In this decision the UN Human Rights Committee found a violation of article 9.1 ICCPR on the basis that the State, in light of the author’s particular circumstances, did not consider less invasive means than detention to achieve compliance with the State Party’s immigration policies.
Source: official link
This report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Felipe González Morales, was submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 74/148 and Human Rights Council resolution 43/6. It advocates for a human rights-based approach to end child migration detention. In particular, it urges States to integrate unaccompanied migrant children into national child protection and welfare systems without any discrimination, irrespective of the child’s migration status.
Source: official link
This study from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) provides an overview of issues relating to immigration detention practices, and promotes the use of alternatives to immigration detention of children (ATDs). The study argues that the main idea behind ATDs is identifying options which provide state authorities with a degree of control over asylum seekers while allowing for a basic freedom of movement. ATDs need to be regulated in order to avoid the arbitrary imposition of restrictions on liberty or freedom of movement and, even when alternatives apply, access to legal aid should be given to migrants, especially to children.
Source: official link
The Steering Committee for Human Rights in this analysis, adopted on 7 December 2017, provided an overview of the applicable international human rights standards in the field of alternatives to detention in the context of migration.
Source: official link
Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which they cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives.
Source: official link
The Court recalled that it is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 ECHR and the notion of ‘arbitrariness’ in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. To avoid being branded as arbitrary, therefore, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry of the person to the country; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued.
Source: official link
