Lithuania: ICJ and partners intervene in a European Court of Human Rights case on immigration detention
Today, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), the Dutch Council for Refugees (DCR), and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), submitted a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case S.M.H. v Lithuania, concerning the deprivation of liberty of an asylum seeker.
S.M.H., an Iraqi citizen, who entered Lithuania irregularly and sought asylum, was subsequently arrested and detained in various centres. The applicant claimed that his detention was not justified, lacking both individualised assessment and effective legal assistance.
In its intervention, the ICJ and its partners focus on Article 5.1 and Article 5.4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, the interveners analyse the requirements for lawful deprivation of liberty, the right to have the lawfulness of detention promptly examined by a Court, and the right to have effective legal assistance. The intervention considers both the EU and international law and standards related to deprivation of liberty and the right to an effective remedy against unlawful detention and material conditions of detention.
The key points of the intervention are as follows:
- The interveners submit that under Article 5.1 detention must not be arbitrary, and be prescribed by law both substantively and procedurally. The intervention highlights that detention must be a measure of last resort, it should follow an individualised and exhaustive examination, and it may be imposed only when less strict measures cannot be effectively applied.
- Regarding Article 5.4, the interveners clarify that an effective judicial review of detention prescribed by law and accessible in practice constitutes a safeguard against arbitrary detention. Legal aid and competent legal representation are essential elements in ensuring the accessibility and effectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.
- Finally, the interveners stress that lack of access to clear information, lack of access to a lawyer, and lack of access to an effective remedy contravene the guarantees under Articles 3 and 13 ECHR, rendering them ineffective, theoretical, and illusory.
Read the full intervention here.
