FEILAZOO v. MALTA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on March 11, 2021 by LawEuro

Communicated on 13 September 2019

THIRD SECTION
Application no. 6865/19
Joseph FEILAZOO
against Malta
lodged on 19 August 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Joseph Feilazoo, is a Nigerian national, who was born in 1975 and is currently detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola.

A.    The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1.    Background to the case

On 23 February 2010, following a guilty plea, the applicant was convicted by the Criminal Court to twelve years’ imprisonment and to a fine (multa) of 50,000 euros (EUR) to be converted into a further eighteen months of imprisonment if the fine was not paid. The Criminal Court also ordered the applicant to pay the court experts’ fees.

The applicant was unable to pay the fine and expenses which were in consequence converted into a further term of imprisonment of twenty‑two and a half months’ imprisonment in default.

On 1 April 2018, a few days before having served his entire sentence, which was to end on 10 April 2018, the applicant was spoken to by two officers (M.B. and G.S., the latter a constable in the immigration office) who questioned him about his intentions after his release from prison. Since the applicant wanted to go back to Spain (where he had had a residence permit at the time of his arrival in Malta), he was told that they would check whether he would be accepted by the Spanish authorities. No reply ensued.

On 10 April 2018 the applicant was ‘released’ from the correctional facility. On the basis of documents supplied to him on 9 April 2018 and a call from a social worker, he thought that he was going to be escorted to an emergency shelter (which offers basic needs to vulnerable people, including accommodation). Instead, on the same day, he was escorted by two officers (D.T. and M.C. from the special response team of the correctional facility) to the Immigration Office of Inspector D.B. at the Police Headquarters. Proceedings against M.C. for ill-treating the applicant appear to have been pending at the time.

During the meeting with Inspector D.B. the applicant was informed that he could not return to Spain since the Spanish authorities would not accept him. He was informed that he would, thus, have to be sent back to Nigeria but that he would in the meantime be kept at the detention centre and was ordered to proceed to the van to be escorted there. The applicant objected since no mention had been made of removal or any further detention during his prison sentence. It appears that a removal order was issued and signed on the spot and given to the applicant, although a copy of the order has not been exhibited in the domestic proceedings or before this Court. The applicant claimed that he had not been informed of his right to appeal such action. He told Inspector D.B. that they could not deport him as he had expired documents and that he refused to be detained again. He also noted that judicial proceedings were pending. At that point the correctional officers started pushing the applicant into the van and a scuffle ensued.

In subsequent proceedings, it was alleged that at the above meeting the applicant became aggressive and resisted being handcuffed and being put into the van of the detention services. As a result, it was alleged that the two correctional officers suffered bodily harm. In response to the alleged resistance and aggression, and a bite to one of the officers, pepper spray was used on the applicant. The correctional officers and police officers managed to handcuff the applicant, while a further police officer tied the legs of the applicant with tie-clips. The applicant was subsequently taken into the detention services van. An ambulance was called and took the applicant to hospital since according to the authorities he had complained that he could not breathe properly and alleged that he had pain in his heart.

From the documents available to this Court medical reports showed that the applicant had a number of injuries and abrasions. In particular, the reports dated 10 April 2018 state that the left elbow x-ray was abnormal as it had a fracture of the radial head, as was the right shoulder x‑ray which revealed “a small fragment of bone adjacent to the humeral head laterally”; abrasions were noted around the head and elbow and tenderness was elicited over medial aspect of the left elbow. Other examinations on the day showed no further injuries. A report of 12 April 2018 stated that following the alleged beating the applicant’s lower back pain (from which he had suffered over the years) had become more severe. The report reiterated that the applicant had an elbow injury as well as ecchymosis on his face and ears on both sides of the face, abrasions on the neck and shoulder, scratches on both wrists and a swollen thumb. Subsequent reports while in prison showed that the applicant was suffering from pain in both shoulders and severe lower back pain.

On 11 April 2018 a court (see below) instructed an expert (Dr M.S.) to examine the applicant and draw up a report. The examination took place on 13 April 2018 and the applicant was informed that its findings would be reported to the court. He consented to the examination. According to the report and the photos exhibited therein there was: “a bruise on the right side of the face, on the zygomatic arch extending medially to the lateral aspect of the nose; a violet bruise on the left temporal region; a haematoma on the left mastoid process and the upper limb was strapped; on the distal one‑third of the lateral aspect of the right forearm were two parallel abrasions which had dry scabs; no lesions on the anterior or posterior aspect; the CT scan brain results were normal; the x-ray of the left forearm showed a fracture of the radial head; and no other lesions were found”. According to the expert’s conclusion, as a result of the alleged assault, the applicant sustained bruises on the face which were a result of blunt trauma and a haematoma on the left mastoid process which was also the result of blunt trauma. The abrasions on the left forearm were the result of handcuffing. The fracture of the left radial head was also due to blunt trauma – this fracture was of a grievous nature, per durata.

The applicant claims that the prison authorities refused to supply him with all his medical reports for the purposes of this application. A signed and stamped letter by the correctional manager, in reply to the applicant’s request, stated that “if requested by the European Court of Human Rights, CCF [the correctional facility] will be able to present any documentation in relation to your [the applicant’s] prison medical file before the mentioned Court”.

On the day of the incident the two correctional officers reported to the police that they had been assaulted by the applicant. The report was taken by an officer (J.P.) and the investigation was led by an inspector (P.C.). According to the documents available to the Court the officers who were examined at a medical centre by Dr. G.B. were found to have slight injuries i.e. in respect of M.C., who alleged to have been bitten by a Nigerian immigrant, “superficial swelling over the mandible on the left, two puncture wounds over the base of the right thumb and an abrasion over the dorsum of the hand,” and in respect of D.T. “swelling of the right periorbital area and a 1 cm laceration on the knuckle”. Both of them confirmed that they had no further injuries.

2.   Criminal proceedings

Pursuant to the correctional officers’ complaint an investigation was initiated.

On 11 April 2018 the applicant was invited to speak to an immigration lawyer (Dr. G.A.) for the purposes of seeking asylum, but the applicant made no application to that effect on such date.

Subsequently he was taken to the office of an inspector (P.C.) who questioned him about the events of 10 April 2018, without informing him that he was being charged of any crime in relation to those events. No lawyer was present. At the end of the interview he was informed that he was being charged for various offences and asked to sign a statement, which he refused to sign since it had not been complete.

According to that unsigned statement, in reply to questions, the applicant confirmed that he had spoken to Dr G.A. and explained to the police his current status in Malta. In relation to the incident, he explained that he had been taken to Inspector D.B.’s office where he was given information as to his situation and he objected to being detained, at which stage the correctional officers tried to push him into the escort van. They tried to grab him from behind but he refused. They then grabbed him by the neck and “twisted” him onto the floor to try and handcuff him but he resisted. They used their knees to hold him down and started kicking him in his private parts and using pepper spray on him. They put their knees on his face and neck and continued to use pepper spray, After tying his feet, they managed to handcuff him and put him in the van. He told them that he could not breathe and he passed out. He only woke up when he was in the ambulance. When questioned, he stated that he could not recall biting M.C., noting that he had been gasping for air when on the floor and unaware of what was happening. He said he would not bite anybody and that he does not want to hurt anyone. He noted that he had had previous problems with M.C. with whom he had not been on good terms. He did not know where the D.T.’s injuries came from. He admitted that he had resisted the officers as he did not want to be put in detention. He just wanted to go home and he could not understand why the authorities had not prepared the documents in the ten years he had spent in prison, before his release.

When asked about his injuries, he replied that he had pain in the back of his head and forehead, as well as chest pain, a fractured elbow and a dislocated right shoulder. He added that he had the right to express himself and that it was the officers who grabbed him first. Inspector D.B. had told him that the prison had nothing to do with the [immigration] procedure; the applicant therefore considered that the presence of the correctional officers was unnecessary and served only to aggravate the situation. The proceedings

On 12 April 2018 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for assaulting and violently resisting the correctional officers, threatening or causing them bodily harm, causing them injuries of a slight nature, disobeying lawful orders and wilfully disturbing public good order and public peace. He was placed in pre-trial detention on the same day.

A copy of a page of the applicant’s passport and residence card in Spain, the conviction sheet, his statement together with the medical certificates concerning M.C. and D.T., and the incident report drafted by the police were presented as evidence. Inspector D.B., correctional officers M.C. and D.T., police officer D.A. as well as Dr M.S., the applicant and the ambulance staff gave evidence orally before the court; the court also had before it the written evidence of Dr G.B., Police officers J.B., M.B., A.G., and N.P., who were also present at the venue. A pen drive with CCTV footage of the yard (where the van was) was also submitted.

In the course of the court proceedings, Inspector D.B. explained that on 10 April 2018 the applicant had started to become angry and aggressive, and he confirmed that the applicant had said that if the officers took him to Nigeria they would not come back. He had not seen what exactly happened in the scuffle. He did not know whether the applicant assaulted the officers before or after pepper spray was used, but he was subsequently told that the officers had been bitten.

Correctional officer M.C. testified that when he touched the applicant to point him towards the van, the applicant told him, “Don’t touch me or I will hurt you”. D.T. told him to move on and the applicant lifted his hand and D.T. was touched (intlaqat) under his right eye; they ended up on the floor trying to handcuff him. M.C. considered that they had used minimal force. He explained that it was difficult to restrain the applicant who was well built and that they warned him three times that they would use the spray. While they were restraining the applicant M.C. had been bitten. Once the applicant was handcuffed they managed to take him to the van where the applicant calmed down. In cross-examination M.C. confirmed that the bite took place before the use of pepper spray.

Correctional officer D.T. gave the same version of events.

Police officer D.A. (whose office was two doors away from the office where the incident took place) testified that he heard a commotion and that when he went to Inspector D.B.’s office he saw the applicant, face down, with two officers on their knees on the floor trying to handcuff the accused. He smelt pepper spray, and saw that the applicant was agitated and waving his hands and feet. At that point he [D.A.] asked for tie-clips so to cuff the applicant’s feet. He and his colleague (N.P.) managed to tie the applicant’s legs after some difficulty as the applicant was well built. He [D.A.] then helped D.T. to handcuff the applicant.

According to the written testimony of police officer M.B. (also present on the day) the applicant had refused to go into the van and started resisting. The officers immediately tried to handcuff him and ended up on the floor ‑ the applicant underneath and the two officers on him to handcuff him. The applicant continued to resist; the officers sprayed pepper spray and after some time they managed to handcuff him. The applicant was claiming that he could not breathe properly so an ambulance was called. M.B. accompanied the applicant to hospital and remained with him until other police officers arrived to take over the investigation of the case, while M.C. and D.T. went to the medical centre.

Police officer A.G.’s evidence was also on these lines.

Police officer N.P.’s testimony confirmed that the applicant had been warned about the use of pepper spray and yet continued to resist. He was aggressive to the extent that he was pushing a witness who was trying to hold him. They finally managed to tie his hands and legs and then took him to the van.

Dr. M.S. submitted his report to the court and explained that the fracture of a grievous nature could have been caused by a fall or that the applicant could have been hit or that direct force had been applied to the injured zones.

The applicant, in his oral testimony, admitted that he had objected to his detention as he could not understand why it was necessary. He explained that the correctional officers had wanted to be involved, despite them not having anything to do with such procedures. M.C. replied to him that he [M.C.] could do what he wanted. Then D.T. told the applicant to go to the van and grabbed him from behind. The applicant refused and they [D.T. and M.C.] started hitting him and then used pepper spray. The applicant said he could not see or breathe and they were kicking him and then were on top of him and he was fighting back and shouting with a “painful voice”. One of the officers tried to cover his mouth when he was desperate for air. At that moment the applicant feared for his life because he could not breathe nor see. Mistakenly a finger came in his mouth and he closed his mouth and then the officers again used pepper spray and handcuffed him and tied him up and threw him in the van, where he passed out. He woke up when he was in the ambulance. He further testified that he knew the two officers from prison. He had had issues with them in 2013/2014 as they had harassed him and on one occasion had shouted at him while he was in his cell that he should give them his underwear. He had also filed judicial proceedings against the authorities because of ill‑treatment in which the two officers had been involved in 2010 and 2014. Indeed, the applicant noted that one of the witnesses in his favour, an inmate, had a protection order against them. Yet he noted that these officers had been sent as escorts for his release. He considered that all this had been a set-up because the officer who assigned them this task knew that he had a pending case against them.

In cross‑examination the applicant confirmed that he refused to go to the van and to put his hands together in order to be handcuffed. He replied that he did not abide by the order because he was not an illegal immigrant. He entered Malta with valid documents and in ten years in prison no one had ever mentioned deportation to allow him to get his documents in order nor had anyone done anything about it, and when he tried to express this he was accused with threatening the police. The applicant denied saying that he would hurt them if they touched him.

The prison doctor confirmed the medical report and the applicants’ injuries as transpired from the documents, but said he did not know how the injuries were caused as he was not an expert.

L.B. (a paramedic) had been called to the spot and accompanied the applicant in the ambulance after receiving a call about a man who was having “query seizures”. She testified that she had found the applicant in a van, restrained because he was allegedly aggressive. He had handcuffs behind his back and was lying down in the van. She did not remember clearly whether his legs were also restrained but he could not move. They had found him alert and conscious; he was responding and was answering all the questions she asked. She examined him and saw that he was breathing, he was responsive, had good circulation and his glucose level was appropriate. He was obeying commands so he was in a full mental capacity. While she was present, he did not have a fit and was always alert. She did not recall what type of van it was, although it was not an ambulance. They transported him on their stretcher and then in the ambulance. They took him to the Hospital Emergency Department and she then handed over to her colleagues. On the way the applicant mostly complained about his hands which were both in handcuffs ‑ he was complaining about his right hand. They loosened the handcuffs but he did not mention any other injuries. He did not mention pepper spray or his breathing. Her colleagues, the porter and the driver were in the ambulance.

R.G. (the ambulance driver) testified that they had found the accused in a van and the officers told them to take him to hospital. He also told them to be careful because “he bites and spits”. The driver stated that the applicant did not do anything to them. They found him agitated. R.G. thought that the applicant’s legs were also tied. They found him in good health. They took out the stretcher and put him in the ambulance with the stretcher, although he had resisted the move.

J.S., a first responder, testified on similar lines, noting in particular that the applicant had been found in the van – on his stomach facing down ‑ in handcuffs with his hands behind his back. He could not recall whether the legs were also tied.

Constable G.S. was not present on the day. However, he testified that on 1 April 2018 he interviewed the accused in prison for immigration purposes and gave details of that interview. Asked about the procedure to go back to Nigeria, he replied that normally from Malta they [the authorities] make contact with Nigeria, they send them the copy of the passport and there is a documentation process which the Inspector takes care of. He did not know whether anyone had made contact with Nigeria.

(a)    The first-instance judgment

On 5 February 2019 the applicant was found guilty of all the charges against him and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR 5,000. He was ordered to pay the costs of the expert who had examined him and was declared an illegal immigrant in terms of Article 5 (2) (d) and 14 of the Laws of Malta. Therefore the court held that an order for deportation was to be issued once he finished serving his sentence. For the protection of the two officers the applicant was ordered to enter into a recognizance of EUR 2,000 for a period of one year.

The court noted that the numerous witnesses gave identical versions of the events to the effect that the applicant became aggressive and that when the officers tried to handcuff him and escort him to the van a scuffle ensued with the three of them “falling to the floor”. The applicant had thus disobeyed orders and it was not easy to control him. His objections had not only been verbal – indeed CCTV footage showed that even after the officers placed him in the van he was still being aggressive as the van can be seen swaying from one side to another. The court noted that, according to their testimony, the bruise resulting from the blow and the bite suffered by D.T. occurred before the use of pepper spray. Thus, they could not be considered as a reaction to that and the use of force by the officers was therefore legitimate and within limits.

The court further considered that the words “if you send me to Nigeria with escorts they will go to Nigeria but will not be back” could not mean, as argued by the applicant, that the Nigerian authorities would not allow them back. Thus, in the court’s view, these were specific threats aimed at intimidating or duly influencing the inspector in carrying out his duties. The court also considered that, despite the absence of corroboration, M.C.’s testimony to the effect that the applicant had threatened to kill police officers and the officers of the correctional facility was truthful.

The court accepted that the applicant must have felt frustrated at the way the immigration department handled his case, and considered that the department could not be lauded for its behaviour. However, this did not justify the applicant’s actions, the more so as he knew that he could seek redress from the courts as he had done in another pending cases regarding alleged ill-treatment.

Medical documents and eye witnesses had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the correctional officers had suffered slight injuries, and it was clear that the applicant had also disobeyed lawful orders and caused alarm and disturbance.

(b)    The appeal judgment

By an appeal judgment of 16 May 2019 the applicant’s guilt was confirmed but the punishment lowered in view of the circumstances of the case, in particular the long period of incarceration of the applicant and the behaviour of the immigration authorities. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for three years and a fine of EUR 4,000. His immediate deportation (after the payment of the fine) was ordered.

3.   Subsequent events

On the same day the applicant was released from prison having been detained there since 12 April 2018 in pre-trial detention. He was transferred to a closed detention centre for immigrants. According to the applicant, the authorities did not have the required passport to send him back to Nigeria given that his own passport expired while in prison.

By a further judgment of 24 May 2019 the EUR 4,000 fine was converted into six months’ imprisonment due to the applicant’s inability to pay that sum. The court sympathised with the applicant but considered that the six months could not be deducted from the thirteen months he had spent in pre‑trial detention. The court further ordered that the applicant be deported at the end of his term of imprisonment and that the immigration authorities organise themselves in time in view of their past behaviour.

On the same day the applicant was released from Safi Barracks where he was serving his immigration detention and imprisoned at the Corradino Correctional Facility.

The applicant was released from the Corradino Correction Facility on 14 September 2019 and was placed in immigrant detention at the Safi Detention Centre. He has not been informed of a date for his deportation.

The applicant claims that in prison he was moved from one security regime to another in order to bar him from any contact with persons and to impede his access to legal aid to proceed with his case against the officers, as well as hindering his application to the European Court of Human Rights. He further claims that he is being denied access to his medical documents to substantiate his complaint, or to make any photocopies of his correspondence with the Court which he considers is being tampered with. According to the applicant the treatment he was suffering was a result of discrimination.

B.     Relevant domestic law

1.   Immigration Laws

Immigration and asylum procedures are mainly regulated by the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta and the Refugees Act, Chapter 420 of the Laws of Malta. The relevant articles of the Immigration Act, (“the Act”), in particular Article 14 and 25 are set out in Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta (no. 62676/16, § 26-27, 2 April 2019), and in so far as relevant to the present case Article 5 (2) (d) read as follows:

“(2) Notwithstanding that he has landed or is in Malta with the leave of the Principal Immigration Officer or that he was granted a residence permit, a person shall, unless he is exempted under this Act from any of the following conditions or special rules applicable to him under the foregoing provisions of this Act, be a prohibited immigrant also –

(d) if he is found guilty by a court of criminal jurisdictionin Malta of an offence against any of the provisions ofthe White Slave Traffic (Suppression) Ordinance or ofthe Dangerous Drugs Ordinance or of a crime, otherthan involuntary homicide or involuntary bodily harm,which, in the case of a first crime committed by suchperson, is punishable with imprisonment for a term ofnot less than one year or, in the case of a second orsubsequent crime committed by such person, ispunishable with imprisonment for a term of not lessthan three months;”

2.   The Criminal Code

Article 355AT of the Criminal Code which came into force in 2010 reads as follows:

“(1) This Sub-title transposes the provisions of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 November 2013 (L 294/1).

(2) This Sub-title lays down minimum rules concerning the rights of:

(a) the suspect (hereinafter in this Sub-title referred to as “the suspect”), that is, a person who is detained or arrested by the Executive Police or any other law enforcement or judicial authority where such person has not been charged before a court of justice of criminal jurisdiction and who is being questioned by the Executive Police or any other authority as aforesaid in relation to any criminal offence;

(b) a person charged or accused of having committed a criminal offence (hereinafter referred to in this Subtitle as “the accused person”);

(c) a person subject to proceedings pursuant to Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) published in the Official Journal on 18 July 2002 (L 190/1), hereinafter referred to as “the European arrest warrant proceedings”.

(3) The persons mentioned in sub-article (2) shall enjoy the following rights:

(a) to have access to a lawyer;

(b) to have a third party informed of the deprivation of their liberty; and

(c) to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities whilst deprived of their liberty.

(4) For the purpose of this Sub-title, the expression “lawyer” means an advocate or a legal procurator who is authorised by law to exercise that respective profession in terms of law.”

Article 355AUA, introduced in 2016 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“(1) The suspect or the accused person shall have the right of access to a lawyer in such time and in such a manner so as to allow him to exercise his rights of defence practically and effectively.

(2) The suspect or the accused person shall have access to a lawyer without undue delay. In any event, the suspect or the accused person shall have access to a lawyer from whichever of the following points in time is the earliest:

(a) before they are questioned by the Executive Police or by another law enforcement or judicial authority in respect of the commission of a criminal offence;

(b) upon the carrying out by investigating or other competent authorities of an investigative or other evidence-gathering act in accordance with sub-article (8)(e);

(c) without undue delay after deprivation of liberty;

(d) where they have been summoned to appear before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, in due time before they appear before that court.”

3.   Prison Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 260.03)

In so far as relevant, Regulation 18 reads as follows:

“(3) Every prisoner shall be allowed to make a request or complaint to the Director, to the Board or to the Minister, or to petition the President of Malta, or to an internationally recognised human rights body, under confidential cover.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, relying on Article 2 of the Convention, of the excessive use of force by the correctional officers (against whom he had proceedings pending), as a result of which he was charged with crimes he did not commit as opposed to being treated as a victim, following a failure to protect him. He further complains that he had no lawyer during the interrogationof 11 April 2018 and that his immigration detention was unlawful and contrary to Article 5 § 1 since there were no prospects of his deportation. Lastly, the applicant complains that the authorities were doing all they could to hinder his application to the Court, including denying him access to legal aid, relevant documents and interfering with his mail to the Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has the applicant had access to legal aid allowing him to pursue relevant remedies for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention in relation to his complaints underArticles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

2.  Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the officials present at the scene on 10 April 2018 use excessive force in restraining the applicant (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000‑XII)?

3.  (a) Apart from the investigation in relation to the applicant’s conduct during the incident of 10 April 2018, has any investigation been pursued in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in the incident? In particular, in relation to whether the relevant procedures had been followed and whether there had been an excessive use of force?

(b) If so, having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in relation to the conduct of the officers in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?

4.  Given that the two officers – who had been assigned to accompany the applicant to the meeting of 10 April 2018 and subsequently to the immigrant detention centre ‑ had previously been accused by the applicant of ill-treatment and were the subject of pending judicial proceedings lodged by the applicant concerning such allegations – has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the alleged failure by the Maltese authorities to take appropriate measures with a view to protecting the applicant from inhuman and degrading treatment?

5.  Was the applicant’s detention between 16 and 23 May 2019 in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular were deportation proceedings in progress and had they been pursued diligently (see Aden Ahmedv. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 144, 23 July 2013)? Were the Maltese authorities in possession of the relevant documents to proceed with deportation? What were the prospects of deportation in the light of the proceedings for the conversion of the applicant’s fine into a further prison sentence decided on 24 May 2019?

6.  In relation to the detention for immigration purposes which started on 15 September 2019, are deportation proceedings in progress and are they being pursued diligently, in order for the detention to comply with Article 5 § 1?

7.  Was the applicant hindered in the effective exercise of his right to defence during the questioning of 11 April 2018? In particular, was there a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention read together with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention given the absence of a lawyer during the questioning (see Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018)?

8.  Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of petition, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have the opportunity to correspond with the Court without interference by the prison authorities, in line with Regulation 18 of the Prison Regulations (seePeňaranda Soto v. Malta, no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017) and has the applicant been denied access to materials intended to substantiate his application to the Court?