In 2021, a total of 24 visits to places of deprivation of liberty were carried out, visiting places of detention of foreigners, a psychiatric hospital and the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau. These visits identified fundamental violations of human rights and freedoms and other systemic problems, which all responsible institutions and bodies were urged to address in order to ensure that Lithuania’s international obligations in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms are not violated, and that violations of the protection of human rights and freedoms do not recur at the places of detention visited and at other similar detention facilities.
In order to raise the level of competence of employees of detention facilities in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms and the national prevention of torture, three information and consultation seminars were held remotely for employees of social care institutions and correctional facilities. Meetings were also held with representatives of the European Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), and the international humanitarian organisation “Doctors without Borders”, discussing relevant issues relating to the protection of human rights and freedoms and the prevention of torture in places of deprivation of liberty.
MAIN COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES ACHIEVED
Inspections of places of detention of foreigners
Clause 1 of Resolution No. 517 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 2 July 2021 “On Declaring State-level Emergency and Appointing a Head of State-level Emergency Operations” declared a state-level emergency situation throughout the country due to a massive influx of foreigners. Amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners (hereinafter – Law on LSF) of 23 July 2021 and subsequent amendments establish certain restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, which may be temporarily and proportionately applied during a state of war, a state of emergency, as well as during a state of emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, if certain rights of asylum seekers (with exceptions) cannot be guaranteed for objective and justified reasons, also providing that the decision to admit an asylum seeker temporarily accommodated in a temporary accommodation facility to the Republic of Lithuania and the restriction of liberty of foreigners in a temporary accommodation facility may take up to 6 months.
On the instructions of the Seimas Ombudsperson, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in places of accommodation of foreigners during the declared emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, employees of the Human Rights Division of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office conducted inspections of the Varėna Border Police Station and the Vilnius Border Police Station of the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – SBGS), as well as at other places of detention of foreigners in the territories the Lazdijai District Municipality, the Varėna District Municipality, the Vilnius District Municipality, and the Ignalina Municipality on 2-6 August 2021, 24-26 August and 15 September[1].
The inspections assessed issues related to: ensuring material conditions for reception of asylum seekers, the right to adequate food, access to personal health care services, assessing the vulnerability and special needs of persons, access to information on rights, obligations, procedures for examining asylum applications, ensuring the right of persons to submit an asylum application, and the organisation of reception of asylum seekers.
The following systematic violations of human rights and freedoms found during the inspections carried out in the above-mentioned places of detention of foreigners, which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment were found:
- Foreigners have been accommodated without ensuring adequate material reception conditions for asylum seekers and the right to personal privacy. The majority of foreigners at the SBGS border guard stations, including minors and other vulnerable persons, were accommodated in temporary accommodation, i. e. in tents and hangars, some persons were accommodated in SBGS office premises and garages. Most of the tents and hangars were permeable to the rainwater accumulating inside of them. On rainy days, sleeping mattresses and bed linen were wet. The minimum air temperature in Varėna district was a mere 5.5–3.8 degrees, and it was only slightly higher (7.8–4.1 degrees) in Lazdijai district during the same period of time. However, foreigners were not provided with adequate clothing, footwear; tents and some other premises were not clean and orderly, and due to insufficient supply of toiletries, foreigners were only partially able to maintain their personal hygiene properly. The premises of the former schools and orphanages, where foreigners were temporarily accommodated, were also in poor condition: there was mold in them, windows were boarded, the premises could not be ventilated, there were no toilets, washrooms, showers, and privacy was not ensured;
- In almost all camps set up in SBGS divisions, foreigners were only provided with dry rations for more than 30 consecutive days. Warm meals were provided only to foreigners accommodated in the premises of former schools and orphanages.
- Only some of the temporary accommodation places were visited regularly by personal health professionals, some persons did not immediately receive an initial medical check-up, and thus their health problems were not identified for a long period of time; foreigners were not tested for COVID-19 disease (coronavirus infection). They were asked to pay for some personal healthcare services and medicines, and there was a lack of personal healthcare professionals and ambulances to cover all the emergency medical needs of foreigners.
- SBGS conduct an initial assessment of a person’s vulnerability by visually inspecting and interrogating the person. Procedures for assessing the vulnerability of persons in places of their temporary accommodation were not clear and uniform, the vulnerability of foreigners and their special needs were not assessed fully and promptly, and reception conditions for some vulnerable persons were not ensured in a way that was appropriate to their special needs.
- Places of temporary accommodation of foreigners do not assess whether a person is a victim of trafficking in human beings, whether he has been tortured, raped or otherwise severely psychologically, physically or sexually abused, due to which he may have special needs; the specific needs of people who may be victims of trafficking or who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious violence are not clear, or unidentified, assistance to these vulnerable persons was not organised, and all foreigners were in a particular need of psychological assistance at the places of temporary accommodation of foreigners.
- Accommodation conditions for foreigners in tents, garages and some premises did not meet the best interests of children; special needs of children were not met; minors in places of temporary accommodation of foreigners were not offered any activities, including education. The exact number of pregnant women accommodated in places of temporary accommodation of foreigners was unknown.
- There were places of accommodation visited during inspections where officials were not aware of the presence of foreigners that are members of the LGBTQ + community and did not know that they are attributed to groups of vulnerable people. When foreigners arrive at a place of their temporary accommodation, their initial assessment (interview) does not include questions about their sexual orientation or gender identity, so the vulnerability of foreigners due to their belonging to sexual minorities and the resulting violence is not assessed, and therefore LGBTQ + needs are not identified immediately. Homosexuals were accommodated in common areas and / or premises with other foreigners who were intolerant of the LGBTQ + community, and therefore experienced both fear of psychological and physical violence.
- Interpretation services were only provided during the initial asylum interview, which violated the right of foreigners to receive quality legal, medical and other services and information in a language they understand.
- Foreigners in places of temporary accommodation did not have access to information on their legal status in the Republic of Lithuania, on the right to seek asylum in the Republic of Lithuania and the procedures applicable therein, also on the course of the examination of their submitted asylum applications, the rights and obligations of asylum seekers and the consequences of non-compliance with these obligations during the examination of an asylum application, and they had little or no information on access of foreigners to legal services. Moreover, officials took deterrent actions at the border of the Republic of Lithuania to guide them towards Belarus without informing them of the procedures and places where they could legally lodge asylum applications.
- People who intended to enter the territory of the Republic of Lithuania illegally were diverted towards Belarus by deterrent actions of Lithuanian border guard officials without ensuring that migrants were not at risk of being subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, or that there were no risk factors that could endanger their life or health.
- In the face of an emergency situation due to a mass influx of foreigners, in addition to the direct functions assigned to them in relation to the protection of the state border and control of its crossing, officials of the SBGS must ensure that premises of the accommodation of foreigners are properly equipped, that food is supplied to them uninterruptedly, that necessary medical assistance is available, and that social and other needs of foreigners are met. Social workers, translators, psychologists were not invited to these places to reduce this additional workload, and as a result of the extremely increased workload, SBGS officials worked/ possibly still work under conditions harmful to their health, and their right to rest was/may not be adequately ensured.
- The procedure for ensuring that rights of foreigners are restricted only when inevitably necessary, temporarily and proportionately, during an emergency situation due to a mass influx of foreigners and persons responsible for monitoring the proper implementation of this requirement under the Law on LSF has not been planned and SBGS officials were not aware of it.
- The conditions of temporary accommodation of asylum seekers in structural divisions of the SBGS and in other designated premises varied, and some foreigners were accommodated in much worse conditions than others without any clear selection procedure, thus violating the principle of equal treatment of people and disregarding possible special needs of foreigners.
Having taken into account the identified shortcomings, the Seimas Ombudsperson provided responsible state bodies and institutions, municipalities (the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuania, the National Public Health Centre under the Ministry of Health, municipal administrations of Alytus City, Alytus District, Druskininkai, Ignalina District, Lazdijai District, Varėna District, Šalčininkai District and Švenčionys District) with thirty-eight (38) recommendations for improving the human rights situation of foreigners accommodated in places of detention of foreigners.
Inspection at a mental health institution
On 18 May 2021, employees of the Human Rights Division of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office carried out an inspection at the order of the Seimas Ombudsperson with an aim to check the human rights situation at the Utena Expert Department of the National Forensic Psychiatric Service under the Ministry of Health (hereinafter – the NFPS).
The following were assessed during the inspection: informing the subjects of the examination of their rights and obligations, accessibility of information, ensuring the right to submit complaints and their processing, application of restraint measures, ensuring material conditions for the subjects of the examination, adaptation of the environment for persons with disabilities, the activity of the structural division of the public police of the Utena district police headquarters (hereafter – the Protection Squad) ensuring the activities of the protection of the 1st subdivision of the Utena Expert Department and the organisation of work at the Utena Expert Department.
Attention was drawn to the following main shortcomings and violations of human rights and freedoms identified during the inspection carried out at the Utena Expert Department:
- The Department did not have an information board for persons under investigation and their relatives, which would contain clear and comprehensible information on the internal rules of procedure of the Department, the rights and obligations of the persons under investigation, organisations defending the rights of the persons under investigation, the Institution for the National Prevention of Torture (Human Rights), and other information relevant to the persons under investigation and their relatives, which raises the risk of a violation of the right of the persons under investigation to information at the Department.
- The procedure for filing appeals at the Utena Expert Department was not explained to persons under investigation and their relatives, also the functions of the Committee on Ethics established by the State Forensic Psychiatric Service, the content of the Code of Ethics, the possibility of submitting anonymous appeals was not ensured in sub-divisions, not all appeals of the subjects were registered in the relevant register of documents in accordance with the procedure laid down in legal acts, and, as a result, the right of subjects to complain and to submit appeals was not properly ensured.
- The procedure for the application of physical restraints as provided for in the legislation was not followed at the Utena Expert Department, and internal documents (the Rules of Use of Physical Restraints at the Utena Expert Department) did not establish that other, milder, measures (oral methods, etc.) must be exhausted before imposing physical restraints. There was no clock in the rooms where restraints are applied, so that persons under investigation subjected to restraint would not have the possibility to keep track of the time in order to know how long their restraint lasts. The leather straps used for physical restraint did not comply with legal requirements. Restraint rooms did not provide a safe environment and did not ensure the privacy of persons subjected to physical restraint. In view of the above, the practice of applying physical restraint measures at the Utena Expert Department needs to be improved in order to ensure the safety of the persons under investigation and employees, to protect the dignity of the persons under investigation and to avoid the risk of violation of human rights.
- The Utena Expert Department does not provide adequate material conditions for the persons under examination, the wards lack furniture, most of the mattresses are not covered with a waterproof material that is easy to disinfect. The privacy of the persons under investigation is also not ensured, for example, the door of the shower room has a window which allows a full view of the shower room, but the shower room is not equipped with a curtain or a shower wall to provide privacy while showering; the sanitary facilities (toilets) do not have any partitions to ensure privacy and dignity. The persons under investigation are not provided with the necessary clothing for outdoor walks appropriate to the weather conditions, and the laundered clothing issued to them is not personalised. These circumstances at the Utena Expert Department create conditions for degrading treatment of the persons under investigation.
- The Utena Expert Department does not ensure full accessibility of the environment and information for persons with disabilities. For example, hygiene rooms are not adapted to special needs of people with disabilities, the entrances to the reception area for incoming detainees and to the premises of the 1st subdivision are not adapted to persons with reduced mobility (there are no special slopes from the curbs; steep stairs must be taken to access the premises), the bottom and top steps of the entrances and the stairs inside the premises are not adapted to persons with visual disabilities (stairs do not have tactile paving or are not painted in contrasting (for example, yellow) colours. There are no lifts or hoists. All this violates the dignity of persons with disabilities and does not ensure the highest possible standard of autonomy, freedom of movement and safety.
- 1st subdivision of the Utena Expert Department fails to ensure due protection of persons under investigation. There is only one security official on duty at the 1st subdivision of the Utena Expert Department, which does not comply with the requirements of clause 12 of the Regulations approved by Order No 552/395 of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania of 16 October 2000, which establishes that a shift at the 1st subdivision of the Utena Expert Department consists of a head of the security unit, a guard and station officials, and, when necessary, also a guard assistant. Thus, rights of the persons under examination and of employees of that subdivision are violated, also posing a threat to health and life of these people.
- The workload of forensic experts at the Utena Expert Department exceeds the established workload, and the excessive workload of forensic experts leads to queues for in-patient forensic psychiatric examinations. Employees of the Department are not provided with adequate conditions for continuous professional development, which creates conditions for violating rights of employees and persons waiting for forensic examinations.
Taking into account the identified shortcomings, the Seimas Ombudsperson made thirty-four (34) recommendations to the responsible state bodies and institutions (the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Forensic Psychiatric Service under the Ministry of Health) regarding the improvement of the situation of the human rights of persons detained at the Utena Expert Department.
Inspection at the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau
The Seimas Ombudsperson received a complaint from the applicant X (hereinafter – the Applicant) regarding possible violations of the Applicant’s rights at the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau. The Seimas Ombudsperson ordered employees of the Human Rights Division of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office and the Seimas Ombudsperson’s advisers to carry out an investigation into the human rights situation at the premises of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Division and an inspection of this place of detention for the purpose of prevention of torture in relation to the circumstances of the Applicant’s complaint.
The following main shortcomings and violations of human rights and freedoms identified during the inspection of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau should be taken into consideration:
- The applicant suffered various injuries during his detention, including sprains to the ligaments of the cervical spine, the thoracic spine, contusions to the lower back and pelvis. The applicant received medical treatment for these injuries on several occasions. Both the prosecutor in charge of the pre-trial investigation and the officials of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau admitted that they were aware of the injuries suffered by the Applicant, but did not take any action to protect the Applicant’s rights which may have been violated and to establish whether the physical violence used against the Applicant met the criterion of official necessity and the principle of proportionality. It should be noted that such a situation, where neither the prosecutor nor police officers fulfil their positive duties to respond effectively to the injury of a person in the course of proceedings, may be considered to be in breach of Article 3 of the ECtHR.
- Only the moment of the Applicant’s detention was recorded by mobile surveillance means, thus officers of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau and the Lithuanian Police Anti-Terrorist Operations Team “Aras” did not comply with the requirements established by legal acts, i.e., did not use mobile surveillance devices during the entire detention and transportation operation of the Applicant and did not ensure that the mobile video surveillance device properly captured video data. The situation when the video does not record the transportation of the Applicant, during which excessive physical coercion could have been used against the Applicant, does not allow to objectively assess the actions of the officers, and it is possible to assume that there may be cases when physical violence is used in disproportionate manner during operations of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau and the Lithuanian Police Anti-Terrorist Operations Team “Aras”, in violation of international human rights standards.
- Officers of the Prisons Department carried out criminal intelligence actions on the Applicant without the permission (sanction) of the competent entity established by legal acts to perform such actions.
- Officers of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau did not provide the Applicant with food (including the possibility to have a drink) for almost ten hours, although they had a duty under the legislation to provide him with food (create conditions to drink) at intervals of no more than seven hours. The Seimas Ombudsperson concluded that such actions (inaction) of the officers of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, where a person was not provided with adequate and timely food (in this particular case, the Applicant was denied the opportunity to eat and drink for almost ten hours), may be considered as torture and inhuman treatment violating Article 3 of the ECtHR.
- Persons brought to the premises of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau for pre-trial investigation interviews and/or criminal intelligence activities are not registered. The location and duration of the presence of the persons brought to the premises of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau can only be traced to some extent through the interrogation protocols of these persons and the criminal intelligence documents, which are not always completed. The decision to complete the relevant documents is taken at the discretion of officers of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, after assessing the information collected in the course of the respective criminal intelligence activities. For this reason, situations may arise where the whereabouts of persons brought to the premises of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau and/or criminal intelligence activities carried out in relation to them are not known, thus creating preconditions for violating the provisions of Article 3 of ECtHR, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
- The interrogation rooms of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau are not adequately ventilated, therefore officers carry out pre-trial investigation and/or criminal intelligence activities in their offices, thus not only worsening their working conditions, but also, in some cases, risking the disclosure of confidential information and violating the requirements applicable to the interrogation of persons brought to a police institution, and creating preconditions for violating the provisions of Article 3 of the ECtHR, the principles of police activities, failing to ensure rights of persons brought to the premises of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau and respect for human dignity.
Taking into account the identified shortcomings, the Seimas Ombudsperson provided twelve (12) recommendations to the responsible state institutions and institutions (the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, the Lithuanian Police, the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, the Prisons Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania) on persons the improvement of the human rights situation of persons interrogated at the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau.