IV. Inside Lukavica Detention Center: Legal Access and Children in Detention
This blog is part of our series unpacking findings from our new report on Lukavica, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s only official immigration detention centre. Earlier posts looked at the legal framework and at the facility itself; here we focus on two of the most alarming threads running through the report: how hard it is for people in Lukavica to access legal help, and the fact that children are still being detained there at all.
Between 2018 and 2024, 4,631 people were detained in Lukavica, among them 115 children, despite years of criticism from international bodies who have called on Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to stop detaining minors in immigration procedures. At the same time, those held inside face serious barriers to even understanding why they are there, let alone challenging their detention.
What the law promises on legal aid
On paper, Lukavica looks like a place where rights are clearly laid out and help is readily available. The Law on Aliens and related legislation say that anyone detained should be informed in a language they understand about why they are being held and what their rights are. The authorities, in their responses to our Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, go further: they state that detainees have the right to free legal aid from the Ministry of Justice or from organisations such as Vaša Prava, and that contact details and procedures are displayed on notice boards and in brochures in all relevant languages inside the centre.
In theory, people are supposed to be able to:
Request a lawyer as soon as they arrive.
Receive written decisions explaining why they have been placed “under supervision” and/or given an expulsion order.
Appeal those decisions within short but clear deadlines.
Apply for asylum if they fear harm on return, again with legal support.
If you only read the laws and the SFA’s FOI answers, you might imagine a tough but organised system where people are never left alone with their questions.
What legal access looks like in reality
The accounts we collected from detainees, lawyers and NGOs tell a very different story. Vaša Prava, the only NGO currently allowed to provide legal aid in Lukavica, reports that many people never receive written decisions about their detention, are not interviewed in a language they understand, and are not properly informed of their right to appeal. When interpreters are provided, questions often focus narrowly on travel routes and border crossings rather than on protection needs, trauma, or reasons for leaving home.
Lawyers describe case files that do not clearly explain why someone has been detained, with people routinely labelled “illegal” or “security threats” without the basic factual assessment that administrative law requires. Because people are not told about their rights at the outset, and because information is often only in Bosnian, they frequently miss the three- or eight‑day time limits for appeals. Vaša Prava has had to go all the way to court to convince judges that, in such situations, the clock should start from the date of their first visit to a detainee rather than from the date an untranslated decision was quietly issued.
One man we spoke to said it took nearly two weeks before a lawyer from Vaša Prava was able to visit him, despite his repeated requests for help. During that time, he had no translation, no idea why he was being held, and no understanding of what would happen next. When legal aid finally arrived, he learned that there were only two lawyers available to cover the entire centre, which helps explain the delay.
Detainees also describe being asked to sign documents written in Bosnian that were never translated for them, under pressure from lawyers or staff who told them it was the only way to secure release. In one interview, a private lawyer recalled a client whose initial interview was conducted with an English interpreter, even though the man’s native language was different; technically, language support was “provided”, but in practice the man did not fully understand what was being asked or recorded.
Phones that don’t ring and doors that don’t open
Even reaching a lawyer from inside Lukavica can be an ordeal. The SFA website lists a phone number for the centre, but in practice this line is described as “effectively non‑functional”. Detainees cannot simply pick up a phone and call out; instead, they have to wait for specific times when calls are allowed, and then hope that someone calls in for them.
When a call is arranged, it typically goes to a phone in a common room on the upper floor. Several people told us that the phone was “always overcrowded” when it was available, because so many detainees were desperate to speak to a lawyer or to family. Without language skills, outside contacts or knowledge of how the system works, many simply disappear into the facility without ever finding a way to ask for help.
Physical access for lawyers is also tightly controlled. Vaša Prava’s staff explained that they can only enter when the SFA grants clearance, and even then they are sometimes denied entry to see specific clients, including in cases where urgent legal action was needed. International monitors such as the CPT and Human Rights Watch are allowed in only through “assisted visits”, escorted by staff, with little or no opportunity to speak to detainees privately or to intervene directly in individual cases.
The result is a system where legal remedies exist on paper but are often out of reach in practice, a form of “rights on display” that satisfies international reporting requirements while leaving people inside almost entirely dependent on the goodwill of the authorities detaining them.
Children in detention: what the law allows
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the legal framework is its treatment of children. The Law on Aliens does not prohibit the detention of minors for immigration purposes; on the contrary, it allows it explicitly and does not set out additional safeguards or stricter criteria when the person concerned is a child.
Between 2018 and 2024, 115 children were detained in Lukavica, according to SFA’s own statistics. These figures include both unaccompanied and accompanied minors, held in a facility that was never designed to be a child‑appropriate environment. International bodies, including the Global Detention Project and various UN mechanisms, have repeatedly urged BiH to end immigration detention of children and to use alternatives instead, but the law has not been amended.
Children are thus subjected to the same vague detention grounds as adults: “threats” to public order or security, readmission under bilateral agreements, expulsion orders with a perceived risk of absconding, or unclear identity at the border. There are no specific requirements to assess the best interests of the child, to explore alternatives before detention, or to limit the duration of custody in a child‑sensitive way.
How children experience Lukavica
Our report documents how these legal gaps turn into real harm. Children held in Lukavica share the same outdated, mould‑infested spaces as adults, with bars on windows, locked doors and constant surveillance cameras. Even when they are accommodated in family flats or separate units, they still live in a closed, carceral environment with little access to education, play or community life.
Stakeholders we interviewed highlighted several recurring patterns:
Mis‑registration and age disputes: Some children are registered as adults due to poor age assessment procedures or lack of documents, which means they lose access to any child‑specific protections and can be held for longer periods.
Weak or symbolic guardianship: In some cases, so‑called “guardians” are simply other adults travelling with the child, with no formal training or capacity to act in their best interests.
Mental health crises: Lawyers and observers reported self‑harm attempts by minors, including at least one case where a child tried to take his own life while being treated as an adult in the centre.
Children are also affected by the same legal access problems as adults, but with even fewer tools to navigate them. A teenager detained in a foreign country, without language skills or support, is unlikely to understand appeal deadlines, legal terminology or asylum procedures, especially if no one explains these in a language they speak.
When legal access and child rights collide
Put together, these two themes, blocked legal access and the detention of children , reveal a system that is doubly stacked against those who should be most protected.
A child in Lukavica might:
Be detained under vague “security” or migration grounds that were never meant to apply to them.
Receive little or no explanation in a language they understand of why they are there.
Have no effective way to contact a lawyer, because phones are limited and visits depend on SFA approval.
Miss the narrow appeal windows because no one informed them or their guardian properly.
Live in conditions that damage their physical and mental health, with almost no specialised support.
This runs directly counter to BiH’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as broader human rights treaties that require detention to be used only as a measure of last resort, for the shortest possible time, and never in a way that is arbitrary or disproportionate.
Why this matters now
Lukavica is often presented as a technical facility, a neutral “immigration centre” where decisions made elsewhere are simply carried out. Our research shows that it is anything but neutral. The way legal information is withheld, the way access to lawyers is controlled, and the way children are treated as administrative problems rather than rights‑holders all make Lukavica a central actor in the production of harm.
At a time when the EU is debating return regulations that would make it easier to send people back to countries like BiH, and when IOM tenders are expanding detention capacity and surveillance, it is crucial to ask what kind of system those returns would feed into. A place where children are detained and legal aid is a matter of luck and timing should not be the endpoint of Europe’s migration policies.
In the full report, we set out concrete recommendations: prohibiting child detention, making alternatives to detention the default, guaranteeing unhindered access for lawyers and monitors, and ensuring that information about rights is truly accessible in practice, not just in law. Until these changes are made, Lukavica will remain a black box where people, including children, are not only locked in, but also locked out of the very rights that are supposed to protect them.
Words by Anna Gruber