Background
On 11 July 2023 both the “Report to the Latvian Government on the periodic visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 10 to 20 May 2022” (here and after – Report) and the “Response of the Latvian Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its periodic visit to Latvia from 10 to 20 May 2022” (here and after – Response) were published. The Report provides 21 recommendations in terms of Immigration detention; Response considers 18 recommendations as in progress and/or unjustified where no additional steps should be taken, and 3
recommendations are presented along with a potential action plan.
Ieva Raubiško has closely followed the situation of irregular migrants at the Latvian-Belarussian border since August 2021. In October 2022, she joined the NGO “I Want to Help Refugees” as an advocacy officer. In February 2023 Anna E. Griķe began to fulfil her duties as both border monitoring expert and coordinator of
humanitarian aid for asylum seekers. Based on prior reports, observations, and individual cases, the following border monitoring report aims to highlight misleading information within the Response. It does not cover all recommendations/responses because of the insufficient data available regarding issues such as access to
legal aid or to health care, but it is more focused on the everyday life in detention, especially, in regard to minors. The reference to both documents includes paragraphs and page numbers.
Key Findings
[1] Accommodation of unaccompanied minors
Report, par. 30, p. 17: “The Committee recommends that the Latvian authorities take the necessary measures to ensure that unaccompanied minors are accommodated in an open (or semi-open) specialised establishment for juveniles (for example, a social welfare/educational institution) where they can be provided with appropriate care and activities suitable for their age; the relevant legal provisions should be amended accordingly.”
Response, p. 12: “There is no open (or semi-open) specialised establishment in Latvia intended specifically for a minor foreigner to be extradited or unaccompanied asylum seeker and it is not planned to create such an establishment, because the number of unaccompanied minors is small and it would not be feasible to open such an establishment. An unaccompanied minor, who is not detained, is accommodated in a child care institution based on the decision of the Orphan’s and Custody Court.”
Indeed, the number of asylum seekers – unaccompanied minors is low, and there is no specialised establishment for their accommodation. However, the Response is misleading since only some unaccompanied minors are properly taken care of. In May 2023, Anna E. Griķe came across two of them, a 13-years old girl from Comoros island and a 14-years old boy from DRC. They both were accommodated in the Accommodation centre for asylum seekers “Mucenieki” provided the same accommodation conditions as adults (free of charge accommodation and allowance of 3 euros per day). It could be considered a childcare institution in any way, as it requires individuals to have complete autonomy in taking care of themselves on a daily basis. After the girl’s disappearance of between July 4 and 7 and ‘with serious concerns about the lack of action, relevant institutions as Ombudsman or State Police were informed about the situation.
[2] Access to education and/or leisure activities for minors in IDCs [immigration detention center]
Response, p. 12: “Minors accompanied by their parents are accommodated in the IDC, based on the parents’ application for accommodating children together with parents, and after evaluating the best interests of a child. Thus, children are not detained, but accommodated together with their parents, who are detained. In turn, detained unaccompanied minors are accommodated in the premises of the IDC premises, in which there is personnel and equipment to take the needs of their age into account. Minors accommodated in the premises of the IDC are provided with opportunities for acquiring education, engaging in leisure time activities, including games and recreational events corresponding to their age.” Even though there is a theoretical possibility for children from IDC to access education, it does not take place due to multiple factors. For instance, it takes one month to get the response from the Ministry of Education to be assigned to an educational institution, and as the detainees do not know the length of their detention and live in hope that it will not be lasting long, there is low interest to submit an application. Apart from a room with a limited number of toys, there are no specific opportunities considered for children/youth who experience the same limited access of movement within the detention centre as adults. For instance, outdoor space is not openly available. In the premises of the IDC, there is no opportunity for acquiring education; also, online learning is not possible due to the limited access to electronic devices which is restricted to just one hour per day. None of IDC’s personnel has the task to meet the education and or/leisure activity needs.
[3] About access to purposeful activities for detainees
Report, par. 35, p. 19: “The CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities take steps to ensure that foreign nationals held at Daugavpils and Mucenieki Immigration Detention Centres are offered a range of purposeful activities (for example, language classes, computer courses, crafts, etc.). The longer the period for which foreign nationals are detained, the more developed should be the activities which are offered to them. Further, every effort should be made to provide children of school age with suitable educational activities.”
Response, p. 14-15: “The SBG ensures the security guarding of persons accommodated in the IDC, but does not get involved in planning their free time activities. Nevertheless, the SBG actively cooperates with Latvian NGOs, such as the association “I want to help refugees”, which, as far as possible, ensures the organisation of various leisure activities in the IDC of the SBG for both children and adults. […] In 2013, the SBG and the association “Latvian Red Cross” (hereinafter – LRC) signed an agreement on cooperation, based on which the LRC, among other things, undertook to organise, as far as possible, for persons accommodated in the IDC, psychological support and educational measures or other measures that would improve living conditions, as well as to provide the services of social work experts and other measures promoting socialisation and integration, including, if necessary, to organise Latvian language classes. Recommendations regarding the provision of purposeful activities (including the Latvian language classes) for foreigners in accommodation centres for asylum seekers, as well as regarding measures to reduce the language barrier between health care personnel and admitted foreign nationals, by providing translation/interpreting services, are to be supported.”
In summer 2023, “I Want to Help Refugees” organized weekly activities in both detention centres for children and families, and – when possible, for adults, both men and women. It was based on good will, and in no terms could be perceived as a systemic solution. However, these activities created an opportunity to get a better insight of the everyday life in detention and was an attempt to meet individual or collective needs. These included provision of underwear, socks, basic footwear, additional clothing, spices for food, books, toys, and games.
Prior to summer 2023 no regular activities were provided by any institution, NGOs or Latvian Red Cross (besides two unsuccessful episodes in December 2022 and April 2023 when a team of LRC did not manage establish contact with detainees to provide leisure time activities). From what has been observed during 2023, the sole outcome of the cooperation agreement with LRC is the provision of donated clothes to both IDCs. These are of very poor quality and do not include such basic items as underwear or socks. No psychological support, educational measures or other initiatives that would improve living conditions are being implemented in any of IDCs. Services of social work experts and other measures promoting socialization and integration, including Latvian language classes, are not provided either.
[4] About access to outdoor exercise at the IDCs
Report. par. 36, p. 20: “The CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities take steps to increase significantly the daily outdoor exercise period for foreign nationals held at Daugavpils Immigration Detention Centre. In the Committee’s view, detained foreign nationals should, as a rule, have ready access to an outdoor area throughout the day.
Response, p. 15: “According to Clause 21 of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 254 of 16 May 2017, the daily schedule of the accommodation premises shall include daily walk time in fresh air (outdoor exercise) – for at least two hours. In turn, Clause 18 of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 254 of 16 May 2017 provides that if a detained person refuses to exercise any rights (for example, outdoor exercise), an official of the accommodation premises may request to confirm it with a written submission. Given the structure of Daugavpils IDC and Mucenieki IDC, it is not possible to ensure free access of the detained persons to the outdoor area throughout the day.” “I Want to Help Refugees” has received complaints from a number detainees at both Daugavpils and Mucenieki Detention Centres about their restricted access to outdoor areas. While no clear-cut reasons for such restriction have been provided, these complaints also indicate a lack of clear procedure as to how the access to open-air areas should be requested by the detainees and why and how the time limit outdoor activities is determined (for example, why only one hour is granted for outdoor activities, not the two-hour minimum as prescribed in the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 254, Internal Rules of Procedure of Accommodation Premises for Detained Foreigners and Asylum Seekers.) As a result, inhabitants of IDCs lose the possibility to be in fresh air for sufficient time each day or, on some days, are not able to spend time outdoors at all.
[5] About the alleged ill-treatment of detained foreign nationals (irregular migrants) by Latvian special police forces between August 2021 and March 2022 in the border area.
Report, par. 33, p. 18: “The CPT recommends that all law enforcement agencies concerned are given a clear and firm message on a regular basis that any use of excessive force is illegal and will be punished accordingly. Further, they should be provided with further practical training relating to the proportionate use of force, including control and restraint techniques, in the context of apprehending foreign nationals at the border. As regards more specifically the use of electrical discharge weapons, reference is made to the principles listed in paragraphs 65 to 84 of the 20th General Report on the CPT’s activities.23“
Response, p. 13: “It has not been necessary to use physical force and special means against persons, because there have been no cases when they did not obey the lawful orders of the border guards. In order to prevent crossing or attempted crossing of the state border outside official border crossing points and procedures established for legal entry, persons are informed that crossing the state border is illegal and there is criminal liability prescribed for crossing it and are invited not to cross the state border or correspondingly invited to return to Belarus. Furthermore, at that moment persons also visually see armed border guards and national guards, and their preparedness for active response in preventing the possibilities of illegal crossing of the state border. Following such actions and the provision of information, persons, as a rule, do not risk approaching Latvia or, if they have already crossed the border, they return to Belarus. The enumeration of special means of the SBG contains electric shock devices, which the officials, based on Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.55 of 18 January 2011, are entitled to use for fulfilment of the functions assigned to them. There are no electric shock devices of any kind (including TASER) currently used for border surveillance due to the numerical shortage thereof, expiry of their useful life and the necessity to use them for the needs of other SBG services (immigration control, border inspections).”
The government’s response contradicts several testimonies of irregular border-crossers recorded by “I Want to Help Refugees” in 2022–2023 on having experienced emotional and physical violence, including cursing and threats, beatings, and electrocution both during the pushbacks and while in tents/ SBG bases in the Latvian territory. According to these testimonies, abuse was most often committed by members of unidentified special units wearing masks. At least four complaints on the excessive use of violence have been submitted to the Internal Security Bureau, and one of the complainants has turned to the European Court of Human Rights.
[6] About the lack of psychological assistance to the detainees at the IDCs.
Report, par. 44, p. 57: “The CPT recommends that steps be taken at Daugavpils and Mucenieki Immigration Detention Centres to ensure adequate access to psychiatric care and psychological assistance for foreign nationals, combined with the provision of professional interpretation.”
Response, p. 18-19: “Based on the proposal made by the international non-governmental organisation “Doctors without Borders”, during the period from July to 31 December 2022, the representatives of the international non-governmental organisation “Doctors without Borders” have been regularly visiting Daugavpils IDC and Mucenieki IDC and providing psychological support to the detained foreigners and asylum seekers accommodated in the IDC of the SBG.
By means of the funds raised via the project from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, in order to reduce the everyday psychological sufferings or struggles of the target group, it is planned to attract psychologists and cover expenses for psychologist services for the foreigners accommodated in the centres.
Additionally, as already mentioned herein above, in 2013, the SBG and the LRC signed an agreement on cooperation, based on which the LRC, among other things, undertook to organise, as far as possible, for persons accommodated in the IDC of the SBG, psychological support and educational measures or other measures that would improve living conditions of the referred to persons…”
While NGOs might offer valuable psychological support to asylum seekers and detained foreigners at the IDCs, their services cannot be considered a viable alternative and substitution of state-provided in-house psychological support. Since December 2022 when “Doctors without Borders” ceased its operation in Latvia, no psychological support has been available to the detainees. LRC has not been able to offer any psychological assistance at the IDCs, citing the difficulty of arranging interpreters as one of the main challenges.
[7] About the forcible return of irregular migrants from Latvia to Belarus
Report, par. 48, p. 57: “… the CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities take the necessary measures to ensure that irregular migrants arriving at the border or present in the territory of Latvia are not forcibly returned to Belarus prior to an individualised screening with a view to identifying persons in need of protection, assessing those needs and taking appropriate action. Further, it is essential that foreign nationals have effective access to an asylum procedure (or other residence procedure) which involves an individual assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in case of expulsion of the person concerned to the country of origin or a third country, on the basis of an objective and independent analysis of the human rights situation in the countries concerned.38 The CPT considers that the relevant provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Decree No. 518 on the Declaration of a State of Emergency should be revised accordingly.”
Response, p. 19: “Currently, the emergency situation in the administrative territories at the Latvia- Belarus border does not allow the uncontrolled flow of people across the state border in places not intended for this, and at the same time does not limit the right of persons to access the asylum procedure, because the right to lodge an application at the border crossing point provided for by the Asylum Law is not restricted. The referred to regulation was based on the internationally recognised right of countries to control the border of their country and to prevent the illegal crossing thereof (see the judgment of the ECHR of 13 February 2020 in the case of ND and NT v. Spain and the judgment of the ECHR of 5 April 2022 in the case A.A. and others v. North Macedonia).”
Testimonies of irregular migrants forcibly returned from Latvia/ Latvian border to the territory of Belarus indicate that no proper screening of persons is performed at the border. There have been cases when not only families with children, but also unaccompanied minors have been pushed back.
Testimonies of irregular migrants allowed to enter Latvia on humanitarian grounds and submit their claims for asylum, show that neither the Belarussian nor the Latvian authorities allow the migrants to move to the official border crossing points, instead pushing them back to either Belarus or Latvia.
Recommendations and Action Points
Clarify the statements in the Response with authorities in question.
Create an action plan that identifies the gaps in the treatment of detainees in detention centres and explores for possible solutions.
Establish an obligation and a clear procedure for a prompt investigation of all claims of violence voiced by irregular migrants and detained asylum seekers.
Ensure presence of a psychologist/psychotherapist at both IDCs to provide psychological help to the detained when necessary (also, ensure that the regular medical staff is present).
Ensure the possibility for detainees to spend sufficient time outdoors each day.
Ensure transparent evaluation of migrants’ individual circumstances upon their arrival at the border; share the assessment guidelines with independent monitoring bodies and NGOs.
