The Parliamentary Ombudsman has carried out a review of what consequences the measures of the Migration Board have had in preventing the spread of covid-19 for migration detainees.

The Migration Board has established certain units for quarantine where detainees that may be infected, or are confirmed to be infected with covid-19, are able to stay. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that it is essential that the authority takes certain measures to secure that detainees, that may be infected with covid-19 do not spread the infection, but also that they are not exposed to infection, by detainees with a confirmed infection. The Parliamentary Ombudsman further notes that a stay at a quarantine unit is voluntary, which implies that personnel must take necessary measures to make sure that detainees have understood that their stay at the unit is voluntary.

Shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, the Police Authority took measures that led to the release of 200 detainees. In spite of the fact that the occupancy of detainees has dropped it has come to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s knowledge that it is difficult for detainees to keep a social distance at the detention centres. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not consider it excluded that detainees share housing during an ongoing pandemic, provided that the Migration Board takes the measures required for the detainees to be able to maintain a social distance.

During the review information emerged that the Migration Board had allowed a man to remain in the detention centre in Märsta although his decision on detention was revoked. The man was infected and ill of covid-19 and had nowhere to go. He spent a number of days in the detention centre, separated from other detainees and died some time later at the hospital. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that a detainee that does not hold a valid decision on detention may not spend time in the detention centre. The detention centre manged the situation in a way that restricted the detainee’s rights. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considers it problematic that the Migration Board did not ensure that the situation was resolved before the man was taken to the hospital. The Parliamentary Ombudsman further notes that the circumstances were such that the options of the detention centre were limited. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that there are reasons for the  Migration Board to take efforts to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the incident in order to secure that an individual is not accommodated at the detention centre.

In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes certain statements regarding the Migration Board’s temporary restriction of inmates' possibilities to receive visits and the need for routines for the treatment of detainees who belong to a risk category in the event of a covid-19 infection. The Parliamentary Ombudsman believes that the legislator needs to consider if regulations pursuant to the Aliens Act corresponds to the need for restricted visitation, that may arise as a result of a pandemic.

Le 17 novembre la Défenseure des droits, Claire Hédon, rend un avis sur la proposition de loi relative à la sécurité globale.

>> Consulter l'avis 20-06

After the Government brought back the quarantine regime and re-introduction more intensive restrictions on human rights and freedoms throughout the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, the Seimas Ombudsman Augustinas Normantas presented a report assessing the compliance of emergency management measures that were introduced in March this year with human rights and freedoms. In presenting the results of the investigation, the Seimas Ombudsman did not hide the fact that, among other things, most doubts were caused by the forced isolation of persons returning from foreign countries in the premises provided by municipal administrations.

"It is worth remembering the importance of the effective guarantee of human rights and freedoms, provided for in international treaties, in the countries even in special circumstances. However, in any case, in order to protect against the arbitrariness of power, any measures decided upon by countries must be based on domestic law, adopted on the basis of the need to protect the democratic order from threats and be proportionate. Moreover, they must not undermine the highest values of a democratic society - legitimacy, pluralism, tolerance and openness,” notes the Seimas Ombudsman A. Normantas.

The Seimas Ombudsman is concerned that on March 24–25 of this year, the persons were involuntary isolated in the premises provided by the Vilnius City Municipality Administration without any selection, and the doctors did not check the health condition of these persons. Furthermore, individuals were asked to sign that they were informed of the decision requiring involuntary isolation, but the text of the decision itself was not provided at the time of signing as well as the grounds for deprivation of liberty, its application and the procedure for appealing against the measures taken.

"Isolation of persons in premises provided by municipal administrations, which are not adapted to the needs of persons to be isolated and possibly inconsistent with the public health safety requirements, not assessing each case individualy, not taking into account the age, sex, health and special needs of persons to be isolated; not providing an alternative possibility to be isolated in ones own home or other place of residence as well as appropriate information about the grounds for isolation in the premises allocated by the municipal administration could be equivalent to degrading treatment prohibited under international law,” the Seimas Ombudsman states.

In the report, the Seimas Ombudsman also presents an assessment of the compulsory hospitalization and isolation of persons by a doctor's decision, concluding that under the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases powers authorising a doctor in special circumstances to apply compulsory hospitalization and (or) isolation (up to one month) by his/her single decision and without approval of the court, raises reasonable doubts as to the possible abuse of powers by doctors under this provision and the possible violations of human rights and freedoms in the application of such a risk management measure.

Among other things, in the report the Seimas Ombudsman came to a conclusion that due to suspension of preventive health examinations and programs, postponement of planned operations and hospitalizations as well as provision of planned consultations, diagnostic, preventive and other medical services for more than a month, during the validity of the quarantine in the country, the right to affordable health care and the highest attainable standard of health protection was not properly guaranteed. 

"Any measures decided upon by countries should be based on domestic law, on the need to protect the democratic order from threats to it and should be proportionate. The requirement to observe the principle of constitutional proportionality presupposes, among other things, the requirement to establish such legal regulation that would create preconditions for sufficient individualization of restrictions on person’s rights and freedoms, assessment of each individual situation and haven taken into account all important circumstances, individualize the specific restrictive measures applicable to that person accordingly,” notes the Seimas Ombudsman A. Normantas.

 

Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 November 2020 16:06

When: 20 November 2020

UNIA, Foyer VZW, FRA’s Belgian National Roma Contact Point and FRA

Joint event

On 20 November, the national launch of FRA’s Roma and Travellers Survey takes place in Belgium.

• DOWNLOAD ROMA AND TRAVELLERS SURVEY FINDINGS

UNIA, vzw Foyer and FRA’s Belgian National Roma Contact Point, in cooperation with FRA, are organising the online event. FRA’s Director will address the participants with a video recording. FRA will present the survey results for Belgium. The event will focus on poverty, housing, health and education. 

Vitoria-Gasteiz

Una ciudadana, madre de un niño adoptado, planteó al Ararteko una situación que consideraba discriminatoria, ya que su hijo, a pesar de tener la nacionalidad española por adopción, al haber nacido en el extranjero, tuvo que presentar documentación específica distinta a la del resto de niños para federarse en la Federación Alavesa de Fútbol.

Se trata de una prevención impuesta por la FIFA, destinada a evitar determinadas prácticas abusivas por parte de grandes clubes de fútbol. Sin embargo, el Ararteko, que ya ha tenido varios casos similares, viene reiterando año tras año ante las autoridades deportivas que debe evitarse su aplicación indiscriminada a supuestos que nada tienen que ver con tales prácticas, ya que es disfuncional en relación con el interés del menor e ilegal, pues desconocer el significado jurídico de la adopción y sus efectos.

Y así se lo recordó a la Diputación Foral de Álava al solicitar su colaboración, puesto que corresponde al ente foral la intervención y control de las federaciones deportivas de su territorio histórico en la tramitación de las licencias federativas.

Además, el artículo 19.1 del Código Civil establece que "el extranjero menor de dieciocho años adoptado por un español, adquiere, desde la adopción, la nacionalidad española de origen".

Por tanto, independientemente de su lugar de nacimiento, un menor adoptado nacido en el extranjero es tan nacional español de origen como uno nacido en España y no pueden darse diferencias de trato en la expedición de licencias deportivas exigiendo documentación diferenciada a unos y otros.

Por ello, el Ararteko recomendó a la Diputación Foral de Álava que estableciera medidas para garantizar que las federaciones deportivas alavesas ofrezcan el mismo trato a menores nacionales de origen por adopción que a los menores nacionales, solicitándoles la misma documentación en la tramitación de las licencias deportivas y controlando que no haya ninguna otra diferencia de trato.

La Diputación alavesa ha comunicado al Ararteko que ya ha remitido un escrito a la Federación Alavesa de fútbol comunicándole su obligación de subsanar la solicitud de documentación complementaria en la tramitación de licencias deportivas a los menores adoptados en España.

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 16 de noviembre de 2020