Abela left off human rights reform letter despite sharing its criticism

Leaders from nine European countries have signed an open letter calling criticising how the European Court of Human Rights developed its interpretation of the human rights convention.

Despite Prime Minister Robert Abela making the same criticism in March 2025, his signature is not on this open letter. The letter was signed by Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.

Abela raised eyebrows when his office published a statement that Malta will put human rights convention reform on the agenda of its Council of Europe presidency. He made the commitment to several European leaders, most of which have since signed the letter.

After receiving flak for his statement, Abela defended the position in parliament. He said a restrictive interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights merits its reform.

Abela never publicly backed down from this position, but Foreign Minister Ian Borg had said that Malta will not pursue convention reform during its presidency of the Council of Europe.

Many of the arguments in the letter resemble Abela’s own statements on convention reform. The letter finds fault with people who commit crimes in European countries after being granted status in the country.

“We should have more room nationally to decide on when to expel criminal foreign nationals. For example, in cases concerning serious violent crime or drug-related crime. By its nature such crime always has serious implications for the victims,” the letter reads.

Abela made it clear in March that he wants to be able to deport refugees who commit crimes in Malta. He also acknowledged that “a series of conventions create massive challenges to do that”.

The letter also states that “the intepretation of the [European] Convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states’ ability to decide whom to expel from their territories”.

“We believe that the development in the Court’s interpretation has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies. And thereby affected how we as leaders can protect our democratic societies and our populations against the challenges facing us in the world today.”