Powers granted to the Commissioner for Refugees to declare allegedly abusive asylum claims as grounds for repatriation before an appeal is heard, are still in force – despite doubts elicited by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
In a report published in July on its visit to Malta’s open and closed detention centres for asylum seekers and refugees, back in 2005, the CPT questioned whether the Maltese authorities were putting at risk the obligation to consider every asylum claim “individually, on a case by case basis”.
The measure was introduced to allow the Commissioner for Refugees new powers to determine how far an asylum claim was abusive or not.
So-called ‘bogus claims’, legally termed ‘manifestly unfounded’ applications, became a new verdict for rejected applications for refugee status.
It alarmed refugee support groups for fear that ‘manifestly unfounded’ applicants could be immediately repatriated even if they lodge an appeal on their case.
In its official statement on the 2005 report, which was released by the CPT in July, the government did not address the issue of whether certain asylum applicants could be placed in danger if they are repatriated before their appeal is heard.
The CPT had already reported back in 2004 that it considered that a decision to remove a person from Maltese territory should be appealable before another independent body, and that such an appeal should have a suspensive effect – meaning deportation would be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal on a rejected asylum claim.
The powers to remove ‘manifestly unfounded’ applicants before their appeal can be heard had enjoyed the Opposition’s support, which stands four-square behind government’s asylum policy, but NGOs said the grounds proposed for the Commissioner to determine an application as ‘manifestly unfounded’ were too weak to warrant the loss of a real right to appeal.
Labour home affairs spokesperson Gavin Gulia had stated at the time of the legal publication that certain asylum seekers who know they cannot qualify for asylum “abuse our institutions by making a manifestly unfounded application” and that the measure only targeted specific cases of abuse of the system.
The same law said government would allow any repatriated migrants whose appeal is subsequently accepted to return to Malta – without a visa.
But NGOs said the guarantee rang hollow, fearing it might be too late to provide protection for the person sent back to the country they fled in the first place.

Links: www.maltatoday.com.mt/2005/10/16/t10.html