B. Centro Dakota Immigration Detention Facility (read full CPT report)
67. In the course of the 2014 visit, the delegation carried out a targeted visit to the Centro Dakota immigration detention facility. Foreign nationals held under aliens legislation have been detained at this facility since February 2013. Immigration detention on Aruba falls under the responsibility of the Aruban Police Force and is run by its Department for Supervision of Foreigners.50 At the time of the visit, four foreign nationals were being held at the facility; three men and one woman.
The majority of persons who have been ordered to leave or who are awaiting a decision on their appeal to an expulsion order are placed under an obligation to report to the police at regular intervals. Detention, however, still occurs frequently. In the first four months of 2014, a total of 78 persons had been detained at Centro Dakota; 55 men and 23 women. The great majority of persons spent one to three days, while the maximum varied between 15 and 18 days. One person, however, had been detained for 57 days.
68. At the time of the visit, immigration detention was regulated in the National Ordinance on Admission, Expulsion and Departure of 1993. According to Article 19(1) of this Ordinance, foreign nationals may be removed from Aruba if they entered the country illegally or overstayed the duration of their visa or permit. Article 19(2) provides that such a person may be detained if the Minister of Justice considers him or her to be a danger to public order and safety or good morals, or if there is a well-founded fear the person will attempt to evade expulsion. Article 19(3) stipulates that such a decision must be reasoned and provided in writing to the person concerned.
However, there were no specific regulations governing the detention of irregular migrants. While a right to appeal expulsion and detention orders is not provided in law, a right to appeal such a decision within six weeks is incorporated into the written orders. Immigrants who are being detained are free to consult a lawyer, but there are no legal aid provisions guaranteeing a right to a lawyer if one cannot be afforded.
The CPT’s delegation was informed that amendments to the National Ordinance were being drawn up which would introduce a 90-day maximum period of detention and included judicial review of detention orders within 72 hours. A right to legal aid and a right to appeal appear not to be envisioned in these amendments.
The delegation was also provided with a draft national decree regulating the regime of immigration detention, as well as with draft house rules based on the proposed decree. The delegation observed that the facility generally functioned in line with these documents, although they had not yet been formally adopted.
The CPT recommends that the Aruban authorities move forward urgently with developing and adopting appropriate regulations for the detention of irregular migrants. Such regulations should include the right to legal assistance, provided free of charge for persons without sufficient means, and the right of appeal.
69. The CPT’s delegation heard no allegations of ill-treatment by the supervisory staff of Centro Dakota and the atmosphere at the facility was relaxed.
70. The staff of centres for immigration detainees have a particularly onerous task. Firstly, there will inevitably be communication difficulties caused by language barriers. Secondly, many detained persons will find the fact that they have been deprived of their liberty when they are not suspected of any criminal offence difficult to accept. Thirdly, there is a risk of tension between detainees of different nationalities or ethnic groups. Consequently, the CPT places a premium upon the supervisory staff in such centres being carefully selected and receiving appropriate training. Staff should possess both well-developed qualities in the field of interpersonal communication and cultural sensitivity, given the diverse backgrounds of the detainees. Further, at least some of them should have relevant language skills. Further, they should be taught to recognise possible symptoms of stress reactions displayed by detained persons and to take appropriate action.
While staff at Centro Dakota generally acted in a supportive manner, they had not received specific training to deal with the particular needs of foreign nationals detained under aliens legislation and played a merely supervisory role.
The CPT recommends that staff be selected and trained for the specific purpose of working with irregular migrants.51
71. Following the renovations that took place early 2014, the material conditions can generally be considered adequate. The one storey building consisted of 16 single-occupancy cells52 measuring around 9 m2, equipped with a regular bed with a proper mattress and a semi-partitioned sanitary annex; access to natural light was sufficient and ventilation and artificial lighting adequate. There were no call-bells.
72. No purposeful activities were offered. Detainees had access to a common recreation room (65 m2), which was equipped with tables and chairs, a television, cards and board games, for most of the day . Access to outdoor exercise was offered twice a day for one hour, in a long and narrow space adjoining the building which provided no shelter from the sun or rain; the uneven gravel surface, combined with the layout of the yard meant that detainees could not undertake any sports activities.
For short stays, which is the case for the vast majority of persons held at Centro Dakota, the regime could be considered as acceptable. However, in respect of persons who have to stay for more than a few days, additional measures need to be taken to offer some purposeful activities (educational, recreational or vocational).
The CPT recommends that the exercise yard be improved in the light of above remarks. The CPT further recommends that the Aruban authorities develop a range of purposeful activities for detained persons at Centro Dakota. The longer the period for which persons are detained, the more developed should be the activities which are offered to them.
73. The persons interviewed indicated that they had not undergone any medical screening upon admission. When a detainee is in need of medical care, he or she is first visited by the police nurse. If necessary a doctor can be called in, or the detainee is transferred to the hospital.
The CPT recommends that systematic medical screening of all immigration detainees, including for transmissible diseases, be introduced. Such screening should be carried out in a way that respects medical confidentiality.
74. The arrangements for allowing foreign nationals contact with the outside world were generally adequate. They were allowed to receive visitors on a daily basis and were allowed to make and receive phone calls throughout the day. However, the draft House Rules provided that the maximum duration of visits will be 15 minutes; the CPT does not see any justification for such a time-limit and would propose that visits be one hour or longer in duration.
The CPT recommends that this provision in the draft House Rules be amended accordingly.
75. As for information in a language detainees understand, the delegation noted that most staff members could communicate in Spanish (the language of the majority of immigration detainees in Aruba). However, communication problems can arise when other languages are needed. The delegation found that the draft House Rules had been translated into English and Spanish, but legal documents pertaining to individual detainees, such as their detention and deportation orders, are only available in Dutch. Staff made an effort to orally translate and explain these documents, but persons interviewed by the delegation indicated that they had refused to sign them, as they were not able to read them themselves.
The CPT recommends that all immigration detainees be expressly informed of their rights and the procedures applicable to them in a language they can understand. All immigration detainees should be systematically provided with a document setting out this information; the document should be available in the languages most commonly spoken by those concerned and, if necessary, the services of an interpreter should be made available. Further, all official documents that immigration detainees are required to sign should be provided in a language they can understand.
