The European Court found that whilst mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, it cannot be inferred from this that the sole fact that the family unit is maintained necessarily guarantees respect for the right to a family life, particularly where the family is detained.
Source: official link
The UN Human Rights Committee recalled that, in order to avoid a characterization of arbitrariness, detention should not continue beyond the period for which the State Party can provide appropriate justification.
Source: official link
The UN Human Rights Committee recalled that although under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the detention of aliens residing unlawfully on the State Party’s territory is not per se arbitrary, remand in custody could be considered arbitrary if it is not necessary in all the circumstances of the case: the element of proportionality becomes relevant.
Source: official link
The UN Committee in its General Comment understands as ‘alternatives to detention’ all community-based care measures or non-custodial accommodation solutions – in law, policy or practice – that are less restrictive than detention and which must be considered in the context of lawful detention decision procedures to ensure that detention is necessary and proportionate in all cases, with the aim of respecting the human rights and avoiding arbitrary detention of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons.
Source: official link
The Court stated that the regional court did not consider alternative measures at all and the family’s detention as a measure of last resort.
Source: PDF with the case
The Court stated that the regional court did not consider alternative measures and the family’s detention as a measure of last resort, detention has a negative impact on the child’s well-being.
Source: PDF with the case
