A/HRC/25/17 86. The delegation reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to ensuring the principle of non-refoulement and recalled that an asylum seeker could not be returned as long as the asylum application was still pending, be it at first instance or on appeal. 87. Regarding the detention of asylum seekers, the delegation stated that the Maltese asylum policy and practice had progressed considerably since its last UPR and that Malta had largely complied with the recommendations that were put forward on the issue. The Government considered that detention was a necessity in the context of Malta, particularly having in mind that all irregular migrants reached Malta undocumented, thereby already fulfilling one of the reasons why detention might be pursued in line with the recast Reception Conditions Directive, which would come into force in 2015. With that in mind, Malta would be retaining the detention policy. 88. Extensive refurbishment projects had been undertaken to ensure appropriate conditions in detention centres, including the Safi and Lyster Detention Centres. Efforts had been also made to provide access to educational, cultural and sports activities to migrants in detention centres. 89. The delegation noted that the integration of migrants remained one of the main challenges. Integration-oriented projects had been undertaken by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers, focusing in particular on access to employment and language skills. Notwithstanding these efforts, long-term integration for all those in need of international protection had been limited by the country’s geo-social realities and, thus, additional assistance to Malta was requested to meet the current needs. While assistance had been received from a number of States in the past, Malta was still in need of help to alleviate pressures being faced. 90. In response to questions on criminalization of abortion, the delegation stated that Malta had made a declaration under article 16 of CEDAW and, thus, it was not bound by an obligation to legalize abortion. However, in cases where the life of a mother was at risk, a medical intervention to save her life, even if that could result in the death of the child, was not precluded. The delegation highlighted that the right to life, enshrined in the Constitution, was an inherent right of every human being, including the unborn child as human life begins at conception. Therefore, Malta considered the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion an infringement of the right to life and, thus, abortion or any other form of termination of pregnancy could not be considered as a legitimate measure of family planning. 91. The delegation reiterated the commitment of Malta to the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and to the protection of the right of women to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters relating to their sexuality and the timing and number of children free of coercion, discrimination and violence. 92. Health education was an ongoing initiative. The Government had set up an Education-Health Committee, which discussed and coordinated school health activities; reviewed existing health programmes and initiatives in schools; and advised and put forward proposals for the sexual and reproductive health content of the National Curriculum Framework for schools. 93. A number of sexual and reproductive health-care services were freely available within the national public health-care system, including family planning. The Ministry for Health provided a clinic offering a confidential service of diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and counselling and testing for HIV. 94. In response to a question on lengthy court proceedings, the delegation stated that the new Government had put the problem to the fore of its agenda and that it had set up the Justice Reform Commission to draft a comprehensive set of proposals aimed at reforming 13