 March 2025, available (in Slovak) here.
[5] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Medveďov – Správa z následného monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 13 March 2025, available (in Slovak) here.
[6] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Sečovce – Správa z monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 7 December 2023, available (in Slovak) here.
[7] Public Defender of Rights, Útvar policajného zaistenia pre cudzincov Medveďov – Správa z monitoringu národného preventívneho mechanizmu, 26 June 2024, available (in Slovak) here.