In September 2005, a delegation of twelve members of the EU Parliament (MEPs) visited the Temporary Holding Centre (THC) of Lampedusa. It is worth to mention some parts of the EU investigation process regarding the Lampedusa’s centre and the conclusion, which the delegation derived from its visit. Here you can download the official report of the visit (In English): lampedusa-visit.doc *** Briefing with the Italian authorities 1) The Italian authorities informed the MEPs that on the day of the visit there were 11 people at the centre. The delegation was surprised at this, as the figure did not in any way reflect the everyday reality of the Lampedusa centre. The Italian authorities did not clarify the question of the total number of inmates during the days leading up to the MEPs’ visit. The Quaestor admitted that the presence of only 11 people in summer was quite exceptional. The MEPs heard numerous accounts from inhabitants of Lampedusa who had noticed that military aircraft traffic had been exceptionally intense in the days preceding the delegation’s visit to the city. 2) The Italian authorities refused on several occasions to give to the delegation the records of arrivals and departures and the expulsion orders, held in the prefecture of Agrigento.3) 10 497 people were housed in Lampedusa THC in 2004, 412 of whom were minors and 309 were women. 4) On certain days in summer the centre had had to take up to a thousand people. 5) The average length of stay at the centre is between 4 and 5 days. 6) The centre is run by an NGO known as Misericordia, which provides basic assistance (distribution of meals, water and telephone cards, first-aid treatment where necessary, etc.). The MEPs asked, but did not get any information regarding the terms of the agreement between Misericordia and the Ministry of the Interior. 7) The authorities stated that most arrivals were Egyptian. The news that nearly all the migrants were from Egypt surprised most of the MEPs. They also expressed their doubts about the possibility of identifying a person after a meeting lasting only a few minutes and depending entirely on the person’s accent and skin colour. MEPs were astonished to hear that almost all the migrants were considered to be of Egyptian nationality, and that there was a total absence of any other nationalities, especially Iraqis and Palestinians, among the people identified at the centre. 8) In the centre’s dormitory we saw a notice written in Arabic, French and English explaining the ‘rights and duties of migrants’. The interpreters work from Arabic and English, but not from French. 9) Everyone arriving at Lampedusa THC has to be fingerprinted using a high-tech ink-free scanner system. (…) It was not possible to determine what use was made of these fingerprints by the police authorities. 10) Doctors use X-rays to identify children at the centre. 11) If anyone expressed the wish to claim asylum, they were transferred to the Crotone reception centre. For the others, Italian law on refusal of entry at the border applied. People had the right to an individual interview, but if they did not request asylum they were immediately sent to Libya or repatriated to their country of origin. (…)The Italian authorities stated that in general there were very few claims for asylum and that most people arriving at Lampedusa were economic migrants. throughout the visit the Italian authorities referred to these people as ‘illegal migrants’ and never ‘refugees or asylum seekers’. 12) The Italian authorities explained that, according to Italian immigration law (Article 10 of the ‘Bossi-Fini’ Law 189/2002 of July 2002), the authorisation of a judge was not required for refusal of entry procedures (respingimento in Italian, refoulement in French), because it was not a case of expulsion, but of refusal of entry at the border on an individual basis. (…) Decisions on ‘refusal of entry’ were made by the quaestor. (…) 13) The Italian authorities denied that collective repatriations were taking place. They reaffirmed their respect for international and European law on the protection of refugees and respect for human rights. The Italian authorities explained that migrants were sent back to Libya because that was where the boats came from. 14) During an interview with a member of the Carabinieri, the latter denied that there had been any fights in the centre recently and it could therefore be presumed that the toilet doors and windows had been broken for a long time. This was confirmed in the report by a delegation from a parliamentary group concerning a visit in October 2004. Visit to the centre 1) The entire centre was surrounded by an enclosure made of metal grilles and a large amount of barbed wire, like a military zone. The centre was right next to Lampedusa airport and had direct private access to the runway. 2) There were four prefabricated containers each containing about 40 beds (two rows of bunks). 3) The first container appeared clean and freshly painted, with the charter of migrants’ rights displayed in French, English and Arabic. The MEPs noted that this charter had been put up recently. 4) There was a single common structure that served as a communal bathroom, with toilets without doors, a wash basin and showers, also without doors. There were only about ten toilets in the entire centre. The showers and wash basins were fed with salt water from the sea. There were no windows. 5) The MEPs expressed their surprise at the lack of space. It seemed impossible to be able to assess everyone’s situation in a calm and clear manner. With average stays of four days it seemed impossible to grant everyone an individual interview, especially at times when there were up to 1 000 people at the centre; Conclusions 1) The delegation expressed its concern regarding the Italian Government’s expulsion of migrants to Libya, 2) The living conditions at the centre were makeshift and totally inadequate in view of the considerable flow of migrants into Lampedusa. 3) The Italian authorities had not shown sufficient transparency in providing access to documents certifying the legal situation of the people housed at the centre. The delegation awaited details from the Italian Minister of the Interior concerning the numbers of inmates at the centre and of expulsion orders. 4) On behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, the delegation requested that the European Commission report to the European Parliament on its recent mission to Libya to examine the conditions of the migrant holding centres. According to the accounts of parliamentary groups who had already visited the centre on several occasions, the Lampedusa centre as it had been portrayed to the MEPs bore no resemblance to reality (Comment from the Rapporteur, Ms Martine ROURE).