Migrant minors in detention: Practical needs and the limits set by the European Convention

This article is related directly to the First European Conference on Law Enforcement and Public Health (LEPH) held in Umea, Sweden in May 2023.

Authors

  • Mattias Hjertstedt Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
  • Isak Nilsson Doctoral student, Department of Law, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
  • Jonas Hansson Assistant Professor, Police Education Unit, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.354

Keywords:

children, human rights, law, migration, police

Abstract

State officials report practical needs to put migrant minors in detention, and the European Convention on Human Rights sets legal limits on this practice. This article defines the scope of circumstances under which migrating minors may be detained by analyzing The European Court of Human Rights case law, using judgments in which the detention of migrant minors has been alleged a violation of Articles 3, 5.1, or 8. It also explores states’ needs for detaining such children, using data from 19 interviews with Swedish police officers, and compares these views with the case law. Police interviewees primarily describe two needs to detain children: to make deportations of children smooth and dignified, and to prevent minors from committing crimes. The investigation finds that migrant minor detentions are rarely permissible according to the Convention—especially under Article 3—and that the permissible scope is too small to meet the expressed practical needs. The actors involved in the issue of detaining migrant minors might have different perspectives on the issue, but they must not lose sight of the fact that these children are categorized as some of the most vulnerable in society and that their rights must be protected.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bhabha, J. (2014). Child migration & human rights in a global age. Princeton University Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bylund, T. (1993). Tvångsmedel 1—Personella tvångsmedel i straffprocessen [Coercive Measures I—Personnel Coercive Measures in Criminal Procedure]. Iustus. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-475220

Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

ECHR. (2006). Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium. App no. 13178/03.

ECHR. (2010). Bubullima v. Greece. App no. 41533/08.

ECHR. (2011a). Kanagaratnam and others v. Belgium. App no. 15297/09.

ECHR. (2011b). Rahimi v. Greece. App no. 8687/08.

ECHR. (2012a). Mahmundi and others v. Greece. App no. 14902/10.

ECHR. (2012b). Popov v. France. App no. 39472/07, 39474/07.

ECHR. (2016a). Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta. App no. 25794/13, 28151/13.

ECHR. (2016b). A.B. and others v. France. App no. 11593/12.

ECHR. (2016c). R.C. and V.C. v. France. App no. 76491/14.

ECHR. (2016d). R.K and others v. France. App no. 68264/14.

ECHR. (2016e). R.M. and others v. France App no. 33201/11.

ECHR. (2016f). A.M. and others v. France. App no. 24587/12.

ECHR. (2017). S.F. and others v. Bulgaria. App no. 8138/16.

ECHR. (2018). Bistieva and others v. Poland. App no. 75157/14.

ECHR. (2019a). G.B. and others v. Turkey. App no. 4633/15.

ECHR. (2019b). H.A. and others v. Greece. App no. 58424/11.

ECHR. (2019c). Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia. App no. 14165/16.

ECHR. (2020a). Bilalova and others v. Poland. App no. 23684/14.

ECHR. (2020 b). Moustahi v. France. App no. 9347/14.

ECHR. (2021a). M.D. and A.D. and others v. France. App no. 57035/18.

ECHR. (2021b). M.H. and others v. Croatia. App no. 15670/18, 43155/18.

ECHR. (2021c). R.R. and others v. Hungary. App no. 36037/17.

ECHR. (2022a). M.B.K. and others v. Hungary. App no. 73860/17.

ECHR. (2022b). N.B and others, v. France. App no. 49775/20.

ECHR. (2022c). Nikoghosyan and others v. Poland. App no. 14743/17.

ECHR. (2023a). A.C. and M.C. v. France. App no. 4289/21.

ECHR. (2023b). A.M. and others v. France. App no. 7534/20.

ECHR. (2023c). R.M. and others v. Poland. App no. 11247/18.

ECHR (2023d). Minasian and others v. The Republic of Modova. App no 26879/17.

Freedon House. (2023). Countries and territories. Retrieved from: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

Hansson, J., Eriksson, M., Hjertstedt, M., & Ghazinour, M. (2023). Coercive measures against minors in the Swedish asylum process: Legal uncertainty, ambivalence and experiences of intrusiveness. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 14(1), 1–21. (accepted).

Hansson, J., Ghazinour, M., & Wimelius, M. (2015). Police officers’ use of discretion in forced repatriations of unaccompanied, asylum-seeking refugee children— Balancing efficiency and dignity. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice, 3(3), 101–108. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-106973

Khrebetan-Hörhager, J., & Kononenko, I. (2018). Not the last resort: Variation in the practice of detention of unaccompanied minors across the European Union. In M. G. Antony & R. J. Thomas (Eds.), Interdicsiplinary perspectives on child migrants: Seen but not heard (pp. 179–193). Lexington Books.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). (2023). The parliamentary campaign to end immigration detention of children. Retrieved from: https://website-pace.net/web/apce/children-in-detention

Rainey, B., Wicks, E., & Ovey, C. (2021). Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press.

Smyth, C. (2014). European asylum law and the rights of the child. Routledge.

Smyth, C. M. (2019). Towards a complete prohibition on the immigration detention of children. Human Rights Law Review, 19(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngy045

Swedish Research Council. (2022). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning [Research Ethics Guidelines for Humanities Research and Social Sciences]. Vetenskapsrådet.

The Swedish Aliens Act (2005:716).

The Swedish Law (1964:167) with Particular Regulations about Juvenile Offenders.

The Swedish Migration Agency. (2022). Migrationsverkets årsredovisning 2021 [The Annual Report of the Swedish Migration Agency, 2021]. Retrieved from: https://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.6b4387bd17dc72a9925fec/1645777608413/Migrationsverket_ÅR_2021.pdf

The Swedish Police Law (1984:387).

Turković, K. (2021). Challenges to the application of the concept of vulnerability and the principle of best interests of the child in the case law of the ECtHR related to detention of migrant children. In B. Çali, L. Bianku, & I. Motoc (Eds.), Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 104–137). Oxford University Press.

United Nations. (2023). UN Child Rights Committee publishes findings on Finland, France, Jordan, Sao Tome and Principe, Türkiye and United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/06/un-child-rights-committee-publishes-findings-finland-france-jordan-sao-tome

Published

2023-12-15

How to Cite

Hjertstedt, M., Nilsson, I., & Hansson, J. (2023). Migrant minors in detention: Practical needs and the limits set by the European Convention: This article is related directly to the First European Conference on Law Enforcement and Public Health (LEPH) held in Umea, Sweden in May 2023. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 8(4), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.354

Issue

Section

Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)