Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget 2021-22
UUI Alm.del Bilag 117
Offentligt
2602428_0001.png
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR
LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0002.png
Amnesty International is a movement of 10 million people
which mobilizes the humanity in everyone and campaigns
for change so we can all enjoy our human rights. Our vision
is of a world where those in power keep their promises,
respect international law and are held to account. We are
independent of any government, political ideology, economic
interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership
and individual donations. We believe that acting in solidarity
and compassion with people everywhere can change our
societies for the better.
© Amnesty International 2022
Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons
(attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org
Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this
material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence.
First published in 2022
by Amnesty International Ltd
Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW, UK
Cover photo:
“Scream the mind”, artwork by Karrar Español, an Iraqi artist detained in Lithuania,
outside of the Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Centre, 2022.
“It is very difficult when
the artist sees his paintings enjoying more freedom than him. This is very
difficult. Now my paintings are in every country, in every city, and inside every house, but I am still in
prison.”
© Karrar Español
Index: EUR 53/5735/2022
Original language: English
amnesty.org
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
METHODOLOGY
1. BACKGROUND: VICTIMS OF POLITICAL GAMES
2. CODIFYING ILLEGALITY: BORDER PUSHBACKS, DENIAL OF ASYLUM AND ARBITRARY DETENTION
INTRODUCED BY LAW
2.1 PUSHBACKS AT THE LITHUANIA-BELARUS BORDER
2.2 DENIAL OF ACCESS TO ASYLUM FOR PEOPLE IN DETENTION
4
7
9
14
16
19
3. ARBITRARY DETENTION
3.1 UNLAWFUL NATURE OF DETENTION
3.2 DETENTION WITHOUT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
23
23
25
4. ABYSMAL CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
4.1 INHUMAN AND DEGRADING CONDITIONS
4.2 INADEQUATE ACCESS TO MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
27
28
33
5. TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT AND PUNISHMENT OF DETAINEES, INCLUDING SEXUAL
HUMILIATION AND VIOLENCE
5.1 PUNISHING PEACEFUL PROTESTS AND OTHER LAWFUL BEHAVIOURS
5.2 MAKING LIFE IMPOSSIBLE TO FORCE RETURNS
36
36
43
6. PROCESS DESIGNED TO FAIL PEOPLE
6.1 LACK OF INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL DECISION-MAKERS
6.2 LEGAL AID SYSTEM: A SHAM
6.3 DISREGARD FOR DUE PROCESS
46
46
47
51
7. OPAQUE ROLE OF EU INSTITUTIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
56
60
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
3
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0004.png
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“The sad thing is, we are in a dark place, we are going
through a terrible time, and we are hopeless. What hurts the
most is when I follow the news and see how the world shows
solidarity with Ukrainian refugees, and how they treat us
here. I am very sad about what is happening there in Ukraine
and what the Russian dictator is doing. Only people are
affected by the war and I feel for them, because we are the
ones who have experienced these moments of war and
destruction, and that is very painful”.
“Coman”,
young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, Lithuania, interviewed in March 2022
“In Iraq, we hear about human rights and women’s rights in
Europe. But here there are no rights.”
“Dilba”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai,
Lithuania, interviewed in March 2022
A spontaneous protest unfolded on 1 March 2022 at a migration detention centre in Medininkai, Lithuania.
The people held there
mostly from the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa -- demonstrated against their
abusive treatment and poor conditions of detention. They expressed bitter disappointment at the stark
contrast between their own arbitrary detention in centres not fit for habitation and the warm welcome given
to Ukrainians, many housed in clean and safe accommodations in Lithuania.
In response, the authorities sent an anti-riot squad to the centre the next day. Women and men detained
there would later recount how guards beat detainees with hands, batons and tasers; handcuffed and
dragged them from their “rooms”
in flimsy modular containers; sexually humiliated a group of Black women
who were forced outside into the cold, semi-naked, with hands tied; and arrested and removed some people
from the centre. Victims and witnesses to the violent police action told Amnesty International of the resulting
physical and emotional trauma
and reiterated the nagging question of why they had been treated
inhumanely, while others fleeing the conflict in Ukraine had been received in Lithuania with kindness and all
forms of material support.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
4
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
This report is a catalogue of that disparate treatment suffered by refugees and migrants who crossed from
Belarus in 2021-2022 at the hands of Lithuanian border guards, the public security service, detention centre
staff, lawyers, and other state and European actors. The human rights violations documented by Amnesty
International include violent pushbacks; torture and other ill-treatment, including sexual violence and
humiliation; excessive use of force, including by employing dogs; arbitrary detention in appalling and
unhealthy conditions; denial of access to asylum; lack of effective legal aid in sham asylum procedures; a
near total lack of access to justice and no access, to date, to an effective remedy. People belonging to racial
and ethnic minorities, especially Black men and women, recounted how they had been subjected to overtly
racist slurs and other forms of racially motivated intimidation and harassment by guards. Such abuses
continue to this day.
Between November 2021 and May 2022, Amnesty International conducted dozens of interviews with
refugees and migrants affected by laws, policies and practices adopted in Lithuania in response to people
attempting to enter from Belarus. In March 2022, a delegation travelled to Lithuania, where they visited two
detention centres managed by the Lithuanian State Border Guard Service (Foreigners’ Registration Centres
at Medininkai and Kybartai), conducted interviews with people held there, spoke with relevant authorities
and representatives of humanitarian and civil society organizations, and documented the profoundly negative
impact of these measures on the rights of thousands of women, men and children.
The Lithuanian authorities used national security narratives to justify the adoption of a state of emergency in
2021 and of legal “reforms” and practices purposely aimed at preventing people from entering Lithuanian
territory to seek asylum. The amendments introduced special rules that were and continue to be in explicit
breach of international and EU law, including the principle of
non-refoulement,
the right to seek asylum and
freedom from arbitrary detention.
Refugees and migrants consistently reported that Lithuanian authorities used deception and violent methods
to carry out pushbacks. Several people recounted beatings by border guards with batons, and some reported
the use of tasers on people, as well as the seizure of money and mobile phones. “Haidar”,
an Iraqi man,
recounted that when his group got to the border, the Lithuanian border guards took phones and money from
some of the men, put the group in military vehicles, “hit people with tasers and beat them with sticks”
and
eventually forced them to cross a river with chest high water as they were forced back toward Belarus.
Some people managed to enter the territory of Lithuania. But they were denied access to asylum procedures
and automatically detained. The Migration Department under Lithuania’s Ministry
of Interior invoked
“extraordinary situations” or a “state of emergency” to refuse asylum claims from people who were not
“authorised” to enter Lithuania under the new legislation. The border guards exercised total discretion in
deciding who might gain access to the territory.
The overwhelming majority of people in Lithuania’s Foreigners’ Registration Centres were detained under the
new legislation in a regime of “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement”, rather than under
a formal detention order from a court. Depriving people of their liberty beyond the close confines of the
centres amounts to detention as defined under EU and international law. By using the legal fiction of
depicting detention as “temporary accommodation”, Lithuanian lawmakers
sought to deprive refugees and
migrants of key procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention.
People who arrived from Belarus starting in July 2021 were detained in various types of facilities, including
tents and containers near border crossing points, nearly all of which were inadequate and substandard.
Many people were moved to the Foreigners’ Registration Centers, including at Medininkai and Kybartai,
which itself was a former prison for criminal convicts. These centres were highly militarized environments,
surrounded by walls, fences and barbed wire; guarded in very intrusive ways, sometimes by armed military
personnel and dogs. People were subjected to strict limitations on movement and the vast majority could not
leave the centres, or even move freely within them.
The two centres were profoundly inadequate for human habitation, especially for prolonged periods of
detention. The facilities were severely overcrowded for several months. There was a conspicuous lack of
privacy, and people complained about the quality of food and water, and of the extremely limited spaces and
opportunities for learning and recreational activities. People also lacked access to adequate medical and
mental health care. The conditions in both centres amounted to torture or other ill-treatment under
international and EU law.
In addition to the violent raid on 2 March 2022, allegations and evidence of unlawful use of force, including
through the employment of tear gas and other special equipment, had already emerged in November 2021,
after guards intervened following earlier protests in Medininkai.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
5
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
The centre guards also put pressure on refugees and migrants in detention to accept “voluntary” returns to
their home countries. This included forms of harassment and humiliation, such as the use of profoundly
offensive and discriminatory slurs to address racialized people, particularly Black men and women. Returns
under coercion and duress cannot be labelled as “voluntary.”
The Lithuanian authorities have deprived people of any real possibility of putting an end to their ordeal by
having their asylum claims fairly assessed by an independent authority, or by receiving effective legal advice
to support them in their asylum or deportation procedure. Asylum procedures have been a sham, plagued
by legal and practical impediments that deprive asylum-seekers of any hope of a full and effective asylum
procedure.
The Migration Department contracted and paid state-sponsored lawyers to represent asylum-seekers and
migrants in proceedings before and against the Migration Department, which itself made the decisions on
first and, for several months, second instance asylum claims. Beyond the risk of a conflict of interest, the
procurement procedure appears to have been based only on cost, incentivizing law firms to provide the most
minimal service, if any
rather than sufficient, let alone good quality, representation.
People in detention communicated their desperation at the lack of help from trusted lawyers. The vast
majority that requested legal aid had no real interactions with the lawyers who were supposed to provide
them with legal advice and to guide them through the procedures. Most people never saw and spoke with a
lawyer, and only laid eyes on them in superficial asylum proceedings, during which lawyers said nothing or
very little. Some asylum-seekers recounted how their lawyers sided with the Migration Department over the
interests of their client.
Authorities routinely failed to notify asylum-seekers in a timely manner so they could prepare before their
interviews. Asylum applicants also were not provided with sufficient time or adequate interpretation to
actively participate and make their case during the brief interviews and were obstructed in their attempts to
retrieve evidence to substantiate their claims, for example from their own mobile phones that had been taken
from them.
The European Union has provided Lithuania with various forms of assistance, including through the
deployment of EU agencies on the ground and financial support from EU funds. By perpetrating systematic
human rights violations through “push-back or lock up” legislation, policies and practices, Lithuania has
breached EU laws, but has been lauded by EU actors for holding the line on migration.
This calls into question the responsibility of EU bodies, in particular the European Border and Coast Guard
(Frontex) and the European Commission. The former has provided assistance to Lithuania in ways that may
have facilitated the commission of human rights violations, as Frontex has not conditioned its support upon
respect for human rights. The latter has forfeited its role of guardian of the Union’s Treaties by choosing
political expediency over the duty to ensure compliance with EU legislation. The EU must take immediate
action to hold Lithuania accountable and help it set a course correction.
One year after the introduction of the “emergency” legislation, and policies and practices that have caused
so much misery and suffering, it is time for Lithuania to turn the page. This should include decisive action to:
restore immediately the liberty of people still arbitrarily detained; suspend returns and readmit those
unlawfully removed; ensure access to fair and effective procedures to all those wishing to seek asylum,
including re-opening the cases of those asylum-seekers whose applications were unfairly rejected; provide
compensation, as well as physical and psychological rehabilitation, to those who suffered torture, ill-
treatment and other harm; ensure that people in detention, including women, children and LGBTQ persons,
are protected from gender-based violence and receive the care they require if subjected to sexual assault or
humiliation; initiate immediately impartial and thorough investigations into the abusive treatment of people in
detention and at the border, as well as of violations of due process in asylum and migration proceedings;
immediately repeal all legislation adopted in 2021-2022 that derogated from human rights obligations; and
provide an effective remedy to all person who suffered human rights violations at the hands of Lithuanian
state actors and their agents.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
6
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
METHODOLOGY
The findings of this report are based on field and desk research carried out between November 2021 and
May 2022. Research visits were conducted in Lithuania in March 2022 and in Iraq in December 2021.
Extensive remote interviews and desk research between November 2021 and May 2022 provided critical
additional information. Interviews were conducted with 31 people detained in Lithuania as well as 16 people
who had been pushed back to Belarus by the Lithuanian authorities.
During the field research in Lithuania from 8-11 March 2022, a delegation from Amnesty International
visited two detention facilities managed by the Lithuanian State Border Guard Service (hereafter, SBGS or
Border Guard Service): the Medininkai and Kybartai Foreigners’ Registration Centres (FRCs). In Medininkai
and Kybartai FRCs, the centres’ management restricted the delegation’s access to certain areas of sectors of
the FRCs. In Medininkai, the FRC’s management limited the time for and interrupted interviews several
times and well ahead of the agreed timeframe, despite prior arrangements.
The SBGS denied
a request for access to a third detention facility, the Pabradė FRC.
Amnesty International acknowledges the cooperation of the Lithuanian authorities, including the International
Cooperation Group of the Ministry of the Interior, the International Cooperation Board of the SBGS, and the
administrations of the Medininkai and Kybartai FRCs in granting Amnesty International’s researchers access
to the two centres and in responding to several requests for information.
In total, 47 refugees and migrants were interviewed, including 31 men and 16 women. They originally came
from Iraq, Syria, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Guinea. The interviews
included 12 refugees and migrants interviewed in Medininkai, and 10 people in Kybartai at the time of the
research delegation’s visit. In addition,
researchers conducted extensive remote interviews between March
and May 2022
with another 10 refugees and migrants detained in Lithuania’s FRCs. Many people
detained
in Lithuania were transferred between different detention centres, and individual interviews often revealed
information on the conditions in multiple detention facilities.
Amnesty International conducted a research visit to Iraq in December 2021 and interviewed people who
were pushed back to Belarus by different European Union (EU) member states and eventually returned to
Iraq. In Iraq, 14 people reported having been pushed back to Belarus by Lithuanian authorities before
returning to Iraq from Minsk. In addition, two remote interviews were conducted in March 2022 with
individuals who were still in Belarus after experiencing pushbacks from Lithuania.
Most interviews with refugees and migrants took place in English, French or Arabic without interpretation,
others were carried out in Arabic or Kurdish with the assistance of interpreters.
In Lithuania, the Amnesty International delegation met with the Head of the Migration Board of the
Lithuanian State Border Guard Service, the Head of the Medininkai FRC, the Head of the Investigation Unit
of the Medininkai FRC, the Head of the Kybartai FRC, and the Head of Security of the Kybartai FRC. A
meeting was also held with the Lithuanian Parliamentary (Seimas) Ombudsperson and the Head of the
Human Rights Division of the Seimas Ombudsperson’s Office.
Prior to the visit, researchers exchanged
several written and phone communications with the International Cooperation Board of the Border Guard
Service. Where relevant, the content of those communications is reflected in this report.
Representatives of civil society organisations and activists in Lithuania provided important additional
information. These organisations included the Lithuanian Red Cross, the Lithuanian Human Rights
Monitoring Institute, the Lithuanian Refugee Council, the Sienos Grupe (“border group”), Médecins Sans
Frontières (MSF), and Diversity Development Group. Researchers also remotely interviewed the Secretary
General of the Lithuanian Bar Association and consulted with Lithuanian legal experts and lawyers.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
7
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0008.png
Formal written requests for official information were submitted to the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior (2 May
2022), the management of the Medininkai FRC (3 May 2022) and the management of the Kybartai FRC (3
May 2022). The management of both Medininkai and Kybartai FRCs provided partial responses on 16 May
2022. The Lithuanian Ministry of Interior also responded through several communications received on 6, 8
and 10 June 2022. Where relevant, the content of these responses is reflected in this report.
Amnesty International also submitted a request for information to the lawyer whose firm was contracted by
the Ministry of Interior (the Migration Department) to provide state-guaranteed legal aid in asylum matters for
people detained in Lithuania’s FRCs. No
response had been received by the time of publication of this
report.
This report includes legal analysis of Lithuanian legislation, in particular various versions of the Lithuanian
Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, which governs most of the legal aspects related to the treatment of
refugees and migrants detained in or pushed back from Lithuania. In addition, researchers reviewed
numerous detention decisions and rejections of asylum applications issued by the Migration Department, as
well as decisions and other documentation from the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court.
Amnesty International approached the European Border and Coast Guard (Frontex) on 13 May 2022 with a
request for information relating to the agency’s operations in Lithuania; no
reply was received. On 22 May
2022, a formal written request was submitted to Frontex for access to documents and information. This
included requests addressed to Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Officer. Due to delays in the processing of the
request by Frontex, no reply was provided in time for inclusion in this report.
On 31 May 2022, Amnesty International approached the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA, formerly EASO) with
a request for information relating to the agency’s operations in Lithuania. The agency replied
via email on 7
June 2022.
Research materials also included various videos taken by detainees between March and May 2022, showing
conditions of detention or specific incidents, in particular in Medininkai FRC. The videos have been verified
as authentic.
The names of refugees and migrants interviewed for this report have been changed and other identifying
characteristics have not been included to preserve their anonymity and prevent the risk of retaliation by the
authorities. Most of the people who cooperated in the research remained in detention in Lithuania at the time
of publication and instances of retaliation have been previously reported.
Precisely because of this risk, Amnesty International wishes to thank those brave people in detention who
decided nonetheless to share their testimonies. As one person recounted:
“At first I was afraid to speak with you, but let them do what
they want, at the end of the day it’s a prison, they have
already broken us inside… [but] I care about your report, it’s
important.”
“Coman”, Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
8
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0009.png
1. BACKGROUND:
VICTIMS OF POLITICAL
GAMES
Thousands of people, mostly from the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, began arriving in mid-2021 at
the European Union’s (EU) borders with Belarus with the intention of seeking asylum in various EU
countries, including Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. Many people sought to escape persecution, other serious
human rights violations, or precarious living conditions and had been lured into Belarus by the Belarusian
government and Belarusian “tour operators” who sold them a migration story that was too good to be
true.
Instead of a path to safety, what they met at the EU’s borders were pushbacks –
illegal, often violent and
repeated
from the EU to Belarus, arbitrary detention often under appalling conditions, and cruel and
degrading treatment. It was a “welcome” in stark contrast to the benevolence with which Ukrainian nationals
were received in the EU in 2022. The abuses for those who crossed from Belarus in 2021 continue to this
day, including in Lithuania. Both Lithuania and Belarus, as well as Poland, Latvia and the wider EU, bear
responsibility for playing games with the lives and safety of these people.
Starting in early 2021, Belarusian tour operators and others facilitating the journey to Belarus for a fee began
advertising attractive “packages” that included
regular entry into Belarus and the empty promise of safe and
easy access to EU countries, including Lithuania, where people seeking asylum hoped to eventually find a
safe haven. Once in Belarus, these refugees and migrants realised they had been victims of a scheme, and
there would be no easy pathway into the EU. Ultimately, crossing irregularly into the EU would be the only
path available to people too scared to return to their countries of origin and denied access to asylum in
Belarus.
1
Between late 2021 and early 2022, Amnesty International collected testimonies from people that detailed
coercion and extortion at the hands of Belarusian authorities who pushed refugees and migrants out of
Belarus and towards the borders of EU countries, including Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, often violently and
against their will:
“Eventually, they [Belarusian soldiers] let us out [of a truck without windows] in a place and told us to make a
line to cross to somewhere [we did not know] ... We arrived to a river and [the Belarusian soldier] told me to tell
everyone to cross the river. I tried to argue a bit saying how cold it was... I even offered to pay money not to be
forced. The officer told me it was an order, he made us all go into the river. Once I put my legs in the river, I felt
like I was freezing, my heart was freezing. We had to move on, we crossed and walked about 500 meters. It was a
swamp and very dangerous and risky. We kept going and then we saw the Lithuanian flag... [A Lithuanian border
guard] asked us why you came here? We told him that the Belarusian army forced us to cross the river and he
brought a camera and told me to repeat what I said in front of the camera”.
“Amir”, Syrian man pushed back to Belarus, interviewed in March 2022
1
Amnesty International,
Poland: Cruelty Not Compassion, at
Europe’s Other Borders,
EUR 37/5460/2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur37/5460/2022/en/
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
9
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0010.png
“They keep saying we came illegally, but we didn’t know. The Belarusian police took
my passport, then told us to
go this way. So why is everyone saying we are illegal, we don’t know.”
“Agalvili”, Sri Lankan woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
People from around the world had become the unsuspecting victims of a cynical scheme, and subsequently
of violence and inhumane treatment at the hands of the Belarusian government.
EU leaders described this as a “hybrid threat” orchestrated by the Belarusian authorities in response to the
EU sanctions introduced after widespread human rights violations following the 2020 presidential election,
the official outcome of which was widely disputed and led to mass peaceful protests.
2
Instead of offering protection to people fleeing serious human rights violations in their countries of origin and
then ill-treatment by Belarusian forces, the Lithuanian authorities responded by further instrumentalising
refugees and migrants in a political debate with Belarus, and fostered a political and legal environment that
condemned the victims of
Belarus’ act of bad faith.
Lithuanian and EU policy makers routinely portrayed
refugees and migrants as the “weapons” of
a
“hybrid attack” by the Belarusian regime,
3
overlooking the fact
that many had genuine protection needs; that they had been unwitting
victims of the Lukashenka regime’s
lies; and that they had been forced into EU countries often through violent coercion.
4
By consistently
describing refugees and migrants as “weapons”, Lithuanian authorities dehumanised them and portrayed
them as a threat to national security. They used this narrative to repeatedly declare states of emergency and
to justify legal “reforms” and practices aimed at preventing people from entering Lithuanian territory and
seeking asylum. These measures ultimately gravely undermined the right not to be subjected to
refoulement
5
and the right to seek asylum, and had a profoundly negative impact on other human rights.
In the words of the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliamentary) Ombudsperson:
“At a time when we are talking about migrants as a weapon, as an attack, we are already humiliating these
people. We look at them only as an instrument and therefore there is no room for an individualized approach,
there is no room to look at individual stories, individual circumstances. Here, too, we have practices that are
incompatible with our international obligations: these are the pushbacks that take place without taking into
account individual circumstances, without the right to apply for asylum, as well as the so-called
‘accommodation’ in Foreigners’ Registration Centres that is de facto detention. Because of [this narrative],
concepts seem to be washed out. Migrants seem to be seen by society as different, less important, less
deserving, and [a part of the society] becomes quite willing to tolerate the restriction of their rights
including
disproportionate, unnecessary restrictions. Stepping aside from our values is detrimental to us, as a society as a
whole, and normalization of disregard for international and constitutional norms is in part exactly what those
unfriendly regimes are pursuing with their hybrid strategies.”
6
In this dehumanising context, on 2 July 2021 the Lithuanian government declared an “extraordinary
situation” due to a “mass influx” of third country nationals.
7
On 13 July, the Lithuanian parliament (the
“Seimas”) approved a resolution portraying them as “participating in criminal activities” within the “hybrid
aggression”.
8
The same day, the Seimas approved the first of a series of regressive legislative reforms of the
Lithuanian “Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners” (hereafter, Law on Foreigners).
9
The law aimed to curtail
the right to seek asylum and led to numerous human rights abuses, including violations of the principle of
Amnesty International, Belarus/EU: New evidence of brutal violence from Belarusian forces against asylum-seekers and migrants facing pushbacks from the EU, (Press
release, 20 December 2022), www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/12/belarus-eu-new-evidence-of-brutal-violence-from-belarusian-forces-against-asylum-seekers-
and-migrants-facing-pushbacks-from-the-eu.
3
In July 2021, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius
Landsbergis started using such terminology at an EU’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, where he declared:
"When refugees are used as a political weapon in order to change a country’s policy… I will talk to my colleagues in order for
the European Union to have a common
strategy”. His words were later echoed by Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, who said: "To use migrants
as a weapon, pushing people against the borders, is unacceptable."
See Robin Emmott, Sabine Siebold and Andrius Sytas, “Lithuania, EU say Belarus using refugees as
'political weapon'”,
Reuters,
12 July 202, www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-using-refugees-weapon-must-face-more-eu-sanctions-lithuania-says-2021-07-12.
4
Amnesty International,
Belarus/EU: New evidence of brutal violence from Belarusian forces against asylum-seekers and migrants facing pushbacks from the EU,
(previously cited).
5
The international legal obligation of
non-refoulement
prohibits states from transferring people to a place or jurisdiction where they would be at real risk of persecution
or other serious human rights violations, including torture or other ill treatment.
6
Interview given to �½inių radijas on 22 December 2021, “Ar gindamasi nuo hibridinės atakos Lietuva nepažeidžia žmogaus teisių?”,
www.ziniuradijas.lt/laidos/svarbus-
kiekvienas/ar-gindamasi-nuo-hibridines-atakos-lietuva-nepazeidzia-zmogaus-teisiu?soundtrack=1 .
7
Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Resolution No 517 of the of 2 July 2021, Dėl valstybės lygio ekstremaliosios situacijos paskelbimo ir valstybės lygio
ekstremaliosios situacijos operacijų vadovo paskyrimo (On the Declaration
of the Extraordinary situation and the Appointment of the State Commander of National
Emergency Operations), TAR, 30/07/2021, No. 15235, e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/ad73a4c1dc0011eb866fe2e083228059?jfwid=-1cefbqu9c8.
8
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, Resolution XIV-505 2021-07-13,
Resolution on Countering Hybrid Aggression,
e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/1a84e440e49c11eb866fe2e083228059?jfwid=tcgd2hdge
9
IX-2206, Republic of Lithuania, Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners (LSoF). The text of the law is available in English at: https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/d7890bc0fa2e11e4877aa4fe9d0c24b0?jfwid=
2
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
10
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0011.png
non-refoulement,
collective expulsions, denial of access to asylum, arbitrary detention, inhumane treatment,
and denial of due process.
Invoking these reforms, the Ministry of Interior instructed the Lithuanian State and Border Guard Service
(SBGS) to reject third-country nationals at the border. As of 3 August 2021
immediately after a visit to
Lithuania by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson
Lithuanian law enforcement
authorities started pushing back refugees and migrants who reached Lithuania’s borders, in violation of
international law.
10
In a disturbing display of solidarity with Lithuania, Johansson had publicly congratulated
the Lithuanian government during her trip for its “exemplary” reaction to the “threat” and emphasized the
need to “make clear that there is no free access to the EU territory” and “to prevent non-authorized
access
to the Schengen area.”
11
Although pushbacks are illegal under international law, as of 11 June 2022
Lithuania has pushed back refugees and migrants at least 10,023 times, including 8,106 times in 2021 and
1,917 in 2022.
12
Prior to August, in 2021 the Lithuanian authorities had recorded the entry of at least 4,000 refugees and
migrants in the country.
13
Virtually all those detected by the authorities were automatically detained in
several facilities across the country. Since then, only a small percentage of those who reached Lithuania’s
borders have been exceptionally allowed into the country, and in most cases, under the new rules, they also
have been automatically detained. Many spent weeks held at border crossing posts, in temporary detention
facilities, or on military bases, such
as Rūdininkai, before being transferred to other detention facilities.
As
the authorities restricted people’s access to asylum and undermined asylum procedures, in 2021 only
451 people received asylum out of 3,751 decisions.
14
The situation seemed to improve in 2022, as 138
decisions to grant asylum were issued out of 425 decisions (as of 10 June 2022).
15
In 2021-2022 (as of 29
May), 1,080 people were forcibly returned from Lithuania to their countries of origin or signed “voluntary”
return papers.
16
The vast majority of these refugees and migrants was locked up in overcrowded detention facilities for
prolonged and repeatedly extended periods of time.
As of 6 June 2022, 2,647 people, including at least 592 minors,
17
remained detained in Lithuania, most
arbitrarily. People are living in degrading conditions and suffering inhumane treatment, unlawful and
excessive use of force and harassment at the hands of Lithuanian guards. Many are in despair and hopeless,
with no access to a fair asylum procedure or a fair process to challenge their detention, and with no idea of
when or how their ordeal will come to an end. Indeed, as many people were approaching the end of their six-
month maximum period of detention in early 2022, Lithuania had already approved new legislation in
December 2021 further extending the maximum periods of detention for migrants and asylum-seekers.
18
The Lithuanian authorities invoked an “extraordinary situation” or a state of emergency to justify unjustifiable
measures, such as the pushbacks and arbitrary detention of thousands of people. At the level of public
debate, to make those measures appear more palatable, Lithuanian and European leaders suggested that
the people attempting to access the EU from Belarus were not “real” refugees,
19
a highly problematic
characterisation. According to international and EU law, every person, irrespective of the manner of their
arrival, has a right to seek asylum at any country’s border and a right to have their case adequately
registered, processed and assessed
based on the individual’s personal circumstances. No state can
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),
Extraordinary responses: legislative changes in Lithuania,
2021, https://ecre.org/ecre-legal-note-11-extraordinary-
responses-legislative-changes-in-lithuania-2021/
11
Visit of Ylva Johansson, European Commissioner, to Lithuania: joint press briefing with Ingrida
Šimonytė,
Lithuanian Prime Minister, Vilnius, 2 August 2021,
https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-209802
12
"Per parą pasieniečiai į Lietuvą neįleido 25 migrantų, iš viso jau apgręžta 10 tūkst. atėjūnų",
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
11 June 2022,
www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1716809/per-para-pasienieciai-i-lietuva-neileido-25-migrantu-is-viso-jau-apgrezta-10-tukst-atejunu.
13
"Lithuania takes a tougher line on the migrant influx from Belarus",
Euronews,
03 August 2021, www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/08/03/eu-pledges-aid-to-
lithuania-as-migrants-pour-in-from-belarus.
14
Including 2768 decisions to refuse asylum and 532 decisions to “terminate the examination of the asylum application”. Ministry
of Interior, email to Amnesty
International, 10 June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International.
15
Including 197 decisions
to refuse asylum and 90 decisions to “terminate the examination of the asylum application”. Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty
International, 10 June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International.
16
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International.
17
The number of minors could be underestimated, as the age of certain detainees is disputed. Data extracted from: Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6
June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International.
18
Nerijus Adomaitis, "Lithuania extends migrant detention limit to a year",
Reuters,
23 December 2021, reuters.com/world/europe/lithuania-extends-migrant-detention-
limit-year-2021-12-23/
19
“Serious doubts arise, as to whether the irregular migrants at issue fulfil the criteria containęd in the definition of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
of 1951.” Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, “Reply to the letter of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of
Europe”,
24 August 2021,
https://rm.coe.int/reply-of-the-prime-minister-of-the-republic-of-lithuania-ms-ingrida-si/1680a39439;
Andrius Balčiūnas, “Situation in Belarus closer to military action
than migrant crisis
– Finnish FM”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
17 November 2021, https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1543747/situation-in-belarus-
closer-to-military-action-than-migrant-crisis-finnish-fm; Visit of Ylva Johansson, European Commissioner, to Lithuania: joint press briefing
with Ingrida
Šimonytė,
Lithuanian Prime Minister, Vilnius, 2 August 2021, https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-209802
10
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
11
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0012.png
establish whether an individual is a refugee before a fair and effective asylum system has determined their
individual case.
The assertion that the people pushed back to Belarus or locked
in Lithuania’s detention centres may be
generally undeserving of international protection is also baseless. Many of the people interviewed by
Amnesty International presented compelling reasons for their fear of persecution and/or the real risk of
serious human rights violations
if returned to their country of origin. “In Syria I am wanted to do the military
[service], but I don’t want to fight”, one man recounted.
20
“When I was in Iraq, I worked as a journalist … I
entered the political field in 2015… I was
subjected to several arbitrary arrests, physical torture and
psychological damage due to my political activity”, explained another man, who provided credible evidence
of his activities.
21
A Tamil woman highlighted the risk she would face if returned to
Sri Lanka: “In my
country I had problems before leaving, [which are] not finished. Some people came to my home, tortured us,
said bad words to us because the brother of my mother was in the ‘LTTE’.”
22
Ill-treatment and persecution in their home countries have scarred not only the memories, but also the
bodies of many people held in detention centres, as confirmed by medical organisations operating there.
Since January 2022, when it began providing support in Lithuania, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has
identified over 50 people
among those detained in either Medininkai FRC or Kybartai FRC
who
experienced torture or sexual and gender-based violence in their country of origin before they fled. MSF also
reported having referred protection cases to UNHCR, including psychiatric patients lacking appropriate
care.
23
Some people had travelled and hoped to reach the EU in anticipation of reuniting with family members who
had sought international protection in previous years. “Dilba”, a young Yazidi woman from Iraq, recalled:
“I came from Iraq to go to another country, Germany, because all my family are there –
my mother, father, one
sister and three brothers. But they arrested us here [in Lithuania].”
“Dilba”, Iraqi woman detained
in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Whether for family reunification, fear of persecution or other reasons, a few thousand women, men and
children have knocked at Europe’s doors in the last year, coming through Belarus, in the hope of receiving
asylum and living a dignified life. This report details how the Lithuanian authorities have failed them by
responding to their legitimate expectations with pushbacks; forced returns; torture and other cruel and
degrading treatment; arbitrary detention and a range of other abuses.
DISCRIMINATORY DOUBLE STANDARDS IN TREATMENT OF PEOPLE SEEKING PROTECTION
“It’s going to be worse now [after seeing the treatment promised to Ukrainians], because people here cannot
take it anymore. We are under horrible pressure [to go back to our countries]. Is this the humanity they are
talking about? We also want to help people coming from Ukraine, because we already saw that, we already lived
that, we already felt that.”
“Marwa”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed
in March 2022
The ongoing arbitrary detention and abusive treatment of people who crossed from Belarus into Lithuania
and other EU member states, including Poland and Latvia, stand in stark contrast to the open border
approach and welcoming attitude displayed by the EU and these governments toward people fleeing from
Ukraine in 2022. The remarkable difference in treatment shows that an approach that restricts, rather than
respects, the rights of refugees and migrants is a matter of political choice, rather than a necessary
“emergency” response to increased arrivals. It also reveals the extent to which the EU and its member states
have applied double standards in their treatment of migrants and refugees based on their race, ethnicity,
nationality or origins.
Interview in person with “Saleh” (name changed for security reasons), Syrian man detained in Kybartai, March 2022.
Interview by voice
call with “Bahir” (name changed for security reasons), Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, March 2022.
22
Interview by voice call with “Sabitha” (name changed for security reasons), Sri Lankan woman detained in Pabradė, April 2022.
LTTE refers to the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (or Tamil Tigers), an armed group long involved in Sri Lanka’s internal armed conflict with the Sri Lankan government
forces. Since the end of the conflict
in 2009, individuals belonging to the Tamil ethnic minority continue to face systematic discrimination in Sri Lanka, and Tamils with real or suspected affiliations with
the LTTE have been subjected to prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment.
23
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF),
People detained in Lithuania are experiencing abuse, violence and mental health distress,
(Press release, 6 May 2022),
https://www.msf.org/prolonged-detention-over-2500-migrants-lithuania-must-end-now
20
21
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
12
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0013.png
EU member states have granted Ukrainian nationals temporary protection and assisted them in addressing
their immediate humanitarian needs, including transportation, access to housing, employment, and
education opportunities. In Lithuania, over 50,000 Ukrainians were registered by late May 2022.
24
Many refugees and migrants in detention centres in Lithuania can easily relate to the plight of people fleeing
a country at war, but their frustration has only grown with the realization of the double standards at play.
Even after months spent in arbitrary detention and being denied access to international protection,
interviewees, including people who fled conflict in their countries of origin, were heartened to see the
Lithuanian government’s responses to Ukrainian
arrivals. But they were equally daunted by the abysmal
differences in treatment, feeling that their liberty was taken from them as a result of a purely racist approach.
“The sad thing is, we are in a dark place, we are going through a terrible time,
and we are hopeless. What hurts
the most is when I follow the news and see how the world shows solidarity with Ukrainian refugees, and how they
treat us here. I am very sad about what is happening there in Ukraine and what the Russian dictator is doing. Only
people are affected by the war and I feel for them, because we are the ones who have experienced these
moments of war and destruction, and that is very painful”.
“Coman”, Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
That realization led in part to a protest at the Medininkai FRC in March 2022 with refugees and migrants
calling for similar accommodations for themselves as those provided to Ukrainians (see section below on “2
March Raid at Medininkai”). Similarly, Amnesty International’s
April 2022 research on refugees and
migrants who crossed into Poland from Belarus in 2021 revealed that people still in detention there also
expressed disappointment and anger at the differential treatment that people fleeing Ukraine enjoyed. Some
people still trying to access Polish territory in March 2022
while people fleeing Ukraine were pouring into
Poland
continued to be violently pushed back to Belarus, often having to live in the border zone area for
days, without food or water.
25
The real potential of how Lithuania and other EU member states can quickly and compassionately respond
to people fleeing conflict and danger is on full view in the context of the Ukraine crisis. While state authorities
have much more to do to ensure the full safety and all required forms of assistance to those fleeing Ukraine,
the contrast with the hostility and abuse by Lithuanian state actors targeting those who have arrived from
Belarus
as reflected in the numerous testimonies in this report
could not be sharper. The Lithuanian and
other EU governments’ approach to protection for those fleeing Ukraine indicates the state’s potential to fulfill
its obligations under EU, international human rights and refugee law
while its approach to refugees and
migrants who crossed from Belarus smacks of racism and hypocrisy
and is marked by serious human
violations, including torture and other ill-treatment.
“It’s not normal that they imprisoned us for 10 months,
because we are from Africa, because we are Black. You
know, I
am a Black woman, it’s not my fault.”
“Ada”, young Cameroonian woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
“Here, they treat us like animals, not like people… They tell us that we have to return to Congo, and that they
don’t need us
here [in Lithuania].”
“Elise”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
“The guard said: ‘We send you in the forest to hunt’… Everything here is racist, they are very racist, all the
guards. When you are sick and ask for an ambulance,
they say only if you faint they call it. We don’t like it here.
Why no one likes black people?”
“Josephine”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
Lietuvos Statistika, “Karo pabėgėliai iš Ukrainos”. (14 June 2022),
osp.stat.gov.lt/ukraine-dashboards. More information on social support sevices for Ukrainian
nationals in Lithuania can be found on the website of the Municipality of Vilnius at https://vilnius.lt/en/2022/03/26/ukrainian-war-refugees-in-lithuania-what-social-
support-are-they-entitled-to.
25
Amnesty International, Poland: Cruelty Not Compassion, at Europe’s Other Borders, (previously cited).
24
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
13
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0014.png
2. CODIFYING
ILLEGALITY: BORDER
PUSHBACKS, DENIAL OF
ASYLUM AND ARBITRARY
DETENTION INTRODUCED
BY LAW
Following the declaration of an “extraordinary situation” due to a “mass influx” of third country nationals on
2 July 2021,
26
the Lithuanian parliament (the “Seimas”) amended its Law on Foreigners several times
(including major legislative reforms in July, August and December 2021). The reforms openly stripped the
law of safeguards ensuring refugees’ and migrants’ rights, including
the prohibitions on
refoulement
27
and
collective expulsion, the right to seek and access asylum, and the freedom from arbitrary detention.
The amendments introduced special rules that are now codified in Chapter X
2
of the Law on Foreigners, and
that apply
“in the event of declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or a declaration of an emergency
due to a ‘mass influx’ of foreigners”. The most problematic provisions are in explicit breach of international
and EU law that safeguards the rights of refugees and migrants. In particular, they include rules imposing
the denial of access to asylum and automatic detention both for people who have submitted an asylum
application and those considered irregular migrants. In practice, the “emergency” rules codified:
the practice of pushbacks at the border (see section 2.1 in this report)
the denial of access to asylum procedures for people who entered the country in an irregular manner
(section 2.2), and
a blanket policy of automatic and therefore arbitrary detention both for people seeking asylum and
those considered to be irregular migrants (section 3.1)
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No 517 of 2 July 2021, Dėl valstybės lygio ekstremaliosios situacijos paskelbimo ir valstybės lygio ekstremaliosios
situacijos operacijų vadovo paskyrimo (On the Declaration of the Extraordinary situation and the Appointment of the State Commander
of National Emergency
Operations), TAR, 30/07/2021, No. 15235, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/ad73a4c1dc0011eb866fe2e083228059?jfwid=-1cefbqu9c8
27
The practice of transferring someone to a place or jurisdiction where they would be at real risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations, including
torture or other ill treatment.
26
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
14
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0015.png
In February 2022, the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court questioned the legality of certain
“emergency measures” introduced in 2021 and submitted
a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Court is called to decide on the legality under EU law of
Lithuanian rules that have prevented people from seeking asylum, and allowed Lithuanian authorities to
justify detention of asylum-seekers solely on the basis of their irregular entry during times that the
government labels as “emergency” situations.
The decision is imminent at the time of publication of this report, but the Advocate General of the CJEU,
Nicholas Emiliou, has already anticipated a ruling that would restore legality under EU law and fundamental
rights frameworks.
28
The Advocate General found the rules in Lithuania to be contrary to the right to seek
asylum, the principle of
non-refoulement,
29
and the right to liberty,
30
as protected respectively under Articles
18, 19 and 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Advocate General also found that “exceptional
circumstances” do not permit derogation from EU rules on asylum that safeguard
those rights.
Although these rules were supposed to apply in situations of “emergency”, in practice, they were still the
norm at the time of writing, about a year after their introduction. They have been applied continuously since
their introduction in July
2021 to date. Following the declaration of the “extraordinary situation” in July 2021,
the Lithuanian Parliament (“the Seimas”) declared its first-ever “state of emergency” on 9 November 2021
31
which was repeatedly extended, aside from a short break in January and February 2022, when Lithuania
reintroduced a state of emergency following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even during the break between
states of emergency, Lithuanian authorities continued to apply the “emergency legislation” to (non-
Ukrainian) refugees and migrants. This is despite a relatively modest average number of arrivals from
Belarus. During the peaks, there were 93 daily arrivals from Belarus detected on average in July 2021
32
and
those numbers plummeted to approximately 12 daily arrivals detected on average in 2022 (as of early
June).
33
These numbers are far from constituting a “mass influx of foreigners”.
Under international law a state of emergency allows a state to restrict certain human rights in extreme
circumstances where there is
a “threat to the life of the nation”.
34
No such threat exists in Lithuania where
the authorities have attempted to cynically exploit such exceptional powers to target certain groups of
refugees and migrants. Even where such a state of emergency is properly declared, states are only provided
leeway to implement measures “that are limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the
situation.”
35
In addition, they can last no longer than is strictly necessary.
36
Plainly the measures introduced
by Lithuania fail these requirements because they are not justified by the exigencies of the situation.
The Advocate General of the CJEU also confirmed this view by opining that the situation in Lithuania could
not justify the state’s derogation from EU law
37
: “without wanting to minimize the seriousness of the situation
facing Lithuania at its border, such a situation does not, in my view, fall under the ‘serious internal
disturbances affecting public order’.”
38
Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
ECLI:EU:C:2022:431, 2 June 2022, eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CC0072.
The CJEU’s
preliminary ruling is scheduled for release on 30 June 2022.
29
Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), para. 136-142.
30
Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), para. 144-148.
31
Benas Gerdžiūnas, "Lithuania declares state of emergency on border with Belarus",
Euractiv,
10 November 2021, www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-
affairs/news/lithuania-declares-state-of-emergency-on-border-with-belarus/
32
2,900 arrivals from Belarus were detected in Lithuania in July 2021. See Frontex, "Migratory situation at EU’s borders in September:
Increase on the Central
Mediterranean and Western Balkan routes", 15 October 2021, frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/migratory-situation-at-eu-s-borders-in-september-
increase-on-the-central-mediterranean-and-western-balkan-routes-RZRnEH
33
This number is an approximation calculated on the basis of the total number of people detected at the borders of Lithuania (2,028) divided by the number of days
passed between 31 December 2021 and 10 June 2022 (160). The total number of people detected at borders was calculated adding the number of people detected at
borders in 2022 who were pushed back to Belarus as of 10 June (1917) (source LRT.lt, previously cited) to the number of people who were admitted as of 6 June (111)
(source: Lithuanian Ministry of Interior, previously cited). The number is approximate also because people may have been pushed back more than once, therefore the
same person might be counted several times, suggesting that the actual number of daily detected arrivals may be less than 12.
34
Article 4, UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4; Article 15, European Convention on Human Rights.
35
Article 4, UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4, Para. 4.
36
Article 4, UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4.
37
The Advocate General’s Opinion accordingly discards the possibility that Lithuania could derogate to the EU asylum acquis on
the basis of its declaration of a state of
emergency. See, for example, paras. 107-119 and 153. Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2
juin 2022,
(previously cited).
38
Unofficial translation from French; Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), para. 113.
28
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
15
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0016.png
2.1 PUSHBACKS AT THE LITHUANIA-BELARUS BORDER
On 3 August 2021, the Lithuanian authorities started pushing back and denying access to asylum to people
who crossed the Lithuanian border from Belarus.
39
Since then, Lithuania has carried out pushbacks at least
10,023 times,
40
while only 381 people have been exceptionally admitted into Lithuanian territory.
41
The amendments to the Law on Foreigners introduced in August 2021
and still in force today
deprived
anyone crossing in an irregular manner the Lithuanian border from Belarus of the right to apply for asylum.
The new rules prescribed that asylum applications in Lithuania should not be accepted, unless they were
submitted at specific locations or under specific conditions that were, in fact, inaccessible or not feasible for
virtually the totality of those who found themselves at the mercy of the Belarusian immigration scheme.
The amendments provided that “in
the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also
[sic] a declaration of an emergency due to a[n unspecified] mass influx of foreigners”, asylum applications
could only be accepted if lodged “at border crossing points or in transit zones” (at Lithuania’s international
airports) with the State Border Guard Service, or outside of Lithuania at designated diplomatic missions or
consular posts of the Republic of Lithuania.
42
Asylum applications anywhere else in the territory of Lithuania
could only be submitted to the Migration Department under the Ministry of Interior by foreigners who were
authorised to enter (e.g., with a visa). Exceptionally and at its own discretion, the border guard service could
accept the application of a foreigner who crossed Lithuania’s borders irregularly
based on
a person’s
vulnerability or other specific circumstances.
43
These criteria were not further defined, thus leaving this
option to the full discretion of border guards. The Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court has noted that
the border guards’
discretion in this respect is unspecified, and it is impossible to determine its limits and
effectiveness.
44
Data provided by the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior show that the number of those able to access asylum
under these conditions has been extremely limited. For instance, only 15 applications have been accepted at
the Lithuanian Embassy in Minsk, Belarus, including from nationals of Syria, Iraq, Cuba and Russia.
45
In full disregard of Lithuania’s
obligations under international and EU law,
46
these measures attempted to
legalise, under the auspices of national legislation, the practice of pushbacks, i.e. summary expulsions at the
border without any individual assessment of protection needs of people affected or other procedural
guarantees. Pushbacks are always illegal under both international law and EU legislation. They violate the
right to seek asylum and the prohibition against collective expulsions, and breach the non-derogable legal
principle of
non-refoulement,
which absolutely prohibits transferring anyone to a territory where they would
be at real risk of persecution, torture and other ill-treatment, or other serious human rights violations.
47
The
principle of
non-refoulement
is a customary rule of international law. It is also enshrined in a number of
human rights treaties to which Lithuania is a state party, including the UN Refugee Convention of 1951,
48
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
49
European Convention on Human Rights,
50
and UN
Convention Against Torture.
51
Based on an order of the Ministry of Interior adopted following the July 2021 amendments to the LSoF. See ECRE, “Extraordinary
responses: legislative changes in
Lithuania”, 2021 (previously
cited).
40
As the same person might be pushed back several times, this number refers to the pushbacks and not that of people who have been
pushed back. Source: "Per parą
pasieniečiai į Lietuvą neįleido 25 migrantų, iš viso jau apgręžta 10 tūkst. aėjūnų",
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
11 June 2022,
www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1716809/per-para-pasienieciai-i-lietuva-neileido-25-migrantu-is-viso-jau-apgrezta-10-tukst-atejunu.
41
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022
42
Article 140
12
(1) LSoF. Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners (LSoF), IX-2206, (as amended on 11 January 2022), https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/555481808b0d11ecb8b0fe92fb660e20?jfwid=-81nf5j4xh
43
Art. 140
12
(2) LSoF. Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners (LSoF), IX-2206, (as amended on 11 January 2022), https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/555481808b0d11ecb8b0fe92fb660e20?jfwid=-81nf5j4xh
44
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), C-72/22 PPU
1,
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling
pursuant to Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
04 February 2022, para 11.
45
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International
46
See, for example, European Parliament,
Pushbacks at the EU's external borders,
March 2021,
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689368/EPRS_BRI(2021)689368_EN.pdf
47
The prohibition of torture is absolute and has
jus cogens
status under international law, which means it is universally applicable and cannot be subject to derogation.
It is also enshrined in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Convention
Against Torture. When a person is in danger of being tortured, the principle of
non-refoulement
accepts no exceptions on security grounds, European Court of Human
Rights, Grand Chamber:
Chalal v UK
(22414/93), (1996) §80;
Saadi v Italy
(37201/06), (2008) §127;
Ramirez Sanchez v France
(59450/00), (2006) §116;
Labita v Italy
(26772/95), (2000) §119.
48
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33(1): “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee
in any manner whatsoever to the
frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion.”
49
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7.
50
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3.
51
Convention Against Torture, Article 3: “No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State
where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
39
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
16
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0017.png
LITHUANIA’S
PUSHBACKS VIOLATED AN ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
In at least one case, Lithuanian authorities pushed back a group of Cuban asylum-seekers in direct
violation of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that specifically prohibited their
removal from Lithuania. According to the Sienos Group, local activists that have assisted people in
distress at the borders of Lithuania, the Cuban asylum-seekers had been shuttled back and forth via
pushbacks at least eight times at the Lithuania-Belarus border before the court decision.
52
In the course
of these pushbacks, members of the Cuban group suffered injuries and were stranded in the forests in
freezing temperatures, without food or water.
53
On 8 April 2022, the ECtHR issued a legally-binding
54
order for interim measures under Rule 39, ruling that the group should not be removed from Lithuania.
55
In complete disregard of the ECtHR order, Lithuanian border guards pushed the Cuban nationals back to
Belarus on 9 April. The State Border Guard Service reported that the group was pushed back because
the guards could not authenticate the ECtHR decision and the Cuban asylum-seekers themselves could
not provide a copy of it. According to the Sienos Group, its members had produced and shown a copy of
the ECtHR decision to the border guards before the pushback occurred. The Ministry of Interior and the
State Border Guard Service ultimately acknowledged the requirement to enforce the ECtHR decision, but
by then the Cuban group had already been forced out of Lithuania. The Ministry of Interior blamed the
incident on miscommunications between institutions, given that the Lithuanian Minister of Justice had
confirmed that the Lithuanian government had received the ECtHR decision on 8 April, the evening
before the Cuban group was pushed back.
56
On 14 April, five days after the pushback, the State Border
Guard Service reported that the group of Cubans was later readmitted into Lithuania and allowed to apply
for asylum there.
57
PUSHED BACK TO TORTURE IN BELARUS
Asylum-seekers pushed back to Belarus from EU countries were and continue to be subjected to a range of
abuses, including torture and other ill-treatment, at the hands of Belarusian forces.
58
Belarusian forces have
regularly beaten people at the borders with the EU, collected and held people at multiple sites within
Belarus’ “exclusion zone” bordering the EU, and violently and repeatedly forced them to re-attempt
to cross
the borders, often
en masse,
in an inhumane game, playing
with people’s lives. People in the “exclusion
zone”, including families with small children, have been deprived of food, water, shelter and sanitation, and
subjected to theft or extortion for bribes by members of the Belarusian forces. Earlier in 2022 (January
March), people stranded at the border also reported that the Belarusian authorities had stepped up violence
and demands for money, particularly as more and more people were pushed back to Belarus from EU
countries, including Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia.
59
Despite these practices having now been widely
reported, Lithuanian authorities continue pushing people back to torture and other ill-treatment in Belarus,
including brutal physical treatment.
60
“Nevyriausybininkai praneša apie į Lietuvą atvykusius kubiečius: tvirtina – nors turi teisę pasilikti, Lietuvos pasieniečių buvo apgręžti bent aštuonis kartus”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
09 April 2022, https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1668799/nevyriausybininkai-pranesa-apie-i-lietuva-atvykusius-kubiecius-
tvirtina-nors-turi-teise-pasilikti-lietuvos-pasienieciu-buvo-apgrezti-bent-astuonis-kartus?fbclid=IwAR1FWzeNux7pkk7eubqKuPa7fda6weAI6O1zi7fkyK6Pg7q-
haZCrKP4Oto
53
Sienos Group, Facebook post, 9 April 2022, https://www.facebook.com/sienosgrupe/posts/166759539146166.
54
In the
Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey
decision (1999), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that interim measures are legally binding on member states of
the Council of Europe. In particular, failure to comply with interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may entail a breach of Article 34 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. See
Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC]
- 46827/99, Judgment 4.2.2005 [GC], European Court of Human Rights,
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-4000.
55
European Court of Human Rights, Y.R.B. and others v. Lithuania. A copy of the communication of the decision to the applicant
was shared on the Sienos Group’s
facebook page, available at: https://www.facebook.com/sienosgrupe/photos/a.108036638351790/166757745813012/.
56
Margiris Meilutis, "Strasbūro nurodymas migrantų neapsaugojo: keturi kubiečiai išsiųsti iš Lietuvos",
15 min,
10 April 2022,
www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/strasburo-nurodymas-migrantu-neapsaugojo-keturi-kubieciai-issiusti-is-lietuvos-56-
1664946?copiedwww.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/strasburo-nurodymas-migrantu-neapsaugojo-keturi-kubieciai-issiusti-is-lietuvos-56-1664946
57
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), "Lithuania: Criminalisation of solidarity as people on the move are pushed back", 21 April 2022,
www.omct.org/en/resources/statements/lithuania-criminalisation-of-solidarity-on-the-rise-as-people-on-the-move-are-pushed-back
58
Amnesty International,
Poland: Cruelty
Not Compassion, at Europe’s Other Borders,
(previously cited); Amnesty International, Belarus/EU: New evidence of brutal
violence from Belarusian forces against asylum-seekers and migrants facing pushbacks from the EU, (previously cited).
59
Amnesty International,
Poland: Cruelty Not Compassion, at Europe’s Other Borders,
(previously cited); Amnesty International, Belarus/EU: New evidence of brutal
violence from Belarusian forces against asylum-seekers and migrants facing pushbacks from the EU, (previously cited).
60
Amnesty International, Belarus/EU: New evidence of brutal violence from Belarusian forces against asylum-seekers and migrants facing pushbacks from the EU,
(previously cited).
52
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
17
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0018.png
By pushing back refugees and migrants to Belarus, Lithuanian authorities breached the absolute prohibition
of returning any person to a country where they are in danger of being tortured, which has
jus cogens
status
under international law, and provides no exceptions, including on national security grounds.
61
DECEPTION AND ILL-TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF LITHUANIAN BORDER AUTHORITIES
Refugees and migrants consistently reported that Lithuanian authorities used deception and violent methods
to carry out pushbacks. Several people recounted beatings with batons by border guards, and at least three
interviewees reported that Lithuanian border guards used tasers and stun guns on people at the border.
Lithuanian guards often took money and the mobile phones of migrants and refugees before pushing them
back to Belarus. People also reported being forced into freezing rivers while being pushed back to Belarus.
Amnesty International spoke to 16 people who had been pushed back from Lithuania to Belarus, including
14 Iraqi nationals who, after being pushed back, eventually returned from Belarus to Iraq without ever
having had the chance to lodge an asylum application. The group recounted instances that constitute torture
or other cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment (‘other ill-treatment’) at the hands
of Lithuanian
guards.
“Adil”, a Syrian asylum-seeker
who had been pushed back to Belarus in November 2021, recounted how he
witnessed a Lithuanian border officer inserting an electric stun baton into the mouth of a sick man who
travelled in the same group. The man was stunned and lost consciousness before being forced back to
Belarus. According to “Adil”:
“The Lithuanian army came, and they had an electric stick that they used against us. They put us in a white van,
six Syrian men. It was very small so there was no space. One of the guys had a blood sugar issue and his situation
was very bad. He told us and one of the guys spoke a bit of English and he asked for help from the Lithuanian
army. They stopped the car and got out, they asked who had the blood sugar issue. The soldier then put the stick
in his mouth and used the electricity in his mouth and he [the man] lost consciousness. He was shaking so much
and we thought he was dead. They drove us to the border and beat us more and pushed us across the border. He
couldn’t even walk when they pushed us across, and we had to carry him.”
“Adil”, Syrian man pushed back to Belarus, interviewed in March 2022
Other testimonies from people who returned to Iraq also revealed the use of tasers and beatings with batons.
One man reported that he “got caught immediately [after crossing the border] by Lithuanian forces. They
took two families [from the group] and hit me and the other guys with tasers and forced us back into the
river back to [Belarus’] no-man’s
land”.
62
“Haidar”, a man from Iraq in his early thirties, also recounted the
use of tasers and batons while people were transported in military trucks ahead of being forced to cross a
river to enter Belarus:
“When we got to the Lithuanian border, we crossed the fence but were caught. We were 37: about seven families
and the rest were guys. They took phones, power banks and money from the men, not from women. They
damaged the phones’ charge and SIM ports and destroyed
SIM cards. They did not take money from me, but took
some from others. They put us in several military vehicles and took us to another place. They hit people with
tasers and beat them with sticks while in the vehicles. They told us to go straight to Belarus, but before we could
reach the Belarusian fence we had to cross a river with chest-level
water.”
“Haidar”, Iraqi man, interviewed in Iraq in December 2021
“Amir”, from Syria, described how Lithuanian border guards deceived the group of people
he was travelling
with to force them back to Belarus. The group followed Lithuanian guards who told them that they would
take the group to Poland, but instead forced them into Belarusian territory.
“They put us in a military truck. I asked them where they
were taking us, they said to the Polish border. I told
them, we need some food and clothes, we can pay you. They gave us a small bag for each of us, a bottle of water
and enough food for one day. They drove us between villages, then we arrived to a place. An officer came and
told us you are going to walk for 5km and then you will reach the Polish territory […]. We walked about 100
meters and I saw the Belarusian flag, so I looked back at the officer and said this is the Belarusian flag. He said,
The prohibition of torture is absolute and has
jus cogens
status under international law, which means it is universally applicable and cannot be subject to derogation.
It is also enshrined in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Convention
Against Torture. When a person is in danger of being tortured, the principle of
non-refoulement
accepts no exceptions on security grounds.
62
Interview in person with “Zaid”, (name changed for security reasons), Iraqi man, December 2021.
61
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
18
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0019.png
‘No, no, keep going, it will be Poland.’ They gave us back the mobile phones so we used it, and we found ourselves
50 km far away from the Polish border, in Belarusian territory.”
“Amir”, Syrian man pushed back to Belarus, interviewed in March 2022
Also in
this case, “Amir” reported being beaten by the guards.
“I
was outside the military truck and I fell down on the ground so one of the soldiers came and beat me, the
officer came and told him not to. The officer asked what had happened and told me again to walk 5 kms to get to
Poland.”
“Amir”, Syrian man pushed back to Belarus, interviewed in March 2022
“Waleed” and “Kawan”, two Iraqi men in their twenties, recounted how Lithuanian authorities pushed them
back to Belarus four times in late 2021, and beat them on two occasions. Each time, the border guards took
their money and smartphones. In total, the guards took 2000 USD and two smartphones from them. On two
occasions, “Waleed” and “Kawan” presented themselves to Lithuanian authorities –
each time after
spending about a week in the Lithuanian woods in cold temperatures and without food
but were forced
back to Belarus. Eventually, both men
who had also been repeatedly pushed back by Poland
returned to
Iraq from Belarus on a flight organised by the Iraqi government, without ever having been able to file an
asylum application in the EU.
63
“Yousef”, also from Iraq, recounted how once, during the winter, when the temperatures in Lithuania were
extremely low, the Lithuanian guards forced the single men in their group to enter a creek and wait in the
freezing cold water for some time. Subsequently,
“Yousef”’s group was forced back into Belarus. “Yousef”
also saw the Lithuanian guards using batons to beat other men in the group on their legs.
64
“Haidar”,
“Karim”, “Avdar” and “Zaid”, all from Iraq, also reported on three separate events where people had been
forced to cross cold rivers with water up to the chest or the abdomen during freezing winter temperatures.
65
Lithuanian authorities have used torture or other ill-treatment at the border, left refugees and migrants in
extremely dangerous conditions and pushed them back to torture in Belarus. By doing so, Lithuania is in
violation of international law and standards, including multiple violations of the principle of
non-refoulement
and the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.
66
2.2 DENIAL OF ACCESS TO ASYLUM FOR PEOPLE IN
DETENTION
While Lithuania pushed back the majority of those detected when trying to enter the country irregularly after
July 2021, some people did manage to enter the territory of Lithuania. Yet people who expressed the
intention to seek asylum in Lithuania were still denied access to asylum procedures and automatically
detained.
As noted above, under the “emergency” legislation, the Migration Department “shall” refuse to accept
asylum claims from people who were not authorised to enter Lithuania, aside from exceptional cases and at
the discretion of the border guards.
67
Accordingly, the Migration Department has refused to consider asylum
Interview in person with “Waleed” and “Kawan” (names changed for security reasons), Iraqi men, interviewed in December 2021.
Interview in person with “Yousef” (name changed for security reasons), Iraqi man, interviewed in December 2021.
65
Interview in person
with “Karim”, “Avdar” and “Zaid”, (names changed for security reasons), Iraqi men, interviewed in December 2021.
66
International law prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment absolutely, in all circumstances and without exception. In addition
to the Convention against Torture (CAT), Lithuania is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), which, like the Convention against Torture prohibits torture and other ill-treatment in all circumstances and without exception, as well as other
treaties that apply to specific contexts (Art. 7 ICCPR; Art. 3 ECHR; Art. 37(a) and 39, Convention on the Rights of the Child; Art. 15, Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities). The prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment is also a rule of customary international law binding on all nations; see, for example,
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,
Prosecutor
v. Anto Furundžija,
Trial Chamber Case No. IT-95-17/1-T (Judgement), 10 December 1998, paras.
153-154; International Court of Justice,
Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo),
Judgement of 30 November
2010, para. 87. According to Article 1(1) of the UN Convention against Torture, an act constitutes torture if four elements are present: (1) intention, (2) infliction of
severe physical or mental pain or suffering, (3) a purpose such as coercion, intimidation, obtaining information or a confession, or discrimination and (4) a degree of
official involvement. In contrast, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not defined under international law. In line with the position of many
international and regional human rights monitoring bodies, Amnesty International considers that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may be defined
negatively in relation to torture in that it lacks one or more of the above-mentioned elements of the torture definition; see Convention against Torture, Article 16. See also
Committee against Torture, General Comment 2, Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, 24 January 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2 (2008), para. 10. For example, an
act of ill-treatment would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment rather than torture if it lacks the required intention or the required purpose,
or if the pain or suffering it causes is not “severe”.
67
Article 140
12
(1) and Article 140
12
(2) LSoF, Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners (LSoF), IX-2206, (as amended on 11 January 2022), https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/555481808b0d11ecb8b0fe92fb660e20?jfwid=-81nf5j4xh
63
64
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
19
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0020.png
applications on the pretext that these applications were submitted without complying with the requirements
established by law. Authorities thus have left people seeking protection in a dangerous legal limbo for several
months, denying their status as asylum-seekers, and instead considering them as irregular migrants.
Amnesty International spoke with several people who were detained without ever having had access to an
asylum procedure, despite declaring their wish to obtain international protection. Many had presented
themselves to the authorities voluntarily in the hope of applying for asylum, but instead were taken into
custody and locked up in detention for several months.
"When I arrived here in October, I made many asylum applications and I also submitted applications for asylum
via e-mail, but unfortunately they rejected [to consider] all the applications. After being here [in detention] for
five months, I had a private lawyer who applied for asylum and the application was [also returned] on the pretext
that I should apply for asylum at the border."
“Saleh”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
Denying access to asylum procedures is a violation of the right to seek asylum, a right to which everybody is
entitled irrespective of their migration status or mode of entry into a country. Additionally, denying such
access to asylum is a violation of the right of those in need of international protection to have that need
recognised.
Lithuanian authorities have also denied access to asylum procedures to people with prima facie valid asylum
claims. Amnesty International spoke with five Syrians who were denied access to asylum procedures for
several months, despite the risks of persecution and other human rights violations for people in Syria.
“In Syria I am wanted to do the military [service], but I don't want to fight. The court ordered to arrest us for two
months and we were brought to Kybartai, it was... October [2021]. I bought a phone and filled the asylum
application by phone. First, I [had written it] on paper and gave it to the officer. One week later, another officer
came and told me 'Why are you here? Go back home!' Every time, the same officer tells me my application was
rejected and I should go back to my country. But I can't, there is war."
“Saleh”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
One Syrian man was able to produce evidence that he was already recognised as a refugee by UNHCR in
Lebanon, but after months in detention in Lithuania, he was not even able to say whether the Lithuanian
authorities had accepted his asylum application for consideration:
“I have been detained here for five months and I don’t know why I am being detained. I don’t even know if I was
able or not to submit an asylum application. I have a paper from UNHCR recognising me as a refugee in Lebanon.
I have applied [for asylum] and gave all the documents to the police and the border guards when I came here in
October, but since then I received no replies. They didn’t give me any document.”
“Jamal”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
By having denied them access to asylum procedures, the Lithuanian authorities have treated these Syrians
and other people in similar situations as irregular migrants, and put them at risk of forced removal from
Lithuania and of serious human rights violations if returned to Syria.
68
Faced with repeated refusals to accept their applications and related decisions to extend their detention, the
Syrian men said they were concerned that they could be detained indefinitely or that they could be deported
to war-torn Syria without ever being able to prove their asylum claims. As a consequence, they have reported
suffering from severe mental health distress.
In June 2022, the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior clarified that “Lithuania has suspended returns to Syria and
with a view of the current situation is not planning to resume them. There were no expulsions to Syria in
2021 and in 2022”.
69
This clarification brings important reassurance against
refoulement
to Syria. At the same time, it raises
additional concerns as to the legal status of these refugees and the legal basis for keeping them in detention.
Amnesty International has documented detailed information from people who had left Syria during the conflict there, which illustrates that these people are at real
risk of suffering persecution upon return to Syria; thus, Syrians are prima facie refugees. As such, they should have immediate access to full and effective asylum
procedures and should not be detained. Returns to Syria would constitute a violation of the legal principle of
non-refoulement,
which prohibits returning anyone to a
country where they would be at real risk of persecution or other serious human rights abuses. Amnesty International,
You’re going to your death
- Violations against
Syrian refugees returning to Syria,
7 September 2021, Index: MDE 24/4583/2021, available at: www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/4583/2021/en.
69
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, email on file with Amnesty International.
68
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
20
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0021.png
Under international and EU law, where there are no real prospects of removal of a third-country national,
that person must be immediately released from migration related detention.
70
This convoluted situation of legal limbo is at odds with international law and the EU asylum and migration
acquis on several fronts.
Under international law “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution”,
71
irrespective of their irregular entry in a country. According to EU law, any third-country
national or stateless person has the right to make an application for international protection to one of the
authorities referred to in Directive 2013/32 (the Asylum Procedure Directive, or APD), which includes the
police, border guards, immigration authorities and personnel of detention facilities.
72
The CJEU has
previously concluded that under Article 7 APD member states are required to guarantee the right of any
third-country national or stateless person to make an application for international protection; and that while
member states may require asylum applications to be “lodged” at designated places, such a requirement
cannot prevent asylum applications from being made at all. The CJEU also clarified that asylum applications
are deemed to have been made as soon as the person concerned has declared their wish to receive
international protection, without the declaration of that wish being subject to any administrative formality
whatsoever. In fact, a third-country national should be considered and treated as an applicant for
international protection “as soon as he or she makes such an application”.
73
“[In] November I was in the border guard station, and there I went to a court [online].
There I applied for asylum.
In the court decision, it says that I asked for international protection and asylum, but in Kybartai they ignored
this request, until March… [when I found] the email address of the Supreme [Administrative] Court of Lithuania
and submitted request for asylum to them by email. Only after doing that, in March, the Migration Department
accepted my asylum request, but before March the guards in Kybartai were saying I had no right to apply for
asylum.”
“Yasser”, Syrian man detained
in Kybartai, interviewed in May 2022
In February 2022, the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court referred the amended Lithuanian Law on
Foreigners to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its request for a preliminary ruling, the
Lithuanian Court challenged the possibility of implementing domestic legislation that derogates from EU rules
establishing any person’s right to have their asylum claims assessed.
74
The CJEU’s decision is expected at the end of June 2022. In the meantime, the Advocate General of the
CJEU has opined that the Lithuanian legislation violates the Asylum Procedures Directive, which enshrines in
EU law the rights to make an asylum application (Art. 6) and effectively access asylum procedures (Art. 7).
Importantly, the Advocate General also found violations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:
“Firstly, a provision such as article 140
12
of the Law on Foreigners, which does not allow, in practice, and with
some exceptions, a third-country national to have access to a procedure for granting international protection
when he entered Lithuanian territory illegally, is not, in my view, compatible with the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the [EU]
Charter [on Fundamental Rights], even in the event of a “mass influx” of migrants.
Indeed, on the one hand, such a provision is, in my view, contrary to the right to asylum, guaranteed, as such, in
Article 18 of the Charter. I emphasize, in this regard, that the effectiveness of this right depends on access to a
relevant procedure. […] [P]reventing, in practice, a third-country
national from applying for international
protection undermines the “essential content” of that same right […]. On the other hand,
refusing to accept for
By detaining people who have sought asylum (but whose application was not admitted for consideration) under the detention regime established for irregular
migrants, Lithuania is also violating EU rules on migration-related detention under the Return Directive, establishing that detention of irregular migrants would only be
justifiable if there are real prospects of removal, and a detained person must be released immediately when it appears that, for legal or other considerations, a
reasonable prospect of removal does not exist. The detention of Syrians, who cannot nevertheless be returned to Syria and therefore lack of any prospects of removal, is
consequently illegal also under the detention regime of the Return Directive. See Article 15(4) of Directive 2008/115; Kadzoev, 2009, paragraph 63. The Lithuanian
Ministry of Interior on 6 June 2022 wrote to Amnesty International that “Foreigners who cannot
be returned to their countries of origin are issued with the temporary
residence permit (74 such permits were issued between in 2021 and 2022, including 67 for AFG [Afghan] nationals)”. No information
was provided as to the status of
Syrian nationals.
71
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 14.
72
European Commission v Hungary,
C-808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, Judgment of 17 December 2020, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), paragraph 98.
73
European Commission v Hungary,
C-808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, Judgment of 17 December 2020, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), paragraphs 92-100.
74
The national court opined: “it is not possible […] to consider the application for international protection to be inadmissible
on the ground that it was not submitted in
compliance with the procedure prescribed by the legislation. According to the referring court, the refusal to accept an application for international protection lodged in
breach of the procedure laid down in the [domestic] legislation cannot be justified by the fact that a mass influx of foreigners might impair the effective performance of
functions of the authorities dealing with migration. Although it is indeed for Member States to ensure, inter alia, that external borders are crossed legally, compliance
with such an obligation cannot, however, justify an infringement of Article 6 of Directive 2013/32.” Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis
teismas (Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania), C-72/22 PPU
1,
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Justice,
para. 16.
70
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
21
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0022.png
examination an asylum application submitted by a third-country national in an irregular situation on the national
territory would also be contrary to the principle of
non-refoulement,
as provided for in Article 19, paragraph 2, of
the Charter.”
75
Unofficial translation from French; Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), Para. 136-138.
75
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
22
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0023.png
3. ARBITRARY DETENTION
3.1 UNLAWFUL NATURE OF DETENTION
In July 2021, Lithuanian lawmakers introduced automatic de facto detention for refugees and migrants who
irregularly crossed the borders into Lithuanian territory. As a result, thousands of people, including many in
need of international protection, have been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty for prolonged periods of time;
living in substandard and inhumane conditions; and subjected to daily psychological and physical abuse by
Lithuanian guards. From 3 August 2021 onward, the majority of people attempting to enter Lithuania have
been pushed back. The Lithuanian authorities have applied automatic detention to those who entered
Lithuania before that date or to those who were exceptionally allowed into the country at the discretion of
border guard officers.
Amendments to the Law on Foreigners in July 2021 provided that during a declaration of martial law, a state
of emergency, or “an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners”, both asylum-seekers
(i.e. people who
have been allowed to lodge an asylum application) and irregular migrants shall be “temporarily
accommodated…without granting them the right to move freely in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania”
by the State Border Guard Service at border crossing points, transit zones, facilities of the SBGS, the
“Refugee Reception Centre”
76
or other accommodation centres or premises
77
(hereafter, “temporary
accommodation without freedom of movement”).
78
The overwhelming majority of
people held in Lithuania’s Foreigners’ Registration Centres,
detention facilities
managed by the SBGS, are detained under the regime of “temporary accommodation without freedom of
movement”, rather than under
a formal detention order issued by a court. In 2022, the Migration
Department issued 2,511 decisions on temporary accommodation for people who requested asylum (out of
2,647 detained across the country).
79
According to a communication from the Medininkai FRC to Amnesty
International, [all] “persons accommodated in the FRC are either asylum-seekers
or illegal migrants who
have been given an alternative to detention [sic], such as accommodation in a centre”,
80
although as of 13
May 2022, only six out of the 498 people in the FRC were allowed to leave the facility.
81
The majority of those
detained in Kybartai FRC is also under the same regime, with only 11 people out of approximately 450
people held there (as of 16 May 2022) being detained following a detention order issued by a court.
82
Lithuanian authorities consider “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement” as non-custodial
in nature and as such, an “alternative to detention”. This approach is not only deeply cynical, it is wrong as a
matter of law.
Depriving asylum-seekers and migrants of their liberty and freedom of movement beyond the close confines
of the FRCs amounts to detention as defined under EU
83
and international law. The CJEU has confirmed that
Facility under the administration of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania.
Art. 140
8
LSoF, Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners (LSoF), IX-2206, (as amended on 11 January 2022), https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/555481808b0d11ecb8b0fe92fb660e20?jfwid=-81nf5j4xh
78
Under the Law on Foreigners, “temporary accommodation” with freedom of movement is never an option for those considered
irregular migrants but may be granted to
asylum-seekers (Art. 140
19
LSoF). However, as the 2021 reforms prevented new arrivals from submitting asylum applications, those who were apprehended and detained
after the reforms have often been treated as irregular migrants regardless of whether they expressed their wish to apply for international protection.
79
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
80
State Border Guard Service (Medininkai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
81
State Border Guard Service (Medininkai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
82
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
83
Article 2(h) of the Reception Conditions Directive defines detention as “confinement of an applicant by a Member State within
a particular place, where the applicant
is deprived of
his or her freedom of movement”, see Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying
down standards for the
reception of applicants for international protection (recast), Article 2(h).
76
77
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
23
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0024.png
detention is “a
coercive measure that deprives [an individual] of his or her freedom of movement and
isolates him or her from the rest of the population, by requiring him or her to remain permanently within a
restricted and closed perimeter”.
84
The Lithuanian law providing for “temporary accommodation
without
freedom of movement” meets this definition, irrespective of the specific facility used. Migrants and refugees
are coercively transferred to FRCs, they cannot leave the perimeter of the FRCs (or more often, even their
sectors within the FRC) and are therefore isolated from the rest of the population.
These measures have been equated with de facto detention by Lithuania’s Parliamentary Ombudsperson,
85
Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court,
86
and by the Advocate General of the CJEU. The fact that at least
one of the facilities used for “temporary accommodation” is a former prison (Kybartai) –
where criminal
inmates were imprisoned before the transfer of asylum-seekers and migrants
is particularly emblematic of
the custodial nature of this measure, although other centres too should be considered detention facilities in
all respects.
The CJEU’s Advocate General has noted that: “In essence, it seems […] that the ‘territory’ in which the
person concerned is required to reside permanently is limited to the perimeter of the accommodation centre,
from which he would not be entitled to leave without authorisation
which the Lithuanian Government,
moreover, confirmed […]. This perimeter therefore appears to be ‘restricted and closed’. Furthermore, [the
asylum-seeker]
appears to be ‘isolated from the rest of the population’, having a very limited possibility of
maintaining contact with the outside world. […] [T]he measure in question therefore appears to deprive the
latter of his freedom of movement and therefore constitute 'detention', within the meaning of the [Asylum]
'[P]rocedures' and '[R]eception' [Conditions] directives.”
87
Most of the people interviewed in March 2022 had been detained for around nine months, without ever
having been given a
chance to leave the facilities and move freely outside an FRC’s broader perimeters.
In 2022, the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court
quashed the practice of using “temporary
accommodation without freedom of movement” as an alternative to detention in several
individual cases.
Any alternative to detention should be less coercive in nature than court-ordered deprivation of liberty. The
Court issued rulings in favour of several individuals detained in Kybartai, recognising their right to leave the
“accommodation facilities” without any restriction on their freedom of movement within Lithuania. The Court
supported and agreed with the findings of the Lithuanian Parliamentary Ombudsperson that illustrated the
de facto custodial nature of “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement” for people in
Kybartai FRC, and asserted that due to this, it cannot be considered as a less coercive “alternative to
detention.”
88
Related decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court have had only individual scope and
have not had the effect of ending the practice for all detainees. Nevertheless, these decisions are proof of the
illegality of this detention regime. Lithuanian authorities should take note of the Court’s reasoning and
immediately release anyone detained under
the “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement”
regime.
Under international and EU law, the right to liberty can only be restricted in specific and the most
exceptional of circumstances. Detention should be used only as a measure of last resort. Routine or
automatic migration-related detention is, by definition, arbitrary, and therefore illegal. Immigration detention
should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate, and it should never be imposed on children.
States must conduct individualised
assessments of each individual’s personal circumstances and any
decisions restricting their right to liberty must be based on a case-by-case assessment.
89
Detention should
not be imposed for the sole purpose of assessing an individual’s asylum
claim.
Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 May 2020, Judgement in joined cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020: p. 223.
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals
in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, 24 January 2022, Chapter II, para 3.
86
See for instance, Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), Judgment of 3 February 2022 in Administrative Case No.
A-1221-520 / 2022; Judgment of 9 March 2022 in Administrative Case No A-1512 552/2022.
87
Unofficial translation from French, Advocate General of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), para 88.
88
See for instance, Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), Judgment of 3 February 2022 in Administrative Case No.
A-1221-520 / 2022; Judgment of 9 March 2022 in Administrative Case No A-1512 552/2022.
89
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Arts 9 and 14; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), Art. 31; International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts 2 and 9(1); Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (Migrant Worker
Convention), Art. 16; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35: Article 9, Right to Liberty and Security of Persons (HRC General Comment 35); UN Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation 30 on Discrimination against Non-Citizens; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Art.
5(1); UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to
Detention (2012), (UNHCR Detention Guidelines), Guidelines 1, 2 and 3. Under EU law, see among others, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 47; Reception
Conditions Directive, Article 9 Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 26.
84
85
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
24
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0025.png
3.2 DETENTION WITHOUT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
By using the legal fiction of calling
de facto
detention “temporary accommodation”, the Lithuanian
authorities have artfully avoided the requirement of providing migrants and asylum-seekers with procedural
guarantees against arbitrary detention, including the possibility of challenging detention and complaining
about conditions of detention.
Decisions regarding the application of “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement” and
their
extensions are not issued by a judicial authority,
90
but by officials of the Migration Department or the SBGS
91
for up to one year.
People who have submitted an asylum application
are put in the “temporary accommodation” regime by the
SBGS “pending a decision to admit” their asylum application. If a decision to admit the asylum application is
taken, the Migration Department “shall” still extend their deprivation of liberty.
92
After six months, the
Migration Department “shall” extend the deprivation of liberty for
another six months.
93
People considered as
irregular migrants are also put in temporary accommodation by the SBGS
94
and if they are not forcibly
returned to their countries of origin, after six months the SBGS “shall” extend their "temporary
accommodation”
for another six months or apply to a court for a decision on formal detention or an
alternative to it
95
(which again includes the possibility of “temporary accommodation without freedom of
movement”).
96
In practice, both people who have submitted asylum applications and those considered irregular migrants
are being detained through decisions of administrative authorities for up to one year.
Considering the regime of “temporary accommodation without freedom of movement” as an “alternative to
detention” has also allowed the SBGS
to request extensions of detention from local courts, by disguising
these as applications
for an “alternative to detention”. In practice, this requires the SBGS to demonstrate
that a detainee has cooperated and poses no threat, only for the detainee then to be subjected to a detention
regime as coercive as formal detention but with significantly fewer safeguards.
International and EU standards on migration-related detention establish the right to a judicial review by a
court, without delay, on the lawfulness of detention and its necessity and proportionality. A court should
grant unconditional release if the detention is not lawful, or individually assess the possibility of less coercive
measures, if warranted. Further reviews of the continued necessity, proportionality and lawfulness of
detention should be carried out at regular intervals
or at the detainee’s request by a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial oversight. Detention should always be for the shortest possible time
necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose and must not be prolonged or indefinite.
Lithuanian lawmakers introduced in December 2021 the possibility to appeal to a judicial court against the
decisions of the State Border Guard Service or the Migration Department on “temporary accommodation
without freedom of movement”.
97
Before then, no such possibility existed in law since the introduction of the
“emergency”
legislation. Therefore, between July 2021 and December 2021,
people in “temporary
accommodation” had no means for a judicial review of their detention for up to six months.
While the introduction of the possibility to appeal to a court is an important improvement, the Law on
Foreigners still falls short of ensuring sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention. The appeal
must be lodged within 14 days from the notification
of the decision imposing “temporary accommodation
without freedom of movement,” but there is no process to further review its continued necessity and
proportionality, and therefore its legality. While the Law on Foreigners establishes reviews both at regular
intervals of at least three months (Art. 114 and 140
18
) and at the request of the detained individuals (Art.
118 and Art. 140
21
) in line with EU law, these reviews are limited to “formal detention” and do not apply to
“temporary accommodation,” whether
this is applied by administrative authorities or by a court order as an
“alternative to detention.”
PROLONGED DETENTION
Many people interviewed for this report were desperate to know how long their detention could be extended.
The possibility to extend
“temporary accommodation without freedom of movement” up to one year was
Unless the measure is decided by a court as an “alternative to detention” under Article 115(2), Republic of Lithuania, Law on
Legal Status of Foreigners.
Art. 140
8
, Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
92
Art. 140
8
(6), Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
93
Art. 140
8
(5), Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
94
Art. 140
8
(3), Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
95
Art. 140
8
(7), Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
96
Art. 140
19
, Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
97
Art. 140
8
(9), Republic of Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Foreigners.
90
91
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
25
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0026.png
introduced in law only in December 2021, when most refugees and migrants were approaching the end of
the then six-month limit of detention. Given the widespread lack of information or access to effective legal
counsel (see section 6), detainees often only learnt of the possibility for their detention to be extended when
they were served with the related decisions. This has caused significant mental distress for people who fear
that their detention could be extended unexpectedly and indefinitely.
“In the state of Lithuania I was treated as if I were not
human. I was tortured and imprisoned for 8 months, and I do
not know why and what I did.”
“Bahir”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai,
interviewed in March 2022
Under EU law, the detention of asylum-seekers
should be for “as short a period as possible.”
98
The
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CPT) is of the view that “the prolonged detention of persons under aliens legislation [sic], without a time
limit and with unclear prospects for release, could easily be considered as amounting to inhuman
treatment.”
99
On 26 May 2022 the Minister of Interior told Lithuanian media that the Ministry is not planning to propose
further extending “existing movement restrictions” beyond the 12-month
limit currently established by
domestic legislation.
100
In a 6 June 2022 communication to Amnesty International, the Ministry of Interior
stated that “After the expiry of 12 months [in ‘temporary accommodation without freedom of movement’] the
State Border Guard Service (SBGS) will request the court to consider application of an alternative measure to
detention for irregular migrants
(e.g. accommodation of the foreigner at the Foreigners’ Registration Centre
without restricting his freedom of movement; reporting to the SBGS or the Migration Department or
notification of one’s whereabouts at fixed times; entrusting the care of the foreigner to a citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania or a foreigner legally residing in the Republic of Lithuania, if this person has
undertaken to take care of the foreigner and to maintain him/her, etc.). Asylum applicants will be
accommodated without restriction of movement by the decision of the Migration Department. In exceptional
cases (where the individual poses a threat to public order or security, or maliciously fails to cooperate) the
court will be asked to detain him/her.”
101
Regarding the maximum period of 18 months in pre-removal detention set by EU law,
102
the Ministry stated
that “18 months is the maximum period provided for by
law. According to the Law on the Legal Status of
Foreigners, upon expiration of the detention period, the foreigner must be released immediately.”
Amnesty International calls for the immediate release of all people detained under the “temporary
accommodation”
regime, as this measure constitutes arbitrary detention. “Temporary
accommodation
without freedom of movement” should not be considered an alternative to detention under any
circumstances.
Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection
(recast), Art. 9.
99
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT),
Immigration Detention (Factsheet),
March 2017,
rm.coe.int/16806fbf12.
100
“Lithuania not to extend detention of asylum-seekers – minister”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT) - English,
26 May 2022, lrt.lt/en/news-in-
english/19/1703347/lithuania-not-to-extend-detention-of-asylum-seekers-minister?fbclid=IwAR2aoYKKV1xRFOsu-USaa0hdFaQBmSOqDZH0Lljb3Qr7MLgc3vVEzZV46bY
101
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International. Emphases present in the original communication.
102
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning
illegally staying third-country nationals, Art. 15.
98
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
26
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0027.png
4. ABYSMAL CONDITIONS
OF DETENTION
In mid-2021, the Lithuanian authorities started placing people arriving from Belarus in de-facto detention in
various types of facilities, nearly all of which were inadequate and substandard. Such facilities included tents
or modular containers positioned in empty fields near a number of border crossing points. In some cases,
people were held in these facilities for several weeks without judicial order.
Although these structures were meant to be temporary, some operated for several months, including into the
cold Lithuanian winter, as in the case of the temporary detention camp of Rudininkai. People detained there
described abysmal conditions of detention:
“I surrendered myself to the Lithuanian police, as I thought that they were like other European countries and had
humanity. I surrendered myself to seek asylum. We were taken to a military point on the border, where they took
my mobiles, my wallet, and my journalist’s ID… I stayed at the border point for 10 days and then we were
transferred to the Rudininkai camp, in which we lived terrifying days. It was very cold, and we suffered from
extreme hunger. After a period of two months, they transferred us to Kybartai prison.”
“Bahir”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai,
interviewed in March 2022
People held in temporary facilities or makeshift camps such as Rudininkai suffered a range of abuses related
to their alarmingly substandard conditions of detention.
103
In the second half of 2021, the Lithuanian government gradually transferred refugees and migrants to the
three detention centres (Foreigners’ Registration Centres
- FRCs) under the responsibility of the Ministry of
Interior and managed by the State Border
Guard Service (SBGS): Medininkai, Kybartai and Pabradė.
Additional detention centres, including Rukla and Naujininkai, managed by the Ministry of Social Security
and Labour, were used mainly to hold families
including minors
and other people believed to have
specific vulnerabilities.
As of March 2022, the three FRCs managed by the SBGS held about 2,600 people and centres run by the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour held about 1,500 people.
104
The number of people in detention
decreased in successive months due to returns and releases.
Vidmantas Balkūnas, “Migrantų stovyklose Lietuvoje – reketas, prostitucija ir seksualinis išnaudojimas”,
15Min,
3 September 2021,
https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/migrantu-stovyklose-lietuvoje-reketas-prostitucija-ir-seksualinis-isnaudojimas-55-1556980?fbclid=IwAR2K4VF76eah3Yc-
qZsM_iC2_4llOHFzWPy8VRR_hMVoEHbod6eypqclkBU.
104
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
103
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
27
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0028.png
The Lithuanian authorities provided on 6 June 2022 the following numbers of people in detention in each
centre:
105
CENTRE
PABRADĖ
MEDININKAI
KYBARTAI
RUKLA
NAUJININKAI
JIEZNAS
TOTAL
PERSONS
605
532
386
636
449
39
2,647
OF WHICH MINORS
34
0
0
304
244
10
592
Amnesty International has focused its research on the FRCs managed by the SBGS, which are particularly
problematic.
4.1 INHUMAN AND DEGRADING CONDITIONS
An Amnesty International delegation visited the Medininkai FRC on 9 March and the Kybartai FRC on 10
March 2022, but was denied authorization by the SBGS to visit the Pabradė FRC. In both the centres where
access was granted, refugees and migrants were held in abysmal conditions of detention, and in a state of
fear due to the highly militarized environment and management of the facilities. People had spent months
surrounded by walls, fences, and barbed-wire, and guarded in very intrusive ways by armed military
personnel and dogs.
Both centres
one of which is a modular container park, the other a former prison
are profoundly
inadequate, especially for prolonged periods of detention.
For several months in late 2021 and early 2022, the centres were severely overcrowded. The number of
people placed in centres was significantly in excess of the maximum capacity, as highlighted, among many
other issues, in a report published in January 2022 by Lithuania’s Seimas Ombudsperson after a visit to
Kybartai FRC: “Material
conditions of accommodation of foreign nationals in Sector A of the Kybartai ARC
(significantly less than the established minimum living space per person; lack of private space; lack of
furniture, equipment and other inventory; extremely strict restrictions on movement; lack of personal and
environmental hygiene; insufficient sanitation, lack of cleanliness and hygiene in the common use areas,
inadequate ventilation, etc.) are equivalent to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited under the
Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”
106
Due to a subsequent decrease in the number of new arrivals since late 2021 and an increasing number of
people returned to their countries of origin or released, the centres have become less overcrowded. Should
there be a resurgence of crossings into Lithuania at some point, however, such severe overcrowding would
be a real concern, particularly if the authorities engage in automatic detention practices as they did in 2021-
2022.
As also highlighted in the January 2022 report by Lithuania’s Seimas Ombudsperson, the facilities present
various structural shortcomings, starting with the glaring absence of or limited access to adequate toilets and
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s
Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens
Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Para. 11.3.
105
106
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
28
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0029.png
bathrooms
with people forced to walk in the open air to reach toilets or hot water, even at night and during
Lithuania’s long and punishing winters. Overall, there is a conspicuous lack of privacy, both in cells/rooms
and in the bathrooms. People held in the centres complained about the quality of the water supplied by
taps, and about the lack of cooking facilities.
“The place is very overcrowded, as you may have noticed and
as it is clearly stated in the Ombudsman official report, a
large number in one room, there is no privacy… We only can
go to shower once a week, the bathroom is dirty, and each 10
persons go together…
The food looks like you do not want to
eat… We tried so hard to demand that they make us cook
ourselves but they don't allow it.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
The availability of spaces and opportunities for learning and recreational activities appeared extremely
limited, as was the opportunity to practice religious beliefs or receive information or goods from the outside
world.
“We want to do something, study, work, let us be able to do something.
If not out, at least in. We are teaching
English to other girls, it was our idea, the Red Cross supported it. There are useful, helpful people, give us a
chance!”
“Marwa”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Amnesty International delegates who visited Medininkai FRC and Kybartai FRC were struck by the
oppressive nature of the highly militarised facilities, the abysmal conditions of detention, the strict limitations
on freedom of movement, even inside the centres, and the imposition of other strict rules. Descriptions of the
centres on the following pages expose those dehumanising conditions and practices.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
29
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0030.png
MEDININKAI
Based in the South of the country, near the border with Belarus, the Medininkai
FRC is comprised of a set of modular containers fenced off within the former
football field of the Lithuanian SBGS School. The centre was created in September
2021 to detain asylum-seekers and migrants transferred from temporary facilities.
Due to the modular units, Medininkai FRC resembles a temporary camp itself,
rather than a permanent, stable reception or detention facility.
The Head of the Migration Board of the SBGS has admitted that the conditions in Medininkai are not
adequate: “We don’t have good conditions for vulnerable people… this camp is different because it’s
made of very cramped buildings, we don’t have enough space.”
107
Roughly 900 people were initially brought to Medininkai, including about 200 children. When Amnesty
International visited the camp on 9 March 2022, 587 people were held there, including 242 men, 337
women and 8 children. The decrease in numbers followed active efforts either to return people to their
countries of origin or to transfer children and others to other FRCs, in particular to Pabradė, where
material conditions were reportedly more adequate.
108
Detainees in Medininkai were mostly Iraqis (330 people) and African nationals (in particular, people from
Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon and Guinea, and smaller groups from Togo and Nigeria), and
some people from Sri Lanka. Virtually all had been held there for at least eight months, having been
initially apprehended in June or July 2021.
109
Those detained in Medininkai were mostly people whose asylum applications had been rejected in the
first instance and who were appealing against the decision. According to the authorities, detainees also
included 21 people for whom the rejection had been finally confirmed or who had not applied for
asylum.
110
The groups were held in the same accommodations and treated in the same ways in
everything except the attribution of pocket money (12.90 Euro per month), reserved to asylum-seekers
only, according to the administration of the centre.
111
For those outside of asylum procedures, the
centres’ administrations worked with relevant consular authorities to initiate deportation procedures.
112
Meanwhile, officials encouraged detainees to engage in voluntary return programmes.
Amnesty International was not allowed access to the modular containers to assess their suitability. As of
May 2022, the administration of Medininkai declared that 498 people were accommodated in containers
(with 5.19 m² of living floor-space per person) while 43 people were accommodated in a dormitory (with
9.6 m² of living floor-space per person). As noted, the much higher number of detainees registered in
previous months had led to severe overcrowding in the centre. According to the Lithuanian Refugee
Council, normal containers had a surface of about 15sqm and housed four people, which would breach
the legal limit of 4 m² per person provided in Lithuanian domestic legislation.
113
“In my room we are five women, I think the length is 20 feet [i.e. 6 meters]”
“Agalvili”, Sri Lankan woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
The number of toilets and showers confirmed by authorities
74 of each
appeared adequate. However,
in the “container town”, both toilets and showers were placed
in separate containers, meaning that
people had to walk in the open air to reach them, even at night and when it was snowing. In Medininkai,
average high temperatures are below 0° C for three months a year, and a typical year counts 87 days of
snowfall and 165 days of rain.
114
The centre is surrounded by fences and is heavily guarded by SBGS officers. As stated by the SBGS,
“People cannot leave this camp, [they] can only move inside sectors.”
115
The camp is divided into five
sectors, fenced off from each other: one for single women, one for single men, one for families, one for
couples without children, plus one that has been used in the past for quarantine, when necessary, or to
house LGBTQ people
before their transfer to Pabradė. Sectors, made of small groups of containers, are of
limited size and do not provide spaces for physical or cultural activities.
According to the authorities, detainees could use a gym and sport grounds for basketball and football, but
other internal sources have indicated that access to such facilities was often limited by guards. The SBGS
admitted the lack of educational and recreational activities, also linked to the absence of adequate
spaces.
116
No cooking facilities were available in the containers. Pre-packaged cooked meals were distributed three
times per day and consumed by people either inside the containers or in the open air.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
30
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0031.png
In April 2022, Lithuanian authorities announced that they were considering closing the Medininkai FRC
later in the year.
117
KYBARTAI
Based in the far West side of the country, near the border with the Russian enclave
of Kaliningrad, the Kybartai detention centre occupies the premises of a former
prison. The premises were not modified despite the change in use of the facility, in
September 2021, for immigration detention purposes.
118
Prison conditions were
exemplified by the barred windows, security doors, and high perimeter wall covered
with barbed wire. Prison guards had been retained to work in the centre, albeit
having been formally re-hired as border guards and provided with different uniforms.
119
The facility looks
like and essentially operates as a prison. People held in Kybartai consistently complained about the facility
and the sense of being detained in a prison and treated like dangerous criminals, despite having
committed no crime.
“I want to thank Lithuania for receiving us... But here they don’t treat us well. This is a prison, not a camp.
Everywhere I look there is barbed wire, why? I am not a criminal, I am a refugee.”
“Saleh”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed
in March 2022
The centre only houses adult men and there were 445 present on the day Amnesty International visited,
10 March 2022. About half the men were Iraqis, by far the most populous nationality, with the other men
comprising 22 different nationalities. According to the administration, most people were transferred to
Kybartai in September 2021 from the Rudininkai detention camp and were distributed in different sectors
based on their “nationality, ethnic group, and legal status.”
120
According to the administrators of Kybartai FRC, residents had 24-hour access to common areas and
were free to move around the grounds of the centre from 8 to 20 hrs.
121
In reality, for most of their time in
detention people were subjected to strict limitations on movement, prohibited from moving between floors
or to open air without the permission of officers. Most people were held in a five-storey structure called
Building A, where the one bathroom available on each floor did not supply hot water. To have hot
showers, people had to cross a courtyard and go to another building, which until recently they were
authorized to do only once or twice per week. Stricter restrictions applied to 11 people who were in
detention based on a court order, not as asylum-seekers but as irregular migrants.
122
When in use as a correctional facility, Kybartai could legally hold up to 450 inmates,
123
which was roughly
the number of persons held there at the time of the visit by Amnesty International. However, the Seimas
Ombudsperson‘s
Office reported that in previous months the detention centre held up to 645 people at
times, and that up to 18 people were held in rooms measuring 36sqm, in breach of the legal limit of 4sqm
per person provided in Lithuanian domestic legislation.
124
Information provided by the administration of
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
109
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
110
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
111
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
112
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
113
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals
in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), section 4.3.1.5, referring to Hygiene Standard HN 61: 2020.
114
Weather Atlas, Monthly weather forecast and climate
Medininkai, Lithuania, https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/lithuania/medininkai-climate#temperature
115
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
116
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
117
“It is planned to close the migrant camp in Medininkai and expand the center in Pabradė”,
Baltics News,
13 April 2022, https://baltics.news/2022/04/13/it-is-
planned-to-close-the-migrant-camp-in-medininkai-and-expand-the-center-in-pabrade/
118
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals
in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 4.3.1.
119
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Security of the Kybartai FRC, Kybartai, 10 March 2022.
120
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
121
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
122
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
123
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the
Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 4.3.1.2.
124
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s
Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens
Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 4.3.1.5, referring to Hygiene Standard HN 61: 2020.
107
108
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
31
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0032.png
Kybartai FRC indicated that there were 79 rooms, between 14 and 36 square metres in surface, and a
total of 430 beds. Authorities also indicated that there were 15 showers and 59 toilets.
125
In general, the Amnesty International delegation noted that the conditions of rooms, bathrooms/toilets and
kitchenettes were squalid and clearly inadequate, with decrepit sinks, toilets and showers. People
complained about the quality of tap water and food provided.
“Here they brought us spoiled food to eat, it smells. Bad bread, already expired.”
“Peter”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
The management of Kybartai admitted that the facilities needed refurbishment, and mentioned plans for
renovations
of kitchenettes and toilets, to be completed “hopefully this year, though it might take
longer”.
126
This would mean that adequate facilities would only be available by the time the maximum
period of detention had been reached for the vast majority of the detainees.
At the time of Amnesty International’s visit, Kybartai offered little space for activities. Courtyards were small
compared to the number of people held in the relevant sections. Books, radios and televisions did not
seem available. Guards also showed a room allegedly used as a gym, but it was unequipped and locked,
with no one using it at the time of the visit
although apparently this has changed in more recent months.
A chapel was available for Christians, and the same chapel and the gym were also sometimes used by
Muslim detainees to pray. Apart from English and Lithuanian language lessons, coordinated by social
workers, a very limited number of social activities were available. The Lithuanian Red Cross, which was
present daily in the facility, organized a painting activity, with paintings later displayed to the public thanks
to the efforts of the Sienos Group.
127
The Red Cross also appeared to be the only organization to provide
some legal support, but was not able to take up cases formally. A small Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
team was also present on a daily basis, mostly to provide medical and psycho-social support.
Multiple people told Amnesty International that the conditions showed to external visitors were significantly
better than what would be the case ordinarily.
“Every time they change everything before organizations come. Now all the doors are open, because you are
here. When you go, they will close them…. We noticed that always, when SBGS invite TV channels to come
over, things start to be soft and overwhelmingly different. Everything changes, the doors between floors open,
doors of market and shower and gates to them are open, they provide us with tasty food, the behaviour of the
guards sounds that they [are] in love with us… Last
time the media TVs were invited to visit to check the
hunger strike, [this] happened mainly in the second floor and fifth floor, [but] guards led the media to the third
floor… The guards provided new kettles, cookers, and lots of information on the information
board in the
floors, when media came over after the report of the Ombudsman… When media leaves, everything is back to
the way it always is.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
According to the most recent interviews, conditions have been improving, due to the lifting of restrictions
to access some common areas and the fact that some people have successfully challenged detention
orders in court and are therefore being allowed to leave the premises daily. Still, problems remain.
“The toilet is still for the whole floor resident [on each floor], which is about 100 people. We are not allowed to
visit other floors… We still cannot get laptops in. [We are] still about 10-12 people in the room… [There is]
lack of financial support and lack of a good satisfying food. Still, we cannot open bank accounts. There is
definitely no privacy by any means. We [are] still perceived not as asylum-seekers or migrants, but more as
border violators, criminals in a hidden description.”
“Tarik”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has stated that “in those cases where it is deemed
necessary to deprive persons of their liberty for an extended period under aliens legislation, they should be
accommodated in centres specifically designed for that purpose, offering material conditions and a regime
appropriate to their legal situation and staffed by suitably qualified personnel.” The CPT has stated that, on
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
Interview in person with SBGS Head of the Kybartai FRC, Kybartai, 10 March 2022.
127
Benas Gerdžiūnas,
“I
don’t want to paint like this again.’ Exhibition highlights condition of asylum-seekers
in Lithuania”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
28
May 2022, https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1702852/i-don-t-want-to-paint-like-this-again-exhibition-highlights-condition-of-asylum-seekers-in-lithuania
125
126
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
32
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0033.png
this basis, “a prison is by definition not a suitable place in which to detain someone
who is neither suspected
nor convicted of a criminal offence”.
128
The Committee has also maintained that “ready access to proper
toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane
environment.”
129
Failure to uphold such hygiene standards is likely to result in conditions that subject
detainees to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of international law and standards.
All this confirms that the inhumane and degrading conditions of detention denounced by the Lithuanian
Seimas Ombudsperson in January 2022, in relation to Kybartai FRC at least, continued to be of concern as
of March 2022.
130
While Amnesty International acknowledges some limited improvements in recent months,
people held in both Kybartai and Medininkai have faced not only prolonged arbitrary detention, but also
conditions of detention amounting to inhumane and degrading treatment.
All persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity
of the human person. This right is applicable regardless of the material wealth of a country
all states must
at least ensure certain basic standards for persons deprived of their liberty. Conditions in detention must as
far as possible reflect those existing in the community at large. Poor or harsh conditions of detention may
constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture. While there is a clear definition of torture under
international law, no such definition exists for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
131
In
line with the position of many international and regional human rights monitoring bodies, Amnesty
International considers that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may be defined negatively
in relation to torture in that it lacks one or more elements of the torture definition. Accordingly, even where
some of the suffering experienced in detention may not reach the threshold of ‘severe pain or suffering’,
there can be little doubt that the other elements of the definition are present.
Accordingly, through holding individuals in conditions that violate the prohibition of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Lithuania is in violation of the Convention Against Torture,
among many other binding international treaties to which it is a party.
132
4.2 INADEQUATE ACCESS TO MEDICAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH CARE
On top of the structural issues described above, FRCs managed by the SBGS were under-resourced to
ensure adequate access to medical and mental health care. FRCs lacked medical and social welfare staff,
including doctors, nurses, psychologists and social workers. Relevant services were mostly provided by
external actors, with limitations on their availability.
Neither Medininkai nor Kybartai directly employed any doctors or psychologists at the time of Amnesty
International’s visit. Medical services were provided by a limited number of personnel coming in turns from
hospitals and made available by local municipalities.
133
These professionals were only present during office
hours (usually 9-17) on working days. According to the authorities, detainees could also be accompanied to
outside hospitals for medical assistance and ambulances were routinely called in.
134
Several people,
however, complained that they were not authorized to access medicines or adequate healthcare institutions:
CPT, Report to the Government of Ireland on the visit to Ireland carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 16 to 26 September 2014, CPT/Inf (2015) 38, 18 March 2015, https://rm.coe.int/1680696c9a
129
CPT Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015, p. 18, §49
130
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals
in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 4.4
131
According to Article 1(1) of the UN Convention against Torture, an act constitutes torture if four elements are present: (1) intention, (2) infliction of severe physical or
mental pain or suffering, (3) a purpose such as coercion, intimidation, obtaining information or a confession, or discrimination and (4) a degree of official involvement.
See above, footnote 66.
132
Convention Against Torture, Article 16. See, inter alia, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 7. While the SBGS denied Amnesty International the authorization to visit Pabradė FRC, the organization received some
complaints about conditions of detention
there too.
133
Ministry of Interior email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
134
According to information provided by the administration of Kybartai FRC, “Persons that leave FRC. 1,280 persons left the centre
briefly in 2021, and 1,506 in 2022,
“temporarily to go to a health care institution or for another valid reason”. State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file
with Amnesty International.
Similarly, the administration of Medininkai stated that “approximately 60 foreign nationals from Medininkai
FRC are taken for routine examinations at health care
institutions each month. Approximately 14 foreigners are taken to hospitals by ambulance service. In April of 2022, 71 foreigners were taken to health care institutions
for investigation and treatment.
On average, 26 foreigners receive help from ambulance service teams in the registration centres every month.” State
Border Guard
Service (Medininkai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
128
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
33
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0034.png
“They treat us badly, don’t help us, even if we need an ambulance... We asked for an ambulance to stay here
24hrs, but they refused. There is a hospital here, but closes at 5pm and Saturday and Sunday.”
“Bermal”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
“I received a painkiller today from a doctor, after 15 days with symptoms. I have a problem with my lungs.”
“Jamal”, Syrian man detained
in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
The situation appears equally problematic in the Pabradė
FRC, according to the testimony of two people
detained there, who have extremely serious medical conditions.
135
A young man from a Western African
country said in April 2022:
“I needed medications, but they would not take me seriously, I had to tell
them all the time that I needed drugs
for my disease. At some point, Caritas took charge of my case, they took me to the hospital, where they tested
me and confirmed that, yes, I suffer from that disease. The doctors said I would need to go to the hospital every
three months. Since then, the doctors call me to tell me that I must go to appointments, but no one takes me to
the hospital. I feel bad.”
136
Similar issues were reported by a woman from an Asian country, also interviewed in April 2022:
“I have a medical
problem, but here I am not allowed to go to the hospital. I have a medical report, the doctor
said I should have an operation after 3 months, but the border guards didn’t allow me.”
137
Prolonged detention in extremely harsh conditions had also taken a serious toll on the mental health of
people held in FRCs.
“We have psychological problems and attempted suicides… We don’t know exactly how many, but there have
been many suicide attempts.”
“Bermal”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed
in March 2022
Given the absence of psychologists provided by the state in FRCs, non-governmental organizations such as
MSF and the Red Cross have provided relevant assistance. For example, between January and March 2022,
MSF’s psychologists treated 98 patients
in either Medininkai FRC or Kybartai FRC.
138
However, due the
limited number of psychologists available, the centres are not able to cope with the demand and specific
needs.
"I have mental health problems. I became aggressive here.
After nine months [in detention], I don't sleep anymore. My
eyes hurt so much. If you lock up people, then at least you
need to take care of us. I need a psychologist. Please, send a
psychologist for me. I keep on asking for one, but I have
never seen one. I feel like we are in a grave."
“Stéphanie”, young woman from Cameroon detained in Medininkai, March 2022
“I had asked to see a psychologist, they eventually provided me with a man psychologist, but I wasn’t
comfortable to speak to a man about what I went through. I just want to talk with a female psychologist.”
“Clémence”, young woman from Cameroon detained
in Medininkai, March 2022
By May 2022, MSF reported nine cases of attempted suicide and many more cases of self-harm. It also
indicated that 60 per cent of the people being treated by MSF psychologists had anxiety-related complaints,
with people referring to poor conditions of detention, uncertainty about their future and limited access to
Details of the
medical conditions are not disclosed to protect people’s identity. The two individuals were interviewed by voice call.
Interview by voice call, April 2022.
137
Interview by voice call, April 2022.
138
MSF, “People detained in Lithuania are experiencing abuse, violence and mental health distress”, (previously cited).
135
136
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
34
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0035.png
legal aid (see section 6) as main stressors. Noting that “[c]onditions of detention are inadequate for the
health and protection needs of people being detained”, MSF stated that it was “extremely concerned about
the impact of prolonged detention on asylum-seekers’
and migrants' mental health.”
139
States have an obligation to provide adequate medical and psychological care to people in their custody.
140
Access to medical examinations is essential to ensure that detainees enjoy their right to health, and also
plays a crucial role in preventing torture and other ill-treatment. Any detainees who have underlying medical
problems or display signs of mental illness, should have access to appropriate medical or psychosocial care,
including, where necessary, transfer to specialist facilities.
MSF, “People detained in Lithuania are experiencing abuse, violence and mental health distress”, (previously cited).
UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 17 December 2015, A/RES/70/175, Rules 24 and 25.
139
140
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
35
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0036.png
5. TORTURE AND OTHER
ILL-TREATMENT AND
PUNISHMENT OF
DETAINEES, INCLUDING
SEXUAL HUMILIATION
AND VIOLENCE
A significant number of people reported to Amnesty International that they were victims of or witnesses to
abuses by SBGS guards, including torture and other ill-treatment and unnecessary or excessive use of force,
as well as use of racist language, harassment and intimidation to convince people to return to their countries
of origin.
Such claims were entirely consistent with accounts from other organizations that have had direct access to
FRCs in recent months. For example, in May 2022 MSF publicly stated that many people had reported
“degrading treatment and violence by the guards managing the two detention facilities where MSF works”,
that is, Medininkai FRC and Kybartai FRC.
141
5.1 PUNISHING PEACEFUL PROTESTS AND OTHER
LAWFUL BEHAVIOURS
Given the heightened state of frustration of people arbitrarily detained and subjected to other human rights
violations, it is hardly surprising that people held in the Lithuanian detention centres sometimes engaged in
protests. Detainees claimed the protests were conducted in a way that did not pose a threat to the safety of
guards or others. Many people interviewed by Amnesty International painted a disturbing picture of how
authorities reacted to such demonstrations. They described instances where border guards, particularly in
Medininkai, used force to punish people who had engaged in peaceful protests, and committed acts of
collective punishment meting out abuse to other detained people who had not participated.
141
MSF, “People detained in Lithuania are experiencing abuse, violence and mental health distress”, (previously cited).
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
36
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0037.png
The testimonies, collected through separate interviews, were consistent in describing the SBGS guards, at
times together with a squad of anti-riot officers belonging to the Public Security Service,
142
committing acts
against people which amount to torture or other ill-treatment. These include kicks and beatings, sometimes
with batons or other weapons; the use of pepper spray and the release of multiple electric charges through
taser guns; forcing individuals to remain handcuffed and in stress positions for extended periods of time;
withholding food as a form of punishment as well as the placement in isolation for several days of individuals
perceived by the guards as “troublemakers”. As “Gabriel” described to Amnesty International researchers:
“In the previous camp Verebiejai we received many threats, they refused to give us food for days any time we
protested.
The last time we protested in Verebiejai, they didn’t give us food for 2 or 3 days. They had called the
special forces, they beat us and took some people away…”
“Gabriel”, man from Sub-Saharan
Africa detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Operators working for independent organizations in detention centres have confirmed that they have also
collected multiple testimonies describing ill-treatment by guards against detainees, including leaving people
on the ground with their hands tied for unnecessarily long periods of time, withholding food, and putting
people in isolation in a cold room
again, as forms of punishment against people who had participated in
protests or attempted to escape.
143
THE 2 MARCH 2022 RAID IN MEDININKAI
Following a protest on the evening of 1 March, the SBGS at Medininkai FRC called in an anti-riot squad of
the Public Security Service in the early morning of 2 March to conduct an operation targeting detainees.
The protest was borne out of anxiety generated by Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine, which started just the
previous week, on 24 February. The Medininkai detention centre is located only a few kilometres from the
border with Belarus
– whose government has supported Russia’s aggression in Ukraine –
and some
detainees were afraid that they might be stuck in a dangerous area in case of a similar incursion in
Lithuania.
Unrest among refugees and migrants started after the provocations of an SBGS officer who reportedly told
them: “If the Belarusians attack Lithuania, we will give you weapons to fight.”
144
People also protested
against the double standards employed by the Lithuanian authorities that resulted in disparate treatment
of those held at Medininkai as opposed to incoming Ukrainian refugees. Those fleeing the war in Ukraine
had been widely and warmly welcomed and provided with a range of assistance not available to the
detainees at Medininkai (see “Background” section above regarding discriminatory double standards).
The protesters called for their transfer to the same reception facilities used for people fleeing Ukraine, as
acknowledged by the Head of the Migration Board of the SBGS.
145
According to the Head of the
Investigation Unit of the SBGS, however, detainees “just look for excuses to demonstrate.”
146
The protest continued for several hours, with people moving from one sector to the other, demanding
their release. According to SBGS officials, attempts to calm the situation down and convince protesters to
return to their sectors went on for hours, but failed. The SBGS decided to call the Public Security Service
anti-riot squad, with the stated intention of arresting the leaders of the protest and transferring them to
other FRCs (the women to Pabradė, the men to Kibartai), mainly because Medininkai had no areas for
isolation.
147
In the early morning of 2 March, officers belonging to the SBGS and the Public Security Service, wearing
full anti-riot gear, entered the camp and raided several containers, allegedly looking for the individuals
who had instigated the protest. At that time, many people were still sleeping in the containers. The guards
searched several containers and arrested at least 10 women and 6 men, all from countries in Africa,
including Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, and Nigeria.
“Josephine” described what happened that morning:
The Public Security Service is a law enforcement agency, operating under the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior, whose mission is
“to restore public order, to ensure
public security during extreme and emergency situations; to organize and conduct convoying; to ensure the protection of important state objects; to defend the state of
Lithuania in case of war”,
https://vstarnyba.lrv.lt/en/about-the-service/areas-of-activities
143
Information from multiple, separate interviews with local operators who requested confidentiality, March 2022.
144
Interview with "Jean” (name changed for security reasons), young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022.
145
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
146
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
147
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
142
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
37
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0038.png
“They went to all the African men and women. They pointed guns at us, on our forehead, real guns… There
was a woman [officer] with a paper, she had everyone's pictures and was saying ‘take this one, take that
one.’"
“Josephine”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
Other victims shared their experience of being beaten, tasered or sprayed with gas:
“As I was on the ground, they kicked me on my tummy, and said I should lie on the ground. [The guard] put his
foot on my head and wanted to handcuff me. Then
a lady [officer] said: “This is not the guy”. She was trying to
fish the guys who did the protest. In Medininkai it is the same thing. Every time they call the special forces,
who treat us badly. Each time there’s a protest, they beat us off, they take some of us away… When the
special forces come, they hit you with the rifles’ handle. They say: ‘You have to obey!’ and they kick you. They
point guns at people, and they make the sound, ‘click, click’, as if they are opening the secure [i.e. releasing
the safety], like if they are going to shoot you. They make you lie down, they check you, and if you do a
mistake, they kick you. They drag you from the bed and put you on the ground. Sometimes they drag you from
the upper bed of a bunk bed, directly to the ground,
and you smash on the floor.”
“Gabriel”, man from Sub-Saharan
Africa detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
“I was lying on the ground, I was doing nothing because I know how things go in these situations. I was lying
on the ground and still they have used tasers on me three times, and at the same time they beat me with the
batons. Again, on our way to the cell in Medininkai they beat me with batons about five times.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
“I
have a scar on the left arm, because they dragged us away from the floor, with the hands back... The officer
put my head down and kicked me on the chest while I was lying down.”
“Peter”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
"They sprayed gas into our eyes, they beat us with batons. We said we were innocent and they were shouting
‘Shut up! Don’t talk!’”
“Elise”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
Some victims described how the violence was random and indiscriminate.
For example, “Marie” told
Amnesty International:
“They did not use the tasers on me, but they put a weapon on my forehead and told me ‘Shut up or I will shoot
you!’… They put the weapon on my head even if I had done nothing. Then the woman
checked the photos and
said that I had not participated in the demonstration, but the police anyway hit me with the weapon on my
head.”
"Marie”, woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
While investigating these events in March, Amnesty International interviewed victims and witnesses who
described how Black women and teenage girls were subjected to torture including sexual humiliation.
Women reported being beaten by SGBS guards and anti-riot squad members who used their hands and
batons, and being sprayed with pepper spray. Some women were beaten whilst semi-naked. Victims and
witnesses described the subsequent deliberate degrading and humiliating treatment of the women and
girls at the hands of guards and police who forced them to remain semi-naked, put them in handcuffs,
and compelled them to go outside
still semi-naked and handcuffed
in cold and wintry weather
conditions and in front of other guards and detainees.
"On 2 March, in the morning, the police entered my room. They handcuffed us, they hit us. I was without
clothes
I still have bruises on my body. They took me to the forest [outside], all naked. I spent five hours
locked up, handcuffed and without clothes. But I hadn’t even been to the demonstration, I told them that
I
wasn’t there.”
“Elise”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
38
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0039.png
A video that was widely circulated in the weeks following the police action shows a group of Black women,
inside a container.
148
They had their hands tied behind their backs, some of them were semi-naked from
the waist up or trying to cover themselves by using blankets or crouching.
As a young woman witness to the events shared with Amnesty International researchers:
“Many soldiers came to the camp and beat the girls, and brought them outside without clothes… The police
came inside all the rooms. They got into my room, though they didn’t touch me… They were looking for the
girls who are now in Pabradė. [My friend] was sleeping in her room... The police came and took her by force…
She asked the police ‘What is the problem?’ The police got her and beat her, slapping her and kicking her on
the legs… I was outside the room, but she shouted, so all of us came to see what was happening. The police
slapped another girl on the mouth, tied the hands of the girls, gave them an electric shock with a tool, and
took them away.”
“Ada”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in Medininkai in March 2022
Some other women, who had not participated in the protest and were not targeted by the guards, testified
as to the actions of the anti-riot unit against the women and the physical harm they suffered.
“Until now, the guards haven’t done anything bad to us personally, but we have seen special forces come here
in this camp three times. Last week [i.e. the week of 1 March 2022] a protest happened, African refugees
broke a fence. After the protest, the commando came to our rooms, holding guns…They took [the girls] in the
morning and brought them back in the afternoon. When they took them from the rooms they were naked, and
other girls tried to put a jacket on them. When they came back, they could not walk well, and before [being
taken] they could walk well.”
“Marwa”, young Iraqi woman, interviewed in Medininkai in March 2022
“I saw guards beat some African people. They [had] created problems, so the guards arrived in the morning,
[there was] plenty of police, [they] beat some Africans and arrested them. Male police went for African
women.”
“Agalvili”, Sri Lankan woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
“They went there and they held the neck of an African girl…We were looking through the window, then the
forces saw us and ordered to close the window. What we have seen is that they put hands on the neck, but we
heard the crying and the sound of beating… The girls didn’t do anything to the forces, they were just crying.”
“Bermal”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Some men also separately confirmed seeing women being subjected to sexual humiliation by guards:
“The girls were in their rooms and they were naked [when they brought them out]. I could see their breasts
and I asked an officer if I could give them my jacket,
but he said no.”
“Sekou”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
“They went to the women’s room and put pepper spray… They brought the girls outside naked, we saw their
breasts.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
Authorities denied using any excessive force and said that “during the riots, foreigners committed
violations of the Code of Administrative Violations 115 (Intentional Destruction or Damage to Property),
488 (Disturbance of Public Seriousness), 506 (Failure to comply with lawful instructions or requirements
of statutory civil servants, military police, security services or intelligence officers of the Republic of
Lithuania) and 508 (Humiliation of the Honor and Dignity of a Statutory Civil Servant, Military Police or
Intelligence Officer)”.
149
However, Amnesty International understands that a court subsequently dismissed allegations against
those arrested, as they were not substantiated by evidence.
148
149
Some of the people appeared young and may have been minors, but Amnesty International was unable to independently verify their ages.
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
39
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0040.png
“The officers went to court to say
that we had tried to run [away] and were responsible for disturbances. But
the court said there was no evidence. So, yesterday they allowed us to go out of the [isolation] room.”
Young man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
“The border guards had asked the court to give us 6 months of imprisonment. I asked the court: ‘Go and
check the movie [from internal cameras], if you see me doing what they accuse me of, I will take the 6
months’.”
Young man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
According to SBGS officers who spoke with Amnesty International, the management at Medininkai called
in the anti-riot forces while the protest was still going on. This version of events is at odds with the
numerous and consistent testimonies of many people who experienced or witnessed these events. The
official version also would not explain why and how some of the handcuffed women would be undressed
if they were still protesting. Nor does it clarify why the entrance of a fully suited anti-riot unit and the use
of force would have been deemed necessary and proportionate at that time on 2 March, considering that
people were in their rooms and not engaged in any activities that would threaten the safety or rights of
either the guards or other detained people.
Six men and six women were subsequently transferred from Medininkai to other detention centres,
Kybartai FRC and Pabradė FRC respectively,
150
and put in isolation.
151
One young woman decided to
return to her country of origin, allegedly voluntarily.
“They handcuffed and beat a girl, who had bruises... Then, she decided to return… Her mum told her to
return, because there was too much pain here.”
“Marie”, woman from Cameroon
detained in Medininkai, March 2022
The fact that the young woman may have decided to return to Cameroon only after being beaten and
handcuffed indicates that such a decision was hardly “voluntary”.
Coercion involving such violence rarely
leaves a person with real options. Any decision to escape such abuse should be considered as having
been taken under extreme duress and cannot conveniently be labelled by a government as “voluntary.”
TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT
International law absolutely prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, in all circumstances and without exception.
In addition to the Convention against Torture, Lithuania is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention on Human Rights, which, like the Convention
against Torture, prohibits torture and other ill-treatment in all circumstances and without exception, as well
as other treaties that apply to specific contexts.
152
The prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment is
also a rule of customary international law binding on all nations.
153
Women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are at particular risk of torture and ill-
treatment when deprived of liberty. Women and girls are at particular risk of sexual assault and abuse in
detention contexts, including rape, insults, humiliation and unnecessary invasive body searches.
154
Forced
nudity and public humiliation are long recognised as breaches of international human rights law, in
particular the right to be free from torture and other ill-treatment, and are often particularly gendered in
intent and effect on the victim.
155
Sexual humiliation may occur when male guards watch female prisoners in
intimate moments such as dressing or showering. As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has underlined:
“Body searches, in particular strip and invasive body searches, are common practices and can constitute ill-
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
MSF,
Detention in Lithuania,
Briefing paper, May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
152
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 7; European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3; Geneva Conventions, 12 August 1949;
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 37(a) and 39; Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 15.
153
See, for example,
Prosecutor v. Furundžija,
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber Case No. IT-95-17/1-T (Judgement), 10 December
1998, paras. 153-154;
Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo),
International Court of Justice, Judgement of 30
November 2010, para. 87.
154
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, A/HRC/31/57, (5 January 2016),
para 19.
155
As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated in 2008, “[c]ustodial violence against women very often includes rape and other
forms of sexual violence such as
threats of rape, touching, ‘virginity testing’, being stripped naked, invasive body searches, insults and humiliations of a sexual nature”. See Human Rights Council,
Seventh Session,
Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak,
A/HRC/7/3, 15 January
2008, paras 34-35.
150
151
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
40
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0041.png
treatment when conducted in a
disproportionate, humiliating or discriminatory manner. […] These practices
have a disproportionate impact on women, particularly when conducted by male guards. […] When
conducted for a prohibited purpose or for any reason based on discrimination and leading to severe pain or
suffering, strip and invasive body searches amount to torture.”
156
SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Cases of sexual violence and harassment have also been reported in FRCs, particularly in Medininkai. A
representative of the Lithuanian Refugee Council stated that: “In Medininkai, some guard had sex with
female detainees, giving in exchange the possibility to go out of the centre”. SBGS officials initially dismissed
allegations of sexual violence, suggesting that they were made up.
157
However, in April 2022, the Vilnius
Regional Prosecutor's Office launched a pre-trial investigation against a psychologist operating in Medininkai,
charged with sexually assaulting a male detainee who was supposedly under his care while in detention.
158
According to humanitarian organizations operating in the camp, as well as media, additional people reported
having suffered similar assaults by the same person.
159
Following this case, authorities wrote to Amnesty
International
that “sexual harassment and violence are criminal offenses and, like any other crime, are
intolerable by the SBGS and all such cases are dealt with immediately.”
160
The psychologist was suspended,
however the Medininkai administration did not immediately move victims to a more appropriate facility or
provide them with adequate remedy for the abuses they suffered.
161
UNNECESSARY OR EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
While the 2 March raid at Medininkai reflects a particularly brutal state response to detainee concerns, it was
not an isolated incident. Allegations of unlawful use of force, including through the use of tear gas and other
special equipment, emerged after border guards and Public Security Service
squads intervened to “put
under control” a situation in Medininkai FRC on 8 November 2021, also following protests in the centre.
162
The indiscriminate use of anti-riot equipment was on full display in a video circulated in April 2022, showing
a guard using pepper spray against a young child who was watching from the window.
163
The Lithuanian
police have opened a pre-trial investigation into the incident.
164
SBGS officials have confirmed that big demonstrations have taken place in a few instances, in particular in
November 2021 and March 2022, in response to the authorities denying people asylum and extending their
detention.
165
They said that, in such instances, attempts were made to negotiate with detainees in order to
prevent escalation, and when this did not work, the SBGS called in anti-riot units of the Public Security
Service, including to arrest people deemed responsible for disturbances, such as breaking fences or
throwing objects. SBGS officials claimed that such interventions have always complied with Lithuanian law,
using force (and special equipment, such as tasers, pepper-spray and batons) only when necessary to
respond to attacks from detainees. They also stated that in the last year no officer has ever reported having
used a taser, while pepper-spray was used in about five cases in Medininkai.
166
However, local NGOs confirmed receiving reports of unlawful use of force by police against asylum-seekers
and migrants in detention centres.
“The two centres where MSF is present are heavily militarised
contexts, where people have restricted
movement and are under the constant scrutiny of SBGS, who use violent approaches to de-escalation,
including tasers, pepper spray and the use of dogs for intimidation. Since January 2022, MSF has
documented 18 cases of violence, aggression and mistreatment while in detention, two of these by other
asylum-seekers and migrants, and the remainder by SBGS. The number of violent events is likely higher. We
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, A/HRC/31/57 (5 January 2016),
at para 23.
157
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
158
Jurga Bakaitė, “Prokurorai pradėjo tyrimą dėl galimo ilgalaikio migrantų seksualinio prievartavimo viename VSAT užsieniečių registravimo centre”,
Lithuanian Radio
and Television (LRT),
26 April 2022, https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1679317/prokurorai-pradejo-tyrima-del-galimo-ilgalaikio-migrantu-seksualinio-
prievartavimo-viename-vsat-uzsienieciu-registravimo-centre
159
Linas Jegelevčius, “Lithuania’s Border Guard Service psychologist allegedly preys on migrants in registration centre facility”,
Baltic News,
28 April 2022, https://bnn-
news.com/bnn-analyses-lithuanias-border-guard-service-psychologist-allegedly-preys-on-migrants-in-registration-centre-facility-234323
Vilma Danauskienė,
“Medininkuose galimai seksualiai išnaudoti migrantai detalių neslepia: baisūs įtarimai psichologą lydi ir kitose stovyklose”,
Delfi, 6 May 2022,
https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/medininkuose-galimai-seksualiai-isnaudoti-migrantai-detaliu-neslepia-baisus-itarimai-psichologa-lydi-ir-kitose-
stovyklose.d?id=90145655&fbclid=IwAR2Adoh1rCMZac_tytUPwd3J0-pCz1mx17u-IsbZQ_OeuhCUhHFcYHgR8aE#
160
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
161
MSF, “People detained in Lithuania are experiencing abuse, violence and mental health distress”, (previously cited).
162
“Protests
in Lithuania's migrant
camps ‘coordinated’ with events on Polish border – VSAT chief”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT),
9 November 2021,
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1537121/protests-in-lithuania-s-migrant-camps-coordinated-with-events-on-polish-border-vsat-chief
163
Facebook post, Vytautas Bakas, 12 April 2022, https://www.facebook.com/vytautas.bakas/posts/10221875828946219
164
“Tear gas used during the riots in the migrant camp in Medininkai, pre-trial
investigations are being considered”,
Baltic News,
8 November 2021,
https://baltics.news/2021/11/08/tear-gas-used-during-the-riots-in-the-migrant-camp-in-medininkai-pre-trial-investigations-are-being-considered
165
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Migration Board, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
166
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
156
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
41
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0042.png
have documented solitary confinement for over 24 hours, groups of individuals put in prison cells for periods
of one week, the confiscation of phones, and beatings. MSF psychologists have heard of people being strip-
searched, handcuffed, and verbally abused by the SBGS while in detention.”
167
According to reports from detainees, SBGS officers have also used excessive force when responding to
attempts by people to escape from detention centres, in particular through the deployment of dogs. Dog-
bites were confirmed not only by asylum-seekers and migrants but also by doctors working locally, as well as
through photographic evidence received by Amnesty International.
168
International law and standards require that law enforcement officials respect and protect human dignity,
maintain and uphold the human
rights of all persons, and use force “only when strictly necessary and to the
extent required for the performance of their duty.”
169
This means that they must, where possible, avoid any
use of force, and if there is no alternative to the use of force, any such use should be subject to principles of
strict necessity and proportionality, with the minimum amount of force exerted and only as a last resort
where no less forceful measures are available. Officers should be adequately trained, required in practice to
avoid resorting to unnecessary or excessive use of force, and also required to proactively seek resolution of
problems by means other than the use of force.
PUNITIVE USE OF ISOLATION IN DETENTION
Acts of abuse mark the daily lives of many detainees, including in other detention centres. Kybartai FRC had
special secure cells, a typical feature of a prison, which have been routinely used as disciplinary cells.
People placed in the secure cells are isolated from the rest of the detainees and cannot access the courtyard
or other common areas. The management at Kybartai FRC confirmed that people can be locked in cells if
they have violated internal regulations, but declined to provide Amnesty International access to those
regulations. It is therefore unclear on what specific grounds such isolation would be ordered, and whether
such grounds could include actions reflecting the legitimate exercise of human rights, such as freedom of
expression and assembly, including the right to protest. Indeed, some of the people detained in Kybartai said
that people can be placed in isolation simply for speaking out about the conditions of detention.
“The main reasons for punishment are talking to press or media or human rights organisations. Once someone
goes down to isolation floor, they take their mobile phones.”
“Yasser”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in May 2022
“I was locked, with no chance to go out. They were giving me food from a small window, like a criminal.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in
Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
Another man also reported that he had been “taken down” for no other reason than the fact that he had
been actively speaking out on human rights issues. He suggested that the transfer to the isolation cell was
purposely timed
on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend
to ensure that NGO workers and others
who are present in the centre only on working days were not around.
170
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Beyond the suspension of the psychologist operating in Medininkai, it appears that no routine efforts are
taken by authorities to effectively investigate reports of abuse, hold staff and guards accountable for human
rights violations, or provide victims with an effective remedy. According to the authorities, “the Ministry
[of
Interior] and SBGS has a weekly meeting to discuss relevant news, including unrests in FRCs if there were
any. If there is a need, the Minister can instruct to carry out an official inspection regarding what measures
the officials took”.
171
However, local NGOs confirmed that whenever they have shared reports of abuses with
authorities, they have committed to initiate investigations, but such investigations never lead to any
accountability. Indeed, in relation to the events in Medininkai in March, the authorities
confirmed that “on
April 20, 2022, the Legal Division of the SBGS initiated an official inspection regarding the possible use of
excessive force by officials,”
and that, once this was completed, “no irregularities were found in the actions
of the officials.”
However, the Vilnius County Police Commissariat launched a pre-trial
investigation into
actions in Medininkai by law enforcement officials on 2 March 2022 for “possibly causing physical pain to
foreigners.”
172
MSF,
Detention in Lithuania,
(previously cited).
“In February, MSF provided medical care to two individuals who were attacked by SBG dogs, after trying to escape detention. One
of the individuals later required
treatment in the emergency department.”
MSF,
Detention in Lithuania,
(previously cited)
169
UN General Assembly, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979, Articles 2 and 3.
170
Interview in person with “Tarik” (name changed for
security reasons), young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022.
171
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
172
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
167
168
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
42
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0043.png
Authorities reported that
“according to the activity plans prepared by the Reception Conditions Unit of the
[Medininkai] Centre, social workers are engaged in preventive activities, informing foreigners about the
obligation not to violate the rights and legitimate interests of other foreigners accommodated in the Centre, as
well as the need to report possible or suspected cases of sexual exploitation and violence.”
173
However, in
March 2022 the centre administrators told Amnesty International that they had yet to hire any social
workers.
174
The individuals who reported to Amnesty International of having suffered abuses did so while still in
detention. In order to preserve their safety and protect them from retaliation, many details regarding their
identities, locations and stories have been obscured. However, the consistency across these testimonies
coupled with corroborating information provided by local actors
is extremely worrying as it depicts a pattern
of unnecessary and excessive use of force as well as torture and other ill-treatment committed against
refugees and migrants.
5.2 MAKING LIFE IMPOSSIBLE TO FORCE RETURNS
Lithuanian authorities have widely characterized the people who crossed from Belarus as people
undeserving of international protection who should be returned to their countries of origin.
175
However, in
many cases, the authorities have faced problems in securing the cooperation of the countries of origin,
which is typically necessary to effect forced returns. One important example was mentioned by the Head of
the Investigation Unit of SBGS: “We have a problem with people from Iraq: if people don’t accept voluntary
return, we cannot return them.”
176
In view of these limitations, Lithuanian authorities have put pressure on
refugees and migrants in detention
to accept “voluntary” returns.
DETENTION AS A FORM OF PRESSURE
The whole detention system in Lithuania for those who crossed from Belarus appears designed to force
people to leave. People are kept in detention for prolonged periods
despite the unlikelihood that a forcible
return will follow
and face not only unbearable conditions of detention, but also a situation of constant fear,
uncertainty and humiliation.
“If you go to detention centres for asylum-seekers,
you see that states create them to put pressure on people to
go back voluntarily. It is a strategy, and it’s not new.”
“Tarik”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
To achieve the dual objectives of deterring new arrivals and also returning people currently in the country,
the Lithuanian authorities focus most of their communications on the need for people to leave Lithuania,
showcasing the assistance made available from the state for those willing to return “voluntarily”.
“One week later, another officer came and told me ‘Why are you here? Go back home!’ Every time, the same
officer tells me my application was rejected and I should go back to my country. But I can’t, there is war! So he
says: ‘Choose another country, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey… I will give you
a thousand euro and the ticket
to go back’. But I left my country under the war, why do you want to send me back?”
“Saleh”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, THREATS AND RACIST INSULTS
Several people reported having been addressed by border guards in disparaging, offensive and racist ways,
in a clear effort to harass and humiliate them with the intention of forcing people to decide to go back to their
countries of origin.
Racialized people, particularly Black men and women, have reported being the targets of profoundly
offensive and discriminatory slurs.
“In Medininkai, the guards called us ‘rapists’ and ‘criminals’.”
“Peter”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
175
Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, “Reply to the letter of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe”, 24
August 2021, https://rm.coe.int/reply-
of-the-prime-minister-of-the-republic-of-lithuania-ms-ingrida-si/1680a39439.
176
Interview in person with SBGS Head of Investigation Unit, Medininkai, 9 March 2022.
173
174
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
43
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0044.png
"They treat us like
animals. Police comes every morning and night to count us and they say ‘how many animals
are here?’"
“Stéphanie”, young woman from Cameroon detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Threats by border guards in Medininkai appear to have exacerbated anxiety about the potential impact of
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, rising tensions that culminated in the demonstration of 1 March 2022 at the
Medininkai FRC and the raid the following morning.
“Before the demonstration, a guard told the women that one day they’d put us in the forest and bomb us and say
it was the Belarusians. The girls got scared.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
TRICKING PEOPLE INTO ACCEPTING RETURN
Authorities also appeared to be using the various failings in the asylum system (see section 6) to make
people accept “voluntary” returns without their effective consent.
“They told me I should sign a form in Lithuanian language, but I don’t understand Lithuanian so I refused to sign.
I didn’t
understand what was written. They said it was a document stating that I received the decision [on my
asylum]. I tried to translate [it] in my room and I realised it was a form for deportation. I don’t want to go back.”
“Gabriel”, man from Sub-Saharan
Africa detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
Sometimes, authorities deny detainees the possibility to access rights that are or should be available to
people.
“A woman in military uniform told me ‘Why did you come to this country? If you want a lawyer
you can pay for
it’… Many guards often say: ‘This is Lithuania, not EU’”.
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
COOPERATION WITH CONSULAR AUTHORITIES
In order to encourage returns, Lithuanian authorities also engage with relevant consular authorities from
detainees’ countries of origin. This is a standard procedure when a state tries to arrange returns of people
who that state has determined have no protection needs. However, for as long as an asylum application is
under consideration, states must refrain from revealing to representatives of the countries of origin the
identity of people who are in their custody and who may belong to groups being persecuted.
“Asylum [procedures] should be between us and the immigration
[office]. Instead, they send us to our consulates
or bringing consular staff to speak to us, but we never asked for that.”
“Peter”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
The Medininkai administration has stated that “Foreigners
that are accommodated at the centre receive
information about the scheduled visits [of consular representatives] and only those foreigners that have
expressed a wish to meet with a representative of their country are provided with such an opportunity
(regardless
of the foreign national’s legal status).”
177
However, according to testimonies from detainees,
people are sometimes taken to meet the consular representatives of their country of origin against their will.
“One day in February they dragged a
lady on the floor, on the snow, to bring her to speak to the consular
representative [of her country]. They had told us it was not mandatory [to speak to them], but as nobody wanted
to go, they forced us. They beat us all, the Congolese, to convince us to go speak with the consular
representatives.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
This claim appears to be confirmed by a video shared with Amnesty International, showing a woman being
taken away by guards in Medininkai, despite her strenuous attempts to resist.
178
“VOLUNTARY” RETURNS AS DISGUISED FORCIBLE RETURNS
The pressure exerted by authorities has had some results. According to figures provided by Lithuanian
authorities, 456 returns were carried out in 2021, out of which 400 were characterized as voluntary. As of 29
177
178
State Border Guard Service (Medininkai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
Videoclip on file with Amnesty International.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
44
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0045.png
May 2022, Lithuania had removed another 624 foreigners, with 599 of the returns labelled as voluntary.
179
The pressure to return “voluntarily” has caused immense psychological stress for many people in detention
who are forced to choose between remaining in a situation of abuse or returning to face persecution and
violence.
“We asked medicines from doctors to be able to sleep, because we are always ‘overthinking’, we are under a lot
of psychological pressure. They keep on visiting us and telling that we need to go back to Syria. We get pressure
here and we ‘overthink’. If our country was safe, we would go.”
"Abdul”, young Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
“I asked for medical care for
my back but they said no. I was interrogated three times by the military, and I told
them [that] we are Yazidis, but they said ‘not our problem’… After two months I saw that [there was] no hope so I
asked to be deported, and they took me to another place for a month where there were some 35 people, mostly
Iraqi Kurds and some Arab Iraqis, and every week 10 or so would leave.”
“Arman”, Iraqi man, interviewed
in Iraq in December 2021
Many people are deciding whether to return to their country of origin while experiencing conditions that may
be so dire as to leave little if any alternative to return
conditions resulting from the practices, actions and
policies of the Lithuanian authorities and taken with the apparent intention of forcing the departure of people
from its territory. A return under such coercive conditions and in the context of intimidation and harassment
can never be considered voluntary. Depending on individual circumstances, such returns may amount to
breaches of the prohibition of
refoulement
and collective expulsion.
179
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
45
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0046.png
6. PROCESS DESIGNED
TO FAIL PEOPLE
Refugees and migrants are not only detained arbitrarily and subjected to inhumane treatment. Lithuanian
authorities have also been depriving them of any real possibility of putting an end to their ordeal by having
their asylum claims effectively assessed by an independent authority, or by receiving effective legal advice to
support them in their asylum or deportation procedure.
6.1 LACK OF INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL DECISION-
MAKERS
Lithuanian legislation allows the Migration Department during situations of “emergency” to impose custodial
measures on asylum-seekers and decide in the first instance on their asylum claims.
From July to December 2021, the Migration Department also decided in the second instance on appeals
against the department’s own decisions on
asylum. It was only with appeals in the third instance that
asylum-seekers had access to an independent authority, a local Administrative Court. That appeal had no
suspensive effect, however, in practice enabling the Migration Department to forcibly return an asylum-
seeker before any independent authority could assess their appeal.
180
In addition, this procedure denied the
possibility to appeal in the last instance to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. Introduced in
summer 2021, this procedure was eventually abandoned at the end of the year given the obvious
shortcomings in terms of independence of the decision-making authorities and due process rights for
asylum-seekers.
Since January 2022, appeals against the Migration Department’s first instance
asylum decisions can be
submitted directly to local courts and in the third instance to the Supreme Administrative Court.
181
It is impossible to determine how many asylum-seekers were forcibly returned to their countries of origin
between July and December 2021 despite being in genuine need of international protection. As a form of
reparation for the violations of the obligation of
non-refoulement
and related procedural rights, Lithuanian
authorities should open for re-consideration all the asylum claims that were treated under the former
procedure to ensure everyone has access to independent, impartial and effective reviews of their asylum
claims.
Despite the January 2022 legal improvement, the process to assess a person’s asylum claim is still plagued
with other concerning legal and practical impediments that deprive asylum-seekers of any hope to enjoy a
fair and effective asylum procedure (see next sections).
Domantė Platūkytė, “Situaciją dėl prieglobsčio prašymo vadina iškreipta: apskųstus Migracijos departamento sprendimus nagrinėja pats departamentas”,
Lithuanian
Radio and Television (LRT),
22 September 2021,lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1498648/situacija-del-prieglobscio-prasymo-vadina-iskreipta-apskustus-migracijos-
departamento-sprendimus-nagrineja-pats-departamentas
181
Mano vyriausybė (My Government portal
- Lithuanian
Government), "Vyriausybė iš esmės pritarė pataisoms dėl Užsieniečių teisinės padėties, keičiasi tik apskundimo
tvarka", 20 October 2021, lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/vyriausybe-is-esmes-pritare-pataisoms-del-uzsienieciu-teisines-padeties-keiciasi-tik-apskundimo-tvarka
180
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
46
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0047.png
Under EU law, asylum applications must be examined impartially by the national authorities.
182
Member
states must ensure that asylum applicants have access to an effective appeal before a court or tribunal
against rejection decisions, decisions finding asylum applications inadmissible and, among others, decisions
not to conduct an examination of asylum claims. At least in appeals procedures, the effective remedy should
provide “for a full and
ex nunc
examination of both facts and points of law, including, where applicable, an
examination of the international protection needs […] before a court or tribunal of first instance.
183
6.2 LEGAL AID SYSTEM: A SHAM
"Since we came, we had different lawyers, every time. We didn't even know their names, some mornings they
come and say that we have a meeting with immigration [officers]. There, there's a lawyer, but we don't even know
them. They are there and the only thing they say is ‘I have nothing to say’. I was never able to spend 10 minutes
with them. Never, and every time it was a different person.”
“Josephine”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
The Migration Department contracts with and pays for the state-guaranteed lawyers to represent asylum-
seekers and migrants’ claims in
the proceedings before and against the Migration Department itself.
People in detention communicated to Amnesty International their desperation at the lack of help from
lawyers they could trust. Only those who could afford to pay expensive fees to hire a private lawyer received
effective legal support. Those who requested state-sponsored legal aid consistently reported that they had no
real interactions with the lawyers who were supposed to provide them with legal advice and to guide them
through the procedures, either to seek asylum or appeal against deportation or detention. In some cases,
asylum-seekers even said that they felt that their state-sponsored lawyers were actively acting against them.
A LEGAL AID SYSTEM DESIGNED TO FAIL PEOPLE
The detainees interviewed for this report were either awaiting a decision on their asylum application or facing
a return procedure. In both cases, they have a right to legal counsel in their proceedings before relevant
authorities, as well as the right to challenge decisions concerning their detention, asylum or return. If they
cannot afford a private lawyer
the case for most people in such a situation
they have a right under
domestic legislation “to use state-guaranteed
legal aid in accordance with the procedure established by the
Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.”
184
Legal aid is provided by Lithuanian law, but legal aid provided by the state for asylum-seekers and migrants
is an exception to the rules on legal aid for any other matters, including any civil or criminal matters. While
legal aid in Lithuania is normally managed by an independent institution (the “State Guaranteed Legal Aid
Service”) under the Ministry of Justice, legal aid services for asylum and migration matters are exceptionally
organised and coordinated by the Migration Department.
The Migration Department is in charge of selecting and contracting with legal aid providers through a public
procurement procedure funded by the EU through the EU Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund
(AMIF).
185
In practice, this means that the same institution that decides on asylum-seekers’
and migrants’
legal claims is also the one selecting and paying the lawyers expected to challenge its own decisions.
This presents a risk of conflict of interest, exemplified by a testimony collected by the Seimas Ombudsperson
from a legal aid service provider, which revealed that “in most cases the service provider avoids appealing
against the Migration Department's asylum decisions or stepping up legal protection for aliens for fear of
losing the procurement of legal services organised by the Migration Department and whose asylum decisions
are being appealed because the main contract with one of the service providers shall be re-awarded each
year following a renewed
tendering procedure.”
186
Art. 10(3) a), Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international
protection.
183
Art. 46, Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international
protection.
184
Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
Sprendimas Dėl Užsieniečių apgyvendinimo vietų administravimo, vidaus tvarkos ir procedūrinių veiksmų atlikimo
taisyklių
(Decision
on rules for the administration, internal order and procedural action of places for accommodation of foreigners),
14 August 2021, No. 10V-31, Article
24.4, e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/0aa48eb0fd3611ebb4af84e751d2e0c9?jfwid=-vsw52885t
185
Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
Įsakymas Dėl Prieglobsčio Lietuvos Respublikoje suteikimo ir panaikinimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo (Order on the
approval of the description of the procedure for granting and withdrawing asylum
in the Republic of Lithuania),
24 February 2016, No. 1V-131, Para. 176, https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/0a918630dc0311e59019a599c5cbd673/asr
186
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Report
on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 7.3.6.
182
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
47
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0048.png
The procurement procedure appears to be based only on cost,
187
incentivizing law firms to provide the most
minimal service. The evidence indicates that state-sponsored lawyers provide little, if any, relevant services,
let alone sufficient to high quality representation.
The Secretary General of the Lithuanian Bar Association, Paulius
Griciūnas,
shared with Amnesty
International his concerns about this flawed legal aid system:
“Who pays for the lawyer? The Migration Department or the State Border Guard Service. So, who should a lawyer
in this system be acting against? The Migration Department or the client? In [the normal] legal aid framework,
the State Guaranteed Legal Aid Service [under the Ministry of Justice] is not part of the trial. Here instead, we
have a situation creating the obvious possibility of conflict of interest. It is not publicly discussed, but it is
obvious… I don’t see any reason why the system should be different from [normal] state-legal
aid.”
188
With respect to contracting with legal aid providers, the Migration Department organises a tender for legal aid
to asylum-seekers, while the State Border Guard Service manages the tender for legal aid to irregular
migrants and unaccompanied minors.
189
Amnesty International has viewed two contracts signed by the Migration Department in 2021 with the law
firm in charge of assisting asylum-seekers.
190
In the contracts, the Migration Department is described as the
“client” of the lawyer. These contracts are valid for six months, but the Migration Department can terminate
them unilaterally, including without any requirement to provide a justification for the termination. This
undoubtedly may put pressure on lawyers to comply with the wishes of their “client” for fear of being sacked.
The law firm was contracted to provide legal aid for thousands of asylum-seekers. Only
two “specialists”
were named in the contracts signed by the law firm with the Migration Department. The contracted firm has
not responded to a request for information regarding the exact number of lawyers (including potential
subcontractors) working with asylum-seekers, and asking how the law firm is protected from incurring in a
conflict of interest.
191
Other lawyers have suggested the law firm has fewer than ten employees, and the
Chairman of the Lithuanian Bar Association revealed to local media that
“an extremely small number of
attorneys provide this service.”
192
Despite a limited capacity and time frame (six months per contract), the Migration Department contracted
with the law firm to provide legal aid in an enormous number of cases, including preparing and submitting
“procedural documents related to the exercise of the right to asylum” 7,500 times, assisting during first-
instance asylum procedures 2,750 times or assisting asylum-seekers in appeal procedures another 7,150
times.
193
A lawyer from another
law firm, noted that “three law firms won the initial tender for asylum-seekers
in 2018,
but that was when there were only 300 migrant arrivals per year. We were one of the three, but when the
migrants were not anymore 300 [per year], but 4,000, we were sure we would not be able to provide good
quality legal services for the same price. If you have 4,000 cases, you need more funding and to hire more
people in your law firm. So, we got out, and so did another company. Eventually, only one law firm was
left.”
194
The order of the Ministry of the Interior establishing this legal aid system requires the legal aid to be
organized and carried out in accordance with key principles: equality; “the protection of the rights and
interests of all persons protected by
law”; and quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.
The Ministry of
Interior, in a written communication to Amnesty International, stated that the Migration Department monitors
the quality and efficiency of state-guaranteed legal aid,
195
“[b]oth
on general grounds (by conducting
independent inspections) and in individual cases (after receiving complaints regarding the provision of legal
services).”
196
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania,
Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, (previously cited), Section 7.
188
Interview by video call with Paulius Griciūnas,
Secretary General of the Lithuanian Bar Association, 9 May 2022.
189
Ministry of Interior, email of 8 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
190
The two contracts signed by the Migration Department with the law firm (on 29 July 2021 and 23 November 2021) are publicly available in Lithuania. A third contract
with the same law firm was signed on 24 May 2022.
191
The request was sent by e-mail on 9 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
192
Vytenis Miškinis, "Skandalinga pasipelnymo iš migrantų schema: šimtai tūkstančių eurų iš valstybės – į apsukraus teisininko kišenę",
Delfi.lt,
15 May 2022,
https://m.delfi.lt/lietuvoje/article.php?id=90176489
193
These numbers were calculated by adding homologous services extracted from the two initial contracts signed with the Migration Department and available at:
www.cvpp.lt.
194
Interview by voice call with lawyer at the Spectrum Legis law firm, 5 May 2022.
195
The question from Amnesty International and answered by the Ministry of Interior asked: “Is the Migration Department and/or any
Lithuanian institution monitoring
the quality and efficiency of state-guaranteed legal aid provided to migrants and asylum-seekers?
How?”
196
Ministry of Interior, email to Amnesty International, 6 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
187
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
48
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0049.png
The Ministry of Interior, however, did not respond to Amnesty International’s question on how the
government ensures that the provision of legal aid is organised and carried out in accordance with the
principles of equality, the protection of rights and interests of refugees and migrants, the prohibition of abuse
of state-guaranteed legal aid, and substantive or procedural rights.
197
The contracts viewed by Amnesty
International did not include any details about how the parties must ensure the rights and interests of the
refugees and migrants or what mechanism would monitor the guarantee of those principles.
When asked by Amnesty International, the Ministry of Interior did not clarify what safeguards are in place to
ensure the impartiality of lawyers and prevent conflicts of interest. Instead, the Ministry of Interior limited its
response to commenting
that “State-guaranteed
legal aid lawyers are impartial. The Migration Department
orders a service (e.g. preparation of a complaint, representation at a court hearing), and upon receipt of this
order, the lawyers act independently, they do not coordinate these complaints with the Migration
Department.”
198
Article 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees establishes that a refugee “shall enjoy in the
Contracting State in which he has his habitual residence the same treatment as a national in matters
pertaining to access to the Courts, including legal assistance.”
Instead, Lithuania has created a parallel legal
aid system for matters of asylum and migration which is marred by a lack of impartiality and independence,
and carries the risk of creating a conflict of interest for lawyers representing people in asylum and migration
matters. As shown in the next section, within this system state-sponsored lawyers abstain from defending the
rights of asylum-seekers and migrants, or even act against them.
STATE-SPONSORED LAWYERS NOT ASSISTING ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND MIGRANTS OR ACTING AGAINST THEM
Despite the formal presence of state-sponsored lawyers in asylum and immigration proceedings, the quality
of legal aid is a key concern. According to dozens of refugees and migrants, lawyers are always present at
hearings but seldom, if ever, provided any effective legal services or legal representation. As a result, the
legal support provided is not only inadequate, but also damaging for asylum-seekers and migrants, as it
allows for procedures to formally take place, without actual representation of their interests.
Peoples’
testimonies about legal aid painted a disheartening picture. All those interviewed confirmed that
they had never met or spoken with their state-appointed lawyer before their crucial interview for their asylum
case, and that they were not even made aware of the date of such interview until the day it took place,
therefore having no time to prepare for it. Those who request legal aid are not even made aware of their
lawyer’s name or contact details. The state-sponsored
lawyers never directly communicated with their
clients, and people wishing to contact a lawyer had no possibility to do so. According to protocol, the
detention centres’ management should inform
asylum-seekers and migrants of an appointment with a lawyer
within one working day,
199
but in practice this appears never to happen.
Providing access to legal assistance for asylum-seekers and irregular migrants is an obligation under EU law,
at least in appeals procedures.
200
In asylum cases, EU member states must ensure that free legal assistance
includes, at minimum, the preparation of the required procedural documents and participation in the
hearing before a court or tribunal of first instance on behalf of the applicant.
201
Asylum-seekers and migrants in detention in Lithuania instead recounted how they only saw their lawyers on
a computer screen at their immigration hearings, which take place online, thus leaving no opportunity for
any private interaction before, during or after the proceedings.
The question from Amnesty International said: “How is the government ensuring the implementation of paragraph 185
of Description of the Procedure for Granting
and Revoking Asylum in the Republic of Lithuania, approved by Order No. 1V 131 “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure
for Granting and Revoking Asylum
in the Republic of Lithuania” of the Minister
of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania of 24 February 2016? In particular, how is the government ensuring that the
provision of state-guaranteed legal aid is organized and carried out in accordance with the following principles under paragraph 185 Equality and the protection of the
rights and interests of all persons protected by law; the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of state-guaranteed legal aid; the prohibition of abuse of state-
guaranteed legal aid and substantive and procedural rights?”.
198
The question from Amnesty International said: “Conflict of interest and safeguards: What safeguards are in place in proceedings
to ensure the impartiality of lawyers
and prevent the legal service provider(s)’s conflict of interest in proceedings
managed and decided by the Migration Department (e.g. asylum, temporary
accommodation without freedom of movement) considering that the decisions are taken by the same institution (the Migration Department) that is contracting the
state-guaranteed legal aid
provider(s)?”
199
Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
Įsakymas Dėl Prieglobsčio Lietuvos Respublikoje suteikimo ir panaikinimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo (Order on the
approval of the description of the procedure for granting and withdrawing asylum in
the Republic of Lithuania),
24 February 2016, No. 1V-131, Para. 182, https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/0a918630dc0311e59019a599c5cbd673/asr.
200
Return Directive (2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for
returning illegally staying third-country nationals), Art. 13; Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June
2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection), Art. 20.
201
Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and
withdrawing international protection), Art. 20.
197
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
49
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0050.png
“They wake you up one morning and tell you ‘you have immigration court’. There [in the online court room], there
is a lawyer. I have never spoken to any lawyer. You can only see them through the screen [at the online hearing],
but we don’t even know them. The lawyer never even asked me my story, never.”
“Marie”, Cameroonian woman detained in Medininkai, interviewed in March 2022
“Immigration
[proceedings] are always online. The day of the interview for
the asylum, they tell you ‘This is your
lawyer’, but I had never seen the lawyer before.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
“The court is always on skype, you enter the [online] room and they say ‘he is your lawyer’, I never
had a one-to-
one.”
“Josephine”, young woman from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
To prepare their clients’ cases, lawyers can request from the administration of the FRCs access to their
clients’ personal files. Yet, communications from the FRCs’ managements revealed that lawyers seldom or
never asked for access to people’s personal files.
The Medininkai FRC management revealed that, as of 16
May 2022, only two case files were presented to lawyers upon a lawyer’s request, despite the centre
detaining approximately 500 individuals. The administration of Kybartai FRC stated that they “have
not
received any requests from lawyers for access to the files of asylum-seekers or illegal [sic]
migrants”.
202
Asylum-seekers consistently reported that even during formal proceedings their lawyers made no meaningful
comments and usually remained silent
throughout or responded with “I have nothing to say” when directly
asked whether they had any comment by the presiding authorities.
“I have never met my lawyer before [immigration hearings]. You enter the online room and they tell you ‘this is
your lawyer’.
Then the lawyer doesn’t say anything.”
“Jean”,
young man from Sub-Saharan Africa, interviewed in March 2022
“The lawyer never speaks. They don’t know anything about you.”
“Sekou”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
In some cases, detainees also reported that their assigned lawyers made comments that did not align with
the interests of the person they were supposed to represent but were instead defensive of the Migration
Department’s arguments against their client.
One of the men detained following the raid in Medininkai on 2 March told Amnesty International:
“During the court [hearing] I asked the lawyer whether he knew my situation, he said ‘I know that you tried to run
away from the camp’.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
In another case, an asylum-seeker who appealed against his detention reported that when he asked for his
lawyer’s help, the lawyer accused his client during a hearing with the Migration Department of planning to
abscond should he be released.
“I have had a lawyer whom I have never met. I have seen him for the first time at the [online] interview and
during the interview the lawyer was saying that I have no right to freedom. […] He was saying ‘no, you have no
right
to freedom, you are going to stay six months more in detention…’ It was during the interview with
immigration officers and the ‘judge’ that my lawyer was saying this, that ‘you are going to flee if we set you
free...’”
“Simon”, young man from a Western African
country, April 2022
In another case, an asylum-seeker
wishing to challenge the Migration Department’s decision not to consider
his asylum application reported how his lawyer and the interpreter tried to persuade him to withdraw his
challenge:
“I don’t know any name of state lawyers, they never discussed with me any details of my case. I see them only
when there is court ... When I applied for asylum to the immigration department, and the immigration department
202
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
50
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0051.png
refused [to consider my asylum request], I wanted to file a complaint. The lawyer was there, and he tried to
convince me not to sue the immigration department for ignoring my request. The interpreter was also telling me
‘you should withdraw the complaint’.”
“Yasser”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, May 2022
Even after the interview and the decision by relevant authorities to either deny international protection or
authorize detention, people had no interactions with or communications from their assigned lawyers, and
little or no support in filing appeals.
Written decisions were always delivered in Lithuanian, with only scant information being included in English
and other languages, making it extremely difficult for people to understand the reasoning behind them,
particularly when lawyers did not provide follow-up support.
These claims are entirely consistent with the findings of the Lithuanian Parliamentary Ombudsperson, at
least one member of the Lithuanian parliament,
203
and other organisations with continuous access to
detention facilities. A survey conducted by the Lithuanian Red Cross, found that 96% out of 150 surveyed
detainees did not know who the state-sponsored legal aid lawyer representing them was. The survey found
that foreigners “do not even receive a copy of the court decisions from the lawyer representing them, let
alone acquaintance with such decision”. Referring to domestic legislation establishing that a lawyer should
notify and provide access to all procedural documents related to a case to the people they are representing,
the Red Cross concluded that “it is likely that [legal aid] providers do not fulfil this obligation towards the
foreigners they represent.”
204
6.3 DISREGARD FOR DUE PROCESS
Lithuanian authorities have actively exploited the lack of oversight from judicial reviews of detention and a
compromised legal aid system to implement practices that amply disregard due process and deprive
asylum-seekers and migrants of any real chance to assert their rights. Multiple testimonies included
information about numerous violations of due process in asylum, detention and return proceedings
Rather than effectively examining the claims of people seeking asylum, including by enabling them to
present all relevant evidence, officials appeared to deal with cases in a superficial and prejudicial way
often
bypassing procedural safeguards
in order to secure decisions against the applicants. As a representative of
Diversity Development Group reported to Amnesty International,
“When people started arriving from Belarus,
the Immigration Department labelled these people as
illegals
to be deported, not people worth asylum.”
205
Amnesty International has documented serious shortcomings in the way asylum and deportation
proceedings were conducted or information was gathered, interpreted, translated, or processed.
INSUFFICIENT TIME DURING THE INTERVIEWS
The authorities routinely failed to notify asylum-seekers in a timely manner so they could prepare before their
interviews. Asylum-seekers also were not provided with proper tools and time to actively participate and
make their case. Complex interviews with asylum-seekers would last only 15-30 minutes, clearly not enough
time to detail one’s asylum claims. Technical problems related
to the online format and poor interpretation
further impaired applicants’ chances to argue their case. As one man recounted:
“I don’t know where to start to say what is wrong with the system, the interviews are all wrong. Timing is not
enough, internet is weak. And the interpretation, there are two interpreters here and they never told the story the
way I meant it.”
Samer”, young man from Iraq detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
The proceedings are not only deficient in time and manner, but the utter lack of respect for the dignity of
asylum-seekers is often on full display. As a representative of the Lithuanian Refugee Council confirmed:
Vytautas Bakas, “Seimo nario Vytauto Bako pranešimas: parlamentaras kreipėsi į Lietuvos advokatūrą dėl valstybės garantuojamos teisinės pagalbos kokybės“,
(Press release, 25 April 2022), sc.bns.lt/view/item/424151.
204
Lithuanian Red Cross, "Stebėsenos ataskaitos apie užsieniečių prieigos prie prieglobsčio procedūrų ir valstybės garantuojamos teisinės pagalbos
apgyvendinimo
centruose santrauka", 2022, www.redcross.lt/sites/redcross.lt/files/temine_stebesena_prieiga_prie_proceduru_santrauka.pdf
205
Interview in person with representative of the Diversity Development Group, Vilnius, 11 March 2022.
203
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
51
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0052.png
“The interview for the asylum lasts between 15 and 30 minutes, I have seen it. Officers are very negative,
they yell at asylum-seekers.”
206
A former staff member of the Migration Department who used to interview asylum applicants also reported to
Lithuanian media that “the formalities with the migrants last less than 20 mins, during which the employees
of the
Migration Department have to quickly decide whether they put the person in the ‘illegal’ or ‘asylum-
seeker’ category. This decision impacts the course of their asylum request, and the result is often dependent
solely on the morals of the employees themselves…
We are deceiving them in the process because... the
real goal is to get rid of them.”
207
ASYLUM-SEEKERS PREVENTED FROM ACCESS TO INFORMATION TO DETAIL THEIR CLAIMS
People do not appear to receive assistance in retrieving evidence to substantiate their claims, including in
accessing the material resources necessary to submit the relevant information.
Several people stated that their phones, seized from them at the beginning of their detention, were not even
temporarily returned to them when they clarified with the authorities that crucial evidence saved there would
substantiate their asylum claim. The Kybartai administration claimed that “mobile phones are only taken
away from [persons] that have been detained [by a decision] of the Court.”
208
The Medininkai administration
clarified that, in addition, “a mobile telephone may be seized for up to 7 days in case of disciplinary
violations.”
209
In one case, Lithuanian authorities
seized the phone of “Simon”, an asylum-seeker
from a Western African
country who is escaping persecution based on his sexual orientation. During asylum proceedings, the
authorities alleged that “Simon” lied about his sexual orientation. “Simon” had asked
the authorities several
times to retrieve his phone where he kept crucial documents proving that he had been imprisoned in his
country of origin because of his sexual orientation. However, “Simon” was never given his phone back.
“At the interview, they told me that I am lying, that I am not gay. The Immigration Department was saying that I
lie. They asked that I give them proofs, so I gave them pictures of my boyfriend, I couldn’t give proof that I was
imprisoned in [country in Africa] [for being gay]. I have many proofs on my phone, but when I got arrested in
Lithuania, they took my phone and the authorities never gave it back to me. I had a document on my phone
showing that I was in prison in [country in Africa] in 2014. I asked them to give me my phone back, but they never
gave it back to me.”
“Simon”, young man from a Western African country, interviewed by voice call in April 2022
The Migration Department eventually rejected “Simon”’s asylum application and the decision stated
that his
accounts could not be considered as credible evidence because it was probable that his “declared
homosexuality” was “fictitious”.
210
In another case, “Coman” was denied release from detention based on the Migration Department’s
argument to a regional court that he had not produced his passport at the time he sought asylum, allegedly
“proving” he had been uncooperative. In fact, at that time, the Migration Department was holding his
passport. “Coman”’s statements to the court that he had given his
passport to the Migration Department
authorities were deemed not credible. Weeks later, when he requested that the Migration Department
provide information about the whereabouts of his passport, they confirmed in writing that they had it in their
possession.
“When I went to court, everything was in my favour… But after a day I got a reply. The judge’s decision was to
refuse me [release to] an open camp. The reason was that the Department of Immigration claimed that I did not
hand over my original passport to them, and they consider that I did not cooperate with them. But that is not true.
I handed them all my original documents and my passport. I was shocked by it… After I saw the decision, I sent
an email to the Department of Immigration to check whether my
passport is with them now or not.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed by voice call in May 2022
Interview in person with representative of the Lithuanian Refugee Council, Vilnius, 11 March 2022.
Domantė Platūkytė, “Situaciją dėl prieglobsčio prašymo vadina iškreipta: apskųstus Migracijos departamento sprendimus nagrinėja pats departamentas”,
Lithuanian
Radio and Television (LRT),
22 September 2021,lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1498648/situacija-del-prieglobscio-prasymo-vadina-iskreipta-apskustus-migracijos-
departamento-sprendimus-nagrineja-pats-departamentas
208
State Border Guard Service (Kybartai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
209
State Border Guard Service (Medininkai), email to Amnesty International, 16 May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
210 The decision of the Migration Department was viewed by Amnesty International researchers (details withheld for security reasons), on file with Amnesty
International.
206
207
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
52
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0053.png
Amnesty International has reviewed the Migration Department’s reply sent via email to “Coman” and it
confirmed that the passport and
other documents were in fact in the department’s possession.
211
Subsequently, “Coman” appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and in May 2022 was granted a new
hearing to consider the matter.
“I asked the judge to ask the representative of the Department
of Immigration [whether] my passport is with
them or not. And she answered yes, his original passport is with us. And I told her then why in the previous court
[decision] it was written that I did not hand [them] a passport. At the end, when she felt trapped, she claimed that
my asylum file is closed, that I did not appeal the first refusal. That is not true, I appealed the decision. But now
they are quickly closing your asylum file before you complete a year in detention, they are afraid that you will go
out after the year.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, interviewed by voice call in May 2022
MISTAKES IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND IN MIGRATION DEPARTMENT DECISIONS
Superficial proceedings inevitably result in superficial decisions. In some cases, Migration Department
decisions were so similar to each other that they appeared to have been copy-pasted. Some decisions
contained or were based on obvious mistakes, giving credence to the concern that there was no careful and
thorough individual assessment of many asylum claims.
Such mistakes included errors concerning the nationality of asylum applicants. Amnesty International has
reviewed one Migration Department decision concerning the expulsion of an asylum applicant from a sub-
Saharan country stating
that the applicant “does not wish to return to the Republic of Iraq”, despite the
applicant having never had any link to Iraq. According to a man interviewed in one of the FRCs, similar
mistakes are common, as he was aware of another decision misrepresenting a Somali national as Eritrean.
212
“Samer” was an asylum-seeker
whose initial asylum application had been rejected because the Migration
Department believed he had fled from Lithuania thus abandoning the asylum procedure. In fact, Lithuanian
authorities
had transferred “Samer” from one detention facility to another within Lithuania just a couple of
days before the asylum decision was issued. When “Samer” challenged the decision, he was sent a new
decision of refusal on other grounds four days later.
“I have applied for asylum immediately when I entered Lithuania. Back then I was in another camp, then they
transferred me to here [other detention centre, i.e. Kybartai]. Then, I received an e-mail saying I would not get
asylum because I was not anymore in Lithuania, that I had escaped the asylum procedure, just because I was
transferred! I then replied [explaining that I had been transferred] and only four days later they sent me a new
refusal [of my asylum application].”
“Samer”, young man from Iraq
detained in Kybartai, interviewed in March 2022
Other decisions also betray lack of due diligence, precision and thoroughness. Many asylum-seekers and
migrants reported that details and stories mentioned in the decisions were directly at odds with the stories
they shared during the interviews.
“I read the decision on my asylum case, using Google Translate, and it was completely different [from what I had
said]. I came because of problems in Biafra, I never mentioned Boko Haram, but in the decision they mentioned
Boko Haram […] All the decisions are in Lithuanian. We Google Translate them and the story is always different
from the one you had told them.”
“Sekou”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, interviewed in March 2022
EU law requires that decisions on applications for international protection be taken following an appropriate
examination, and that applications be examined and decisions taken individually, objectively and
impartially.
213
Even within the context of accelerated procedures, the Council of Europe’s relevant guidelines
establish that “throughout the proceedings, decisions should be taken with due diligence.”
214
The superficial
nature of decisions taken by the Migration Department, and even more so the obvious mistakes included in
such decisions show that Lithuania is not living up to its international obligations.
Migration Department, Email to “Coman” (name changed for security reasons), May 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
Interview with “Sekou” (name changed for security reasons), young man from
Sub-Saharan Africa, interviewed in March 2022.
213
Asylum Procedure Directive, Art. 10.3.
214
Council of Europe, Human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures - Guidelines and Explanatory Memorandum, Guideline n. 9, Adopted by the
Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2009 at the 1062nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, https://rm.coe.int/16806aff8b.
211
212
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
53
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0054.png
INADEQUATE INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION
Several asylum-seekers and migrants also reported that interpretation during the interviews and proceedings
was of poor quality or totally inadequate, making it virtually impossible to understand what was being said or
properly assert one’s claims and facts.
“The lawyer does not speak French or English. The interpreter does not interpret well French, we don’t
understand each other. When I finished my interview and I looked at the decision, this says something completely
different from what I had said [in the interview]. So, I assume that we have a hard time communicating with the
interpreter.”
“Simon”, young man from a Western African country, interviewed by voice call in April 2022
“The [interpreter] had a different accent and was unprofessional and throughout
the interview he was wandering
around his house. When I got the rejection, I found a lot of different things.”
“Coman”, young Iraqi man detained in Kybartai, text message, interviewed by voice call in May 2022
In at least one case, an asylum-seeker reported how an interpreter refused to interpret certain parts of the
proceedings:
“[In] the court [hearing] about my complaint against the immigration department […] the interpreter asked me
to ask the judge what benefits I get from this complaint, and the harm I may get if something bad happened. The
interpreter kept on telling me ‘you should withdraw the complaint’ and did not even want to translate what I was
saying.”
“Yasser”, Syrian man detained in Kybartai, interviewed by voice call in May 2022
Once decisions are taken, they are only issued in Lithuanian. The only parts that were also in English
concerned the “Substance of the Decision”. For instance, in decisions on asylum the part in English simply
mentioned if asylum was granted or not and informed of the possibility to appeal and to request a state-
sponsored lawyer, but no other details were given. Nevertheless, asylum-seekers were asked to sign and
declare that “this decision was read and explained to me.” The decisions were normally delivered
by SBGS
officers in the detention centres. When asylum-seekers and migrants asked the officers what the decision
said, officers tended to limit themselves to simply stating whether asylum was granted or not or whether the
decision imposed detention. Migrants and asylum-seekers were often left to use their mobile phones to try
and translate complex legal language with online tools, such as Google Translate.
“Every document is in Lithuanian, they don’t explain us well, just a few things and then they say that
we have to
sign.”
“Peter”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, March 2022
LACK OF CERTAINTY AND OTHER IMPACTS ON MENTAL HEALTH
Without adequate legal counsel or information and with little to no possibility to understand the procedures
they are going through, virtually all people in detention shared that they felt powerless and at the mercy of
abusive practices and unfair procedures.
People said that they feared their detention could be endless, because they did not know its duration. Many
felt hopeless that their asylum claims would be assessed fairly. After spending several months in detention in
abysmal conditions and lacking any perspective or clarity on what to expect from their immigration
proceedings, many complained about their mental wellbeing. The Lithuanian Parliamentary Ombudsperson
has also noted the mental health impacts and stated that “such long-term
uncertainty about the future due
to lack of information may have a negative impact on the psychological condition of foreign nationals.”
215
“One of the most common complaints heard from many of the interviewed foreign nationals was a lack of understanding of their
legal status in Lithuania and a lack
of information about it. Foreign nationals accommodated in the Kybartai ARC complained that they did not understand and receive answers about what migration
procedures were being carried out on them, what was waiting for them in the future, what were the maximum time limits for their detention in the Kybartai ARC. Those
who complained claimed that they did not receive this information either from the Kybartai ARC administration or when contacting the Migration Department. It should
be noted that such long-term uncertainty about the future due to lack of information may have
a negative impact on the psychological condition of foreign nationals”;
The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania,
Report on ensuring human rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in the Kybartai Aliens Registration
Center under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
(previously cited), Section 6.3.1.3.
215
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
54
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0055.png
“[They]
never told us why we were being transferred. [They] just told us to get our stuff. Everything they wanna
do, they don’t tell us. They just tell us ‘Get ready and we go’, and took us to this place.”
“Gabriel”, man from Sub-Saharan
Africa detained in Medininkai, March 2022
“This is the big problem of this country. They never tell us the
truth. Why am I being detained? They need to tell us for how
long we are gonna be here.”
“Jean”, young man from Sub-Saharan
Africa, March 2022
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
55
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0056.png
7. OPAQUE ROLE OF EU
INSTITUTIONS
As a member of the European Union (EU), Lithuania can avail itself of the support of EU institutions,
including in addressing challenges related to border management, but it must also comply with EU
legislation on migration and asylum.
Lithuanian authorities have enjoyed assistance from the EU, including through the deployment of EU
agencies and financial support from EU funds. At the same time, by perpetrating systematic human rights
violations through “push-back or lock up” legislation, policies and practices,
Lithuania has breached EU
laws.
This calls into play the responsibility of EU institutions, in particular Frontex and the European Commission.
The former has provided assistance to Lithuania in ways that may have facilitated the commission of the
human rights violations described in previous sections. Frontex assistance has not been conditioned on
Lithuania’s respect for human rights. The European Commission has forfeited its role as “guardian of the EU
Treaties” by choosing political expediency over
the duty to ensure that Lithuania complies with EU
legislation.
ROLE OF FRONTEX
Despite widespread and well-documented instances of violent pushbacks by Lithuanian border guards, EU
institutions continued providing assistance to the Lithuanian government, in the second half of 2021 and the
first half of 2022, without ensuring that its legislation and practices complied with international and EU
human rights law.
In July 2021, when crossings from Belarus reached significant proportions, the European Border and Coast
Guard Agency (Frontex) rapidly intervened in support of the Lithuanian authorities. Ten officers and patrol
cars were deployed on the Lithuanian borders starting on 1 July.
216
On 12 July, the then Executive Director
of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, launched a
Rapid Border Intervention
at Lithuania’s border with Belarus, “to
assist with the growing migration pressure”, following a request by the Lithuanian government.
217
After
Greece, Lithuania was only the second EU member state to receive such an intervention on its territory. By
30 July, Frontex had 100 officers, 30 patrol cars and two helicopters deployed in Lithuania.
218
In launching these activities, Frontex stated that its resources would support Lithuania “in border
surveillance and other border management functions,”
219
and in particular that its officers would “work
alongside their Lithuanian colleagues and help them with border checks, border surveillance, as well as the
registration, identification and screening of the irregular migrants crossing the border.”
220
Additional activities
included “conducting interviews
with migrants to gather information on criminal networks involved,”
221
and
discussing potential additional support through different “types of return operations coordinated by the
Frontex, “Frontex provides support for Lithuania, Latvia at their borders with Belarus”, (Press release, 1 July 2021),
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/frontex-
provides-support-for-lithuania-latvia-at-their-borders-with-belarus/
217
Frontex, “Frontex launches rapid intervention in Lithuania”, (Press release, 12 July 2021),
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/frontex-launches-rapid-
intervention-in-lithuania/
218
Frontex, “EU solidarity in Lithuania”, (Press release,
30 July 2021), https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/eu-solidarity-in-lithuania/
219
Frontex, “Frontex provides support for Lithuania, Latvia at their borders with Belarus”, (previously cited)
220
Frontex, “EU solidarity in Lithuania”, (Press release, 30 July 2021),
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/eu-solidarity-in-lithuania/.
221
Frontex, “Frontex launches rapid intervention in Lithuania”, (previously cited).
216
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
56
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0057.png
agency”.
222
Frontex officers would be deployed at “selected border crossing points”
223
and would work
“under the command of national authorities”.
224
A public review by Frontex of its activities in 2021 included a quote from Rustamas Liubajevas, Head of the
Lithuanian State Border Guard Service: “I would like to thank Frontex very much
for providing professional
assistance to both border and migration authorities in Lithuania to overcome this crisis, and to prevent the
influx of irregular migrants caused by a hybrid attack by the Belarusian regime.”
225
After the July 2021
Rapid Border Intervention
deployed in Lithuania, renewed once in October 2021,
Frontex has implemented activities in Lithuania in the framework of Joint Operation Terra 2022, which
covers 12 Member States along the EU’s Central and East European external land borders, including
the
deployment of more than 450 Frontex officers as of March 2022.
226
The operation focuses on “border
management, detection of fraudulent documents and prevention of cross-border crime, keeping a sharp eye
on migrant smugglers and human traffickers.”
227
The Lithuanian authorities have in the meantime continued to employ a systematic pushback policy, raising
concerns that Frontex officers are likely to have been involved in sightings of people attempting to cross
borders into Lithuania and who would have been subsequently detained and/or returned to Belarus by
Lithuanian border guards in patent breach of international and EU law. Frontex officers themselves have
shared numerous internal “Serious Incident Reports” with Frontex Headquarters and have flagged
cases
where they had witnessed potential violations of human rights: as of October 2021, at least 17 such reports
had been filed in connection with potential collective expulsions.
228
According to Lithuanian media, Frontex's Fundamental Rights Office shared recommendations in December
2021 with the Lithuanian authorities, proposing that the Lithuanian government substantially change its
policy of pushbacks.
229
However, the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior responded that, while it would take the
recommendations into account, it would not stop denying entry to foreigners crossing the forest from
Belarus.
230
Under the EU Regulation governing Frontex, the Executive Director shall withdraw the financing, or suspend
or terminate any activity by the Agency, “if he
or she considers that there are violations of fundamental rights
or international protection obligations related to the activity concerned that are of a serious nature or are
likely to persist.”
231
If such conditions exist before the launch of new activities, the Executive Director shall
decide not to launch any activity by the Agency.
232
In making such assessments, the Executive Director must
consult the Fundamental Rights Officer of the Agency and consider “the number and substance of
registered complaints that have not been resolved by a national competent authority, reports of serious
incidents, reports from coordinating officers, relevant international organisations and Union institutions,
bodies, offices and agencies.”
233
Despite the systematic violations of international and EU law perpetrated by the Lithuanian authorities, who
have benefited from Frontex’ assistance in the last 12 months, Frontex continues implementing Joint
Operation Terra in Lithuania as of June 2022. Questions about the compatibility of the revised Lithuanian law
with EU legislation have been raised by former Frontex Executive Director Leggeri himself,
234
but have yet to
be conclusively answered by the European Commission.
ROLE OF EU AGENCY FOR ASYLUM
The EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA, formerly EASO) is also active in Lithuania, on the basis of an operational
plan agreed with the Lithuanian government in July 2021, amended in September 2021 and in force until
Frontex, “EU solidarity in Lithuania”, (previously cited).
Frontex, “EU solidarity in Lithuania”, (previously cited).
224
Frontex,
“Frontex and Lithuania agree on service weapons delivered to Frontex standing corps officers”, Press release, 9 December
2021,
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/frontex-and-lithuania-agree-on-service-weapons-delivered-to-frontex-standing-corps-officers/
225
Frontex, “2021 in brief”, 17 January 2022, p.24,
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/2021-in-brief/
226
Frontex, “Joint Operation Terra 2022”, Video, 2 March 2022,
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/joint-operation-terra-2022/
227
Frontex, “Joint Operation Terra 2022”, Video, 2 March 2022,
https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/joint-operation-terra-2022/
228
Nicolaj Nielsen, “EU borders chief: More 'violations' in Lithuania than reported”, EU Observer, 13 October 2021,
https://euobserver.com/migration/153202
229
Saulius Jakučionis, Augustas Stankevičius, “Frontex says Lithuania should scrap pushback policy, as it violates migrants’ rights”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television
(LRT),
28 December 2021, https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1572019/frontex-says-lithuania-should-scrap-pushback-policy-as-it-violates-migrants-rights
230
Saulius Jakučionis, Augustas Stankevičius, “Frontex says Lithuania should scrap pushback policy, as it violates migrants’ rights”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television
(LRT),
28 December 2021, https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1572019/frontex-says-lithuania-should-scrap-pushback-policy-as-it-violates-migrants-rights
231
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard, Article 46.4.
232
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard, Article 46.5.
233
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard, Article 46.6.
234
Nicolaj Nielsen, “EU borders chief: More 'violations' in Lithuania than reported”, (previously cited).
222
223
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
57
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0058.png
30 June 2022.
235
At the time of writing, EUAA and Lithuanian authorities were negotiating the possibility of
extending EUAA’s deployment.
236
The current plan foresees the provision of “immediate support to the local asylum and reception systems
through the rapid deployment of operational personnel and interpreters, together with a medium-term
intervention focusing on enhancing the capacity of Lithuanian authorities to cope with the changed migratory
context.”
237
According to publicly available information, the EUAA deployed a total of 17 field support officers
and 61 personnel, including interpreters, in 2021, mostly working in Foreigner Registration Centres.
238
Activities carried out by the EUAA include the provision of support to Lithuanian authorities in the registration
of applications for international protection, in conducting asylum interviews, drafting relevant opinions,
accessing Country of Origin Information, and managing reception facilities.
239
Despite such efforts, information provided in this report demonstrates that the situation of people entering
Lithuania
or attempting to enter Lithuania
from Belarus continues to be bleak.
In early June 2022, Amnesty International requested that the EUAA share its assessment of the human
rights impact of Lithuanian legislation and policies on refugees and migrants. The EUAA provided the
following response:
“As a result of a request for operational support from the Lithuanian authorities, the EUAA has been present in
the country since July 2021. Since then, in the course of the EUAA’s ongoing implementation
of the operating
plan, there were some changes to Lithuania’s legislation. The EUAA does not have a mandate to assess Member
State national legislation or monitor practices. In light of the circumstances and potential impact on the
Agency’s operations, the
EUAA has maintained continuous discussions with the Lithuanian authorities, and with
the European Commission as guardians of the Treaties.”
240
INACTION OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Lithuanian legal “reforms” and related pushback practices have been
strongly condemned by numerous
international institutions, including the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights
241
and
UNHCR.
242
These condemnations stand in stark contrast to the mild, supportive approach displayed by the European
Commission, at least in the first few months of the Belarus/EU border crisis. As highlighted in section 1,
initially the European Commission emphasized the need to protect borders, rather than fundamental rights.
During a hearing in the Lithuanian Parliament in September 2021, Deputy Interior Minister Arnoldas
Abramavičius reported that Lithuania’s policies had been discussed and coordinated with EU institutions and
that the EU had
“no complaints”.
243
In January 2022, a full six months after congratulating Lithuania for its exemplary actions on migration, the
Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, joined Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in
taking a more critical stance towards Lithuania, stating that "Pushbacks are clearly illegal.
“People
have the
right to apply for asylum,”
244
and that Lithuania, together with Poland and Latvia,
“have
to have legislation
where pushbacks are not accepted and not legalised.”
245
Despite these statements, the European Commission has failed to initiate any formal procedure to bring
Lithuania’s legislation and practices in line with EU law. Under EU Treaties, when a Member State adopts
EUAA,
“Operating plan agreed by EASO and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania”, 15 July 2021,
https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/operating_plan_lithuania_2021.pdf ; EUAA, Operating plan agreed by EASO and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
Lithuania and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, 14 September 2021,
https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Amendment_Operating%20Plan_EASO_Lithuania_14.09.2021.pdf
236
EUAA, email to Amnesty International, 7 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
237
EUAA, “Member States Operations / Lithuania”, (accessed on 14 June 2022),
https://euaa.europa.eu/operations/member-states-operations.
238
EUAA, “Member States Operations / Lithuania”, (accessed on 14 June 2022),
https://euaa.europa.eu/operations/member-states-operations.
239
EUAA, “Operating plan agreed by EASO and the Ministry of the
Interior of the Republic of Lithuania and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of
Lithuania”, 14 September 2021,
https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Amendment_Operating%20Plan_EASO_Lithuania_14.09.2021.pdf
240
EUAA, email to Amnesty International, 7 June 2022, on file with Amnesty International.
241
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, “Letter to the Prime Minister of Lithuania”, 10 August 2021,
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-ms-ingrida-simonyte-
prime-minister-of-lithuania-by-dunja-mij/1680a37aae
242
UNHCR, “Acknowledging the extraordinary situation in Lithuania, UNHCR raises concerns about legislative response and accommodation conditions”, Press
statement, 11 October 2021, https://www.unhcr.org/neu/68731-acknowledging-the-extraordinary-situation-in-lithuania-unhcr-raises-concerns-about-legislative-
response-and-accommodation-conditions.html
243
Benas Gerdžiūnas, Artūras Morozovas, “‘The main goal is to get rid of them.’ Lithuania's asylum system cracks under pressure”,
Lithuanian Radio and Television
(LRT),
13 September 2021, https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1493583/the-main-goal-is-to-get-rid-of-them-lithuania-s-asylum-system-cracks-under-pressure
244
“EU interior ministers balance migrant rights and strong borders”,
Deutsche Welle,
21 January 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/eu-interior-ministers-balance-migrant-
rights-and-strong-borders/a-60519034
245
European Parliament, EP Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: exchange of views on provisional emergency measures for the benefit of Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland, with the participation of Margaritis Schinas and Ylva Johansson, 13 January 2022, https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-216368
235
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
58
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0059.png
legislation that is not in line with EU laws, it is the responsibility of the European Commission to initiate
infringement proceedings to pursue a course-correction.
246
With almost a year passed since the reforms of the Law on the Status of Foreigners, and thousands of people
pushed back by Lithuania or arbitrarily held in its detention centres, the European Commission’s inaction on
Lithuania’s illegal
practices and legislation is indefensible.
In May 2022, asked to explain the reasons of the Commission’s inaction vis-à-vis
allegations of abuse at
various European borders, Vice-President of the European Commission, Margaritis Schinas, stated that there
is “hardly any hard evidence” to substantiate accusations, and that migration is “largely a Member State
competence”, as opposed to an EU competence.
247
These arguments sound particularly hollow in relation to Lithuania, as it is the country’s own national
legislation that enables pushbacks and other unlawful limitations on the right to seek asylum and is therefore
at complete odds with the EU acquis. The same concerns have arisen in Poland and Latvia with respect to
their unlawful actions regarding pushbacks and denial of meaningful access to asylum. The Lithuanian
authorities clearly perceive the lack of action on the part of the European Commission as support for the
government’s approach, undercutting concerns raised by international and national human rights bodies
and stifling the voices of authorities in other countries who are rightly concerned about the profound and
long-lasting negative impact on the right to asylum in Europe.
PROPOSALS FOR NEW EU MEASURES PENALISING REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS
EU member states’ commitment to upholding the right to
seek asylum risks being further weakened by the
European Commission’s proposed derogations to the EU’s asylum rules in situations of ‘instrumentalisation
of migrants’ –
a concept that describes the role of state actors in creating and facilitating irregular migration
with a view to destabilising the EU. In response to the actions by the Belarusian regime, on 1 December
2021 the Commission proposed temporary measures, based on Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for the benefit of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which would
allow these three countries to derogate from registration requirements and limit rights in accessing asylum
procedures and receiving material support.
248
Amnesty International called for firm rejection of these measures.
249
The Commission subsequently extended
similar provisions to all EU member states through a proposed Regulation aimed at equipping the EU against
future “hybrid threats” that include the instrumentalisation of migrants.
250
This proposal is currently under
negotiation in the Council and the European Parliament, alongside a revision of the Schengen Borders Code,
which amongst others includes a proposed definition of “instrumentalisation of migrants”.
251
Agreement on
these measures would lead to the codification in EU law of a vague concept of a political nature rather than
based on objective elements, which member states can use to invoke a range of derogations from the
asylum acquis. It is objectionable that asylum-seekers should be penalised with substandard procedures
and reception conditions as a result of their being victimized by the actions of a third state.
Treaty on European Union, Article 17.
Marc Peeperkorn, “Europees commissaris Margaritis Schinas: ‘We zijn getuige van het einde van Poetins macht’”,
De Volkskrant,
27 May 2022,
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/europees-commissaris-margaritis-schinas-we-zijn-getuige-van-het-einde-van-poetins-macht~b89f1765/
248
Proposal for a Council Decision on provisional emergency measures for the benefit of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, COM(2021) 752 final, 1 December 2021. The
European Commission proposal was meant to appease these three countries and meet requests for adaptation of the legislative framework to deal with what the
explanatory memorandum terms a “hybrid attack” by Belarus representing a “real threat and present danger to the Union’s security”. However, the Council eventually
did not adopt the measures as, in the view of the Polish government, they were not going far enough.
249
Amnesty International,
Letter to Mr Charles Michel, President of the European Council,
7 December 2021, https://www.amnesty.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/TIGO_IOR_10_2021_2469-_Temporary-Measures-on-Asylum-and-Return-Must-be-Rejected.pdf
250
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council addressing situations of instrumentalisation in the field of migration and asylum,
COM(2021) 890 final, 14 December 2021.
251
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement
of persons across borders, COM(2021) 891 final, 14 December 2021. New Article 2(27) defines “instrumentalisation of migrants”
as
”a situation where a third country
instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by actively encouraging or facilitating the movement of third country nationals to the external borders, onto or from
within its territory and then onwards to those external borders, where such actions are indicative of an intention of a third country to destabilise the Union or a Member
State, where the nature of such actions is liable to put at risk essential State functions, including its territorial integrity, the maintenance of law and order or the
safeguard of its national security.”
246
247
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
59
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0060.png
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
“In Iraq, we hear about human rights and women’s rights in
Europe. But here there are no
rights.”
“Dilba”, young Iraqi woman detained in Medininkai, March 2022
Lithuania has failed refugees and migrants who crossed into the country from Belarus in 2021-2022.
“Push-
back or lock-up”
strategies pursued by Lithuania from 2021-2022
have resulted in a catalogue of serious
and systematic human rights violations. Lithuanian lawmakers codified unlawful measures that allowed
Lithuanian authorities to illegally push-back people at the borders with Belarus, arbitrarily detain refugees
and migrants for prolonged periods of time, and subject them to abysmal conditions of detention, torture and
other ill-treatment at the hands of the Lithuanian State Border Guard Service. People have been trapped in
an asylum system designed to fail them, to cheat them through a fundamentally flawed legal aid system, and
ultimately to force them to return to where they came from, no matter the risks they would be exposed to.
Recent statements by the Minister of Interior, suggesting that the Ministry will not propose further extending
detention of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants beyond 12-months, and slight improvements in
conditions of detention, do not represent the end of the authorities’ responsibilities towards people whose
human rights have been repeatedly violated over the last year.
The glaring shortcomings in the asylum procedure, compounded by the absence of adequate legal
assistance, have trapped thousands of asylum-seekers in a Kafkaesque system never intended to provide
them the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, among other rights. International and European
human rights law establishes the right of any person whose rights or freedoms have been violated to have an
effective remedy.
252
Refugees and migrants whose rights and freedoms have been violated by Lithuanian
authorities should have prompt access to remedy, including effective access to justice and reparation for the
harms suffered, through restitution, compensation,
253
rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-
repetition.
254
One year after the introduction of the “emergency” legislation, policies and practices
that have caused so
much misery and suffering, it is time for Lithuania to turn the page. The Lithuanian Parliament, government,
border guards and law enforcement are all responsible in some measure for the human rights violations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(3); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13; EU Charter, Article 47.
In the words of the CJEU’s Advocate General
in relation to an asylum-seeker
detained in Lithuania: “The fact that the first measure [detention] was subsequently
repealed did not eliminate its effects which had already been achieved. [The asylum-seeker] was deprived of his liberty at least from November 20, 2021 to February 2,
2022. He therefore still has an interest in seeing that the possible illegality of this measure is found in court. Such a finding could serve as the basis for a future claim
for damages”; unofficial translation, Advocate General
of the CJEU, Nicholas Emiliou,
Conclusions de l'avocat général M. N. Emiliou, présentées le 2 juin 2022,
(previously cited), para. 53.
254
United Nations General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human
Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UNGA Resolution 60/147, 16 December 2005, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-and-guidelines-right-remedy-and-reparation
252
253
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
60
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
documented in this report. The state must be held accountable and individuals alleged to have committed
serious violations, such as torture, must be investigated and held accountable.
Other EU member states can also play a part. If the prospects expressed by the Minister of Interior are
confirmed
that is, that asylum-seekers and irregular migrants, once released, will eventually leave for other
EU countries
they would do so following a year of arbitrary detention, often brutal physical and
psychological abuse and resulting trauma, and flagrantly flawed procedures in Lithuania. It would then be
the responsibility of other EU member states not to return people back to trauma in Lithuania, but rather
accept their asylum claims for re-consideration under their jurisdiction, considering the deeply flawed nature
of their asylum procedures in Lithuania.
Lithuania legitimately expects assistance from the EU. However, such assistance cannot consist in the
complacent support
including by Frontex
for border control measures designed to violate the rights of
women, men and children. Lithuania has and continues to act in breach of its obligations under international
and EU law, and it is the European Commission’s responsibility to intervene and force a course-correction.
In light of the findings described in this report, Amnesty International makes the following recommendations.
TO LITHUANIA:
Halt immediately pushbacks of refugees and migrants to Belarus and ensure respect of the principle
of
non-refoulement
by not transferring anyone to a place where they would be at real risk of
persecution or other serious human rights violations, or where they would risk onward
refoulement.
Release immediately all asylum-seekers and irregular migrants who are subjected to arbitrary
detention, including those who were detained under the regime of “temporary accommodation”, and
ensure their liberty and freedom to move within Lithuania unless measures restricting their rights are
proven to be necessary and proportionate within the circumstances of each individual case.
Remove as a matter of urgency all persons from Kybartai FRC and Medininkai FRC, and refrain from
sending any new arrivals to these centres, as the conditions there are not suited for any form of
accommodation or detention.
Ensure that all asylum-seekers have access to a fair and effective asylum procedure in Lithuania,
including an assessment of their claims for international protection on their merits through an
individualized procedure, irrespective of the conditions
of entry into Lithuania’s territory.
Provide access to independent appeals to all asylum-seekers whose asylum application was decided
in the first and second instances by the Migration Department without independent review between
July and December 2021.
Re-open for immediate consideration all the asylum, removal and detention procedures of individuals
who were assigned state-sponsored lawyers under the current legal aid system, and ensure they have
access to independent and effective legal aid in full and fair asylum and other legal procedures.
Ensure that an adequate number of doctors, nurses, and psychologists are available in detention
centres and that detainees who remain in detention and who require medical care are able to access
it in a timely fashion.
Identify in an appropriate and sensitive manner possible victims of torture, trafficking and other
people with specific protection and assistance needs who require specialized accommodation and
care.
Provide refugees and migrants with information on their rights, including how to complain against
border guard and law enforcement misconduct, in a language they understand and if required, with
expert and effective interpretation.
Improve as a matter of urgency conditions inside of all migration-related detention facilities to ensure
that detainees are treated in accordance with international law and standards, including the provision
of adequate space; access to proper toilet facilities and a good standard of hygiene; access to
adequate health care, information, legal assistance and advice; access to outdoor spaces and
recreational activities; and effective means of communication with the outside world.
Conduct prompt, effective, independent investigations on allegations of serious abuse against people
detained by SBGS, including potentially through an ad hoc (parliamentary) independent commission
of inquiry, and ensure accountability and adequate protection of victims and witnesses.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
61
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
Promptly provide access to effective remedy, including access to justice and reparation for the harms
suffered by any person, through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees
of non-repetition, to all refugees and migrants whose rights and freedoms have been violated by
Lithuanian state actors or their agents.
Ensure that all laws, policies, practices and procedures in the migration and asylum context strictly
adhere to the principle of non-discrimination.
Immediately repeal all legislation adopted in 2021-2022 that permitted derogation from human rights
safeguards for asylum-seekers and irregular migrants and review all legislation, policies and practices
from that time period and to the present to ensure that they comply with Lithuania’s international
human rights commitments, including:
Review all measures adopted and implemented during 2021-2022 in relation to migration
and border management to ensure that a human rights-compliant approach is at the core of
relevant legislation, policies and practices, that people’s right to access to asylum,
both in law
and practice, is immediately restored, and that all measures that prevent people from
accessing EU territory to lodge an asylum application are brought to an end.
Immediately repeal all the provisions derogating from standard asylum, migration and
detention processes and practices in the event of declaration of martial law, a state of
emergency or a declaration of an emergency due to a “mass influx” of foreigners, which
requires at a minimum, repealing Chapter X
2
of the Law on Foreigners.
End
the policy of automatic, prolonged, arbitrary detention under the regime of “temporary
accommodation” without the right to move freely within the territory of the Republic of
Lithuania and ensure that migration-related detention is only imposed as a matter of last
resort and when legal, proportionate and necessary.
Ensure that people in need of international protection are admitted to Lithuanian territory and
that those attempting to cross a border or crossing a border irregularly (e.g., between
designated border crossing points, without document, or on false documents) in order to seek
international protection are not interdicted from exercising their right to seek asylum and
other rights, in line with international law.
Amend any provisions or regulations for the legal aid system for asylum-seekers and irregular
migrants in a way that ensures:
Prevention of potential conflict of interests for lawyers employed by the Migration
Department.
Quality legal services by a sufficient number of lawyers.
Mechanisms to monitor and ensure the accountability of lawyers, and the
protection of the rights and interests of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants.
Establish an effective independent monitoring and oversight system to ensure that the
Lithuanian authorities’ activities
on border protection do not violate human rights.
Ensure that abusive practices, including unnecessary or excessive use of force, disrespectful
behaviour, racist remarks, harassment and intimidation, are halted without delay and that the
guards and staff in the detention centres treat people detained there in full respect of their
human rights and dignity.
Ensure that NGOs and lawyers assisting refugees and migrants have unhindered access to
detention and reception places, and other places where refugees and migrants are located,
including in the border zone.
Ensure that voluntary returns are based strictly on the free and informed consent of the
individual, without coercion of any kind.
Respect, protect and fulfil the right of women to be free from gender-based violence and
torture in the detention sites, including by complying with and implementing the United
Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women
Offenders (Bangkok Rules).
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
62
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION:
Initiate without delay infringement proceedings against Lithuania in relation to the elements
introduced in its national legislation to stop spontaneous arrivals of refugees and migrants from
Belarus by employing practices that contravene EU and international human rights and refugee law.
Assess the legality of the automatic and prolonged detention of asylum-seekers and irregular
migrants in Lithuania and the compliance of detention conditions with EU standards.
Subject the provision of any further border management or other migration-related assistance to
Lithuania to the condition that Lithuania halt illegal pushbacks of refugees and migrants to Belarus,
refrain from engaging in forced returns in violation of the prohibition of
refoulement
and ensure that
accommodation and (when detention is lawful, necessary and proportionate) detention conditions
comply with international law and standards.
Establish an independent and effective monitoring mechanism for human rights oversight of
operations on Lithuania’s border with Belarus.
Ensure that any EU funds made available to Lithuania for migration-related programmes, including
with regard to access to legal aid, do not contribute to human rights violations and are used in ways
compatible with European legislation, and that monitoring mechanisms fully assess the potential
human rights risks prior to the provision or extension of such funding.
Invest in increasing capacity of legal professionals in the area of migration in Lithuania.
Reject the Commission proposal for a Regulation addressing situations of instrumentalisation in the
field of migration and asylum and any other attempts at codification of this concept in EU law.
Refrain
from further using dehumanising expressions such as ‘hybrid threat’ or ‘hybrid attack’ in
relation to the instrumentalisation of refugees and migrants for political purposes by state and non-
state actors.
Contribute to accountability for systemic human
rights violations at EU’s borders by agreeing that
Member States must, as a matter of EU law, establish an effective independent border monitoring
mechanism which has a broad scope and fulfils the requirements of independence and
transparency.
Initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, which provides
that the Executive Director should immediately suspend all operational activities in Lithuania until
steps are taken by the Lithuanian authorities which guarantee that people arriving at EU borders are
duly registered by the competent national authorities; given access to an individualised procedure
and to asylum, if they so wish; and are not summarily returned.
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT:
TO FRONTEX:
TO ALL OTHER EU MEMBER STATES / PARTIES OF THE DUBLIN REGULATIONS:
Suspend Dublin transfers to Lithuania and take responsibility for pending asylum applications under
discretionary clauses while allowing the reopening of applications if asylum-seekers had received a
final rejection in Lithuania.
Share with Lithuania the responsibility for assisting refugees and migrants currently in Lithuania,
including those currently in detention there, by offering at a minimum humanitarian admission and
family reunification opportunities.
.
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
Amnesty International
63
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0064.png
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
IS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
WHEN INJUSTICE HAPPENS
TO ONE PERSON, IT
MATTERS TO US ALL.
CONTACT US
[email protected]
+44 (0)20 7413 5500
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
www.facebook.com/AmnestyGlobal
@Amnesty
UUI, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Bilag 117: Amnestys rapport om forhold for migranter og flygtninge i Litauen, fra Amnesty International
2602428_0065.png
LITHUANIA: FORCED OUT OR
LOCKED UP
REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ABUSED AND ABANDONED
INDEX: EUR 53/5735/2022
JUNE 2022
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
amnesty.org