The Seimas Ombudsperson Erika Leonaitė, referring to the Torture Prevention Reports of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office regarding ensuring the human rights and freedoms of foreigners under the established circumstances, emphasized in her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights that the level and nature of the conditions of detention of foreigners housed without freedom of movement and the actual restrictions applied to them were equivalent to de facto detention. Moreover, for some time the conditions at the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Center amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment.
Leonaitė filed a third-party intervention in the case S.M.H. v. Lithuania, in which an Iraqi citizen who had the status of an asylum seeker at the time of the submission of the petition complains to the European Court of Human Rights about the restriction of freedom of movement after he was transferred to temporary accommodation places in Druskininkai, Rūdninkai and Kybartai, as well as about the conditions of detention there. According to the applicant, Lithuania violated his right to freedom and the right not to suffer inhumane treatment.
De facto detention in Lithuanian foreigners’ registration centers
In the intervention, the attention of the Strasbourg court is drawn to the fact that, according to the legal regulation in force at the time of the applicant’s temporary accommodation, all asylum seekers were accommodated in closed places of accommodation for foreigners, without giving them the right to move freely on the territory of Lithuania, without taking individual decisions that can be appealed to the court.
The Seimas Ombudsperson noted that extremely strict movement restrictions were applied to foreigners in the institution located in Kybartai: they were not allowed to leave not only the premises and territory of the center, but also to move freely between the floors of the center’s buildings. Foreigners were constantly observed by officers, the exits from the buildings were locked, and foreigners could leave the designated building only after receiving the permission of the officials, specifying the destination and with an escort.
In addition, foreigners transferred to the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Center had very limited opportunities to communicate with the outside world and were isolated – not all of them had phones or access to the Internet, as well as the ability to purchase mobile top-ups or SIM cards, phones of some foreigners were confiscated without explaining the reason for confiscation, they were not informed about the procedure for receiving and delivering mail or parcels (such a procedure was not established at the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Center at all).
In the presented position, it is noted that the foreigners accommodated in the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Center also complained about the lack of clarity and information about their legal status in Lithuania, stated that they did not receive any information about the ongoing migration procedures in relation to them, complained about the constant tension arising from the indefinite duration of detention and uncertainty about the future.
Access to real legal aid is not guaranteed
In her intervention, the Seimas Ombudsperson pointed out that the right of foreigners to receive state-guaranteed legal aid during the examination of an asylum application or in order to challenge the legality of deprivation of liberty was ensured only formally.
E. Leonaitė noted that in August 2021, when the representatives of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office visited 17 ad hoc camps where foreigners who illegally crossed the Lithuanian-Belarusian border were kept, it was found that the foreigners were not only not informed about the right to receive legal aid, but also about the procedure for using this right. And after inspections carried out in 2021 and 2022 at the Foreigners’ Registration Center in Kybartai, it was established that the right of foreigners to receive state-guaranteed assistance is not effectively ensured.
“Although the information provided to foreigners mentioned the right to receive state-guaranteed legal aid, it did not indicate or explain the procedure for using this right. Most of the interviewed foreigners said that the procedure of applying for legal aid was not clear to them, and when they applied to the Migration Department by e-mail, they did not receive any response”, states the Seimas Ombudsperson in the presented position.
In addition, the submitted intervention notes that from the last quarter of 2021 until the first half of 2022, the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office received dozens of inquiries from asylum seekers and other foreigners detained in various foreigners’ registration centers, in which foreigners asked for state-guaranteed assistance, and also complained that they never met with a lawyer appointed by the state, inquired about legal status, grounds for deprivation of liberty, the possible duration of the restriction of liberty and the procedures for challenging it.
Material conditions amounting to inhuman treatment
The Seimas Ombudsperson also noted that the situation at the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Center, including the material conditions, amounted to inhumane and humiliating behavior. At the time of the applicant’s de facto detention, foreigners had only about two square meters of private space in one of the center’s buildings. The center also lacked furniture and equipment, and the number of hygiene facilities was insufficient considering the number of foreigners detained.
“The common kitchens lacked equipment for cooking – stoves, as well as tools, but the store operating in the center was only allowed to enter once a week. Foreigners also could not get to a dentist in time, and there was no medical staff on duty on weekends. In addition, the shower areas were open – there were no curtains guaranteeing privacy, and only cold water was available, while foreigners could only take a shower with hot water once a week in a separate building,” the Seimas Ombudsperson states in her letter to the European Court of Human Rights.
Third-party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights, according to Article 36(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, is a procedural tool, the main purpose of which is to allow the ECtHR to familiarize itself with the views of states and other interested parties that are not parties to the case under consideration on the issues raised in that case and to obtain information or arguments that are broader or different from those presented by the parties.
Related news
