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.

The Ombudsman has submitted a request to the Constitutional Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality, with general binding force, of rules contained in Law no. 13/2023, of 3 April, which amended the Labour Code and related legislation “within the scope of the decent work agenda”.

The rules in question are those contained in Article 10(3) of the Labour Code, which grants certain labour providers the power to temporarily substitute themselves through third parties appointed by them, and Article 338-A(1) and (2), which prohibits and punishes the outsourcing of services to meet the needs of a worker whose contract has been terminated in the previous twelve months by collective redundancy or redundancy due to job extinction.

It is understood that the rules in question establish restrictions on the fundamental right of private economic initiative that do not fulfil the requirement of proportionality arising from Article 18 of the Constitution.

To read the request click here [in Portuguese only].

Before the start of the The Second Parliamentary Summit of the Crimea Platform held in Prague, ombuds and representatives of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) from more than sixty countries around the world met at an online conference entitled "The Battle for Crimea — The Battle for Human Rights". The Ukrainian Ombudsman — Commissioner for Human Rights of the Ukrainian Parliament — Dmytro Lubynets asked his Czech counterpart, Ombudsman Stanislav Křecek, to co-organize the conference. Together with the participants, they discussed current problems and human rights violations in occupied Crimea.

"The Czech Republic has traditionally been home to a large Ukrainian minority. That is why, already after the occupation of Crimea and especially following the Russian aggression last year, large numbers of Ukrainian residents have come and are still coming to us. I am glad that the Czech Republic has been able to provide them with safety and assistance," said Ombudsman Stanislav Křeček in his opening speech.

He also described his institution's involvement in helping the newcomers. In addition to volunteering at the assistance centres (KACPU), lawyers from the Ombudsman's Office have also trained social and community workers in cooperation with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. In information materials and videos in Ukrainian ombudsman informed newcomers about the assistance offered by the Czech Republic as well as about his possibilities to provide help, advice or assitance.

In individual cases, the ombudsman deals mainly with problems regarding the granting of temporary protection. "We have encountered cases of people coming from Crimea who have not been granted international protection by the Czech authorities, because they had Russian citizenship as well. We successfully discussed this with the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry assured us similar cases should not happen again," Stanislav Křeček told the conference participants.

Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets introduced examples of human rights violations in Crimea, in particular the detention and illegal imprisonment of Ukrainian citizens on the peninsula. On the other hand, according to the Ukrainian ombudsman, deportation and displacement of Ukrainians is also taking place. At the conference, he therefore appealed to his ombuds counterparts from various countries to help Ukraine return home all deported, illegally displaced Ukrainian children, civilian hostages and prisoners of war.

Among others, Nasheli Ramirez Hernandez, Chair of the Mexico City Human Rights Commission and Regional President of the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) for the Caribbean and Latin America, expressed her solidarity with Ukraine at the conference. Chris Field, Australian Ombudsman and President of the IOI, and Rob Behrens, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman of the United Kingdom, assured their full support for the conference, which the Ukrainian Ombudsman will be hosting in Kiev on the eve of Human Rights Day on 7 and 8 December.

“Why was there no prior information campaign and is it not appropriate to do so now and in the meantime to rectify irregularities by alternative ways of purchasing medicines?” This was the question put by Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva to the Minister of Health at an emergency meeting of the Health Committee at the National Assembly, which was attended by the executive directors of the Bulgarian Drug Agency and Information Services AD.

The reason is the chaos after the introduction of the purchase of antibiotics and medicines for the treatment of diabetes mellitus only with an electronic prescription, which is effective from last Monday, 16 October.

Prof. Kovacheva also asked other questions provoked by the numerous complaints, both from patients and doctors, dentists, veterinarians and pharmacists.

She asked what alternative prescribing options exist for doctors, including adult paediatricians, whom people trust to treat their children, if they do not have the necessary hardware and software or technical knowledge, do not have an electronic signature, do not have a smartphone or good Internet connectivity if they practice in the countryside.

Another question that the Ombudsman did not receive an answer to was whether changes had been made to the mobile application to make it accessible for all doctors, regardless of their place of work, the brand of smartphone and the operating system they have.

Next, Prof. Kovacheva asked what alternative is envisaged for patients who visit a pharmacy where the medicinal product with a trade name prescribed by the doctor is not available, and the doctor cannot be found at the moment or is unwilling or has not indicated any possibility for alternative substitution.

“Why don’t doctors have information about the available drugs in the pharmacy network so that they can prescribe the best product they think is available? Who and how controls in practice the obligation of pharmacists, if the pharmacy does not have a prescribed medicinal product, to provide it within 24 hours and whether it carries out such controls at all, are there any sanctions imposed?”, asks Diana Kovacheva.

Last but not least, the Ombudsman raised questions about the lack and shortage of a large number of medicinal products, including life-sustaining medicinal products, on the Bulgarian pharmaceutical market. As an example, Kovacheva pointed out that following her recommendations to the Minister for Health regarding the shortage of specific medicinal products, including insulins, the citizens and the Ombudsman received the following reply from the Ministry of Health or the Bulgarian Drug Agency: “information was requested and received from the marketing authorisation holder on the quantities imported, while the products are missing from pharmacies and citizens cannot buy them”.

That is why Prof. Kovacheva asks what mechanisms the Bulgarian Drug Agency has in place to effectively control the availability of medicinal products in the pharmacy network and what emergency measures are envisaged in this regard, and what are the reasons and who is responsible for the impossibility of tracking of the medicines along their entire path — from their import into the country to their receipt by the patient — and what emergency measures are envisaged to make this possible in the shortest possible time.

At the hearing, it became clear that the Ministry of Health is planning to add the possibility for emergency doctors and dentists to be able to write e-prescriptions for antibiotics and diabetes medicines.