"Democracy needs an independant view on detention camps"

On 12 May, the French Senate will examine a bill aimed at entrusting the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) with the task of providing legal information in administrative detention centres (CRA), places of deprivation of liberty where people are detained because they do not have papers. The aim of this proposal is to remove associations from these centres by abolishing their role in helping people to exercise their rights. If adopted, this text would deal a fatal blow to the exercise of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty and to democratic transparency.

The right to an effective remedy is a constitutional requirement in France (Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) and a European and international obligation. It guarantees everyone, including persons in detention, the possibility of challenging before an impartial judge decisions that affect them: in this case, their deprivation of liberty or the decision to remove them from French territory.

This right is only effective if the assistance provided is delivered by an actor without a conflict of interest. This requirement was reiterated by the Council of State [TN: highest administrative jurisdiction in France] in 2009 and enshrined in European law. The OFII, a public institution under the direct authority of the French Ministry of the Interior, responsible for removal policy, cannot meet this basic requirement.

Contrary to what the authors of the bill suggest, the intervention of associations in CRA is strictly regulated by law. Lawyers inform those detained of their rights and assist them in their procedures, without ever making decisions on their behalf. Far from raising false hopes, the assistance provided is based on accurate and realistic information. Associations have no interest in encouraging unnecessary procedures: their role is to help each individual understand their rights and act in full knowledge of the facts.

Contestable decisions

Parliamentarians who attack the role of associations in CRAs denounce the high number of appeals. But if there are disputes, it is because there are contestable decisions. In January 2024, the French Court of Auditors highlighted the overload faced by prefectures, with a 60% increase in the number of obligations to leave French territory (OQTF) in five years. This massification of OQTFs is the result of a policy of restricting residence, which is creating more and more undocumented migrants. It has led France alone to issue nearly a third of all deportation orders in Europe. The decisions are automatic, without individual review, sometimes to countries where people risk their lives, and often unenforceable. In this context, errors are inevitable, and associations simply enable those affected to identify them.

Appeals are multiplying against measures that are increasingly numerous and increasingly questionable from a legal point of view, since more than one in two people are ultimately released.

Associations also play a unique and indispensable role: they are the only public and independent source of information on CRA, notably through the inter-association report published each year. It is this work that enables parliamentarians, journalists, researchers and citizens to understand what goes on behind the walls of detention centres.

This role is all the more essential given the worrying conditions of detention: situations of extreme vulnerability, health problems not taken into account by the authorities, etc. We regularly draw attention to the impact of detention on people’s health, the tensions and desperate acts that result, and which sometimes lead to tragic situations, including deaths. We regularly denounce removals carried out by the administration outside the legal framework. Removing this independent oversight would be tantamount to blinding society to what goes on in CRA detention centres. This transparency, far from being a mere posture, is a democratic duty. It is the foundation of all citizen control over the exercise of power, particularly when it involves the deprivation of liberty.

Vigies démocratique

Critics of this mission also argue that it is necessary to control public spending. However, in 2024, the total cost of legal assistance in CRA centres will amount to €6.5 million. This is a paltry sum compared to the €220 million spent each year on detention, according to the Court of Auditors.

Even more inconsistent is the fact that the senators in favour of this text are often the same ones who support another proposal to extend the maximum detention period from 90 to 210 days. This is an extremely costly measure – up to more than €70,000 per person – and totally ineffective: available data show that the majority of deportations take place in the first few days.

Behind this targeted challenge lies much more than a technical debate on legal assistance in detention. Associations play a democratic watchdog role, ensuring the effective exercise of rights, reporting malfunctions and violations of rights, and making invisible realities visible. Weakening their position undermines a pillar of democracy: the one that allows civil society to fulfil its duty to alert the public.

In light of this proposed law, we call on parliamentarians not to cross a red line: the one that separates a democracy from a system where respect for rights and freedoms becomes a variable for adjusting power. Maintaining independent legal assistance in CRA centres means respecting the rule of law.