The rights to liberty and security
of person and to freedom of
movement apply to
asylum-seekers

Decisions to
detain or to
extend
detention
must be
subject
to minimum
procedural
safeguards

Detention
must be in
accordance
with and
authoriSed
by law

Indefinite
detention is
arbitrary and
maximum limits
on detention
should be
established in
law

The special circumstances and needs of
particular asylum-seekers must be taken
into account

Conditions of
detention must
be humane and
dignified

Detention should be subject
to independent monitoring
and inspection

Detention Guidelines
Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards
relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers
and Alternatives to Detention

Detention
must not be
discriminatory

Detention must not be arbitrary,
and any decision to detain must be
based on an assessment of the
individual’s particular circumstances

The right
to seek
asylum must
be respected

UNHCR issues the Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria
and Standards relating to the Detention of AsylumSeekers and Alternatives to Detention pursuant to its
mandate, as contained in the Statute of the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
in conjunction with Article 35 of the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of its 1967
Protocol. These Guidelines replace UNHCR, Guidelines
on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the
Detention of Asylum-Seekers, February 1999.
These Guidelines are intended to provide guidance
to governments, parliamentarians, legal practitioners,
decision-makers, including the judiciary, as well as other
international and national bodies working on detention
and asylum matters, including non-governmental
organisations, national human rights institutions and
UNHCR staff.
The Guidelines are available online at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/503489533b8.html
© UNHCR 2012
Layout & Design: BakOS DESIGN

3

Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................6
Scope	 ...........................................................................................................8
Terminology....................................................................................................9
Guidelines....................................................................................................11
	 Guideline 1: The right to seek asylum must be respected........................12
	 Guideline 2: The rights to liberty and security of person and to...............13
freedom of movement apply to asylum-seekers
	 Guideline 3: Detention must be in accordance with.................................14
and authorised by law
	 Guideline 4: Detention must not be arbitrary, and any decision...............15
to detain must be based on an assessment of the
individual’s particular circumstances, according to the
following:
				Guideline 4.1: Detention is an exceptional measure......................... 16
and can only be justified for a legitimate purpose
					

4.1.1 To protect public order........................................................ 16

					

4.1.2 To protect public health . .................................................... 18

					

4.1.3 To protect national security................................................. 19

					

4.1.4 Purposes not justifying detention........................................ 19

				Guideline 4.2: Detention can only be resorted to when it is.............. 21
determined to be necessary, reasonable in all the
circumstances and proportionate to a legitimate purpose
				Guideline 4.3: Alternatives to detention need to be considered....... 22

4

	 Guideline 5: Detention must not be discriminatory...................................25
	 Guideline 6: Indefinite detention is arbitrary and maximum......................26
limits on detention should be established in law
	 Guideline 7: Decisions to detain or to extend detention must..................27
be subject to minimum procedural safeguards
	 Guideline 8: Conditions of detention must be humane and dignified.......29
	 Guideline 9: The special circumstances and needs of particular..............33
asylum-seekers must be taken into account
				

Guideline 9.1 Victims of trauma or torture......................................... 33

				

Guideline 9.2 Children....................................................................... 34

				

Guideline 9.3 Women ....................................................................... 37

				

Guideline 9.4 Victims or potential victims of trafficking ................... 38

				

Guideline 9.5 Asylum-seekers with disabilities ................................ 38

				

Guideline 9.6 Older asylum-seekers ................................................ 39

				Guideline 9.7 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or....................... 39
intersex asylum-seekers

	 Guideline 10: Detention should be subject to independent......................40
monitoring and inspection
Annex A: Alternatives to Detention............................................................41
Endnotes......................................................................................................46
Useful links...................................................................................................62

5

Introduction
1. The rights to liberty and security of person are fundamental human rights,
reflected in the international prohibition on arbitrary detention, and supported
by the right to freedom of movement. While acknowledging the array of
contemporary challenges to national asylum systems caused by irregular
migration as well as the right of States to control the entry and stay of nonnationals on their territory, subject to refugee and human rights standards,1
these Guidelines reflect the current state of international law relating to the
detention of asylum-seekers and are intended to guide:
	

(a) g
 overnments in their elaboration and implementation of asylum and
migration policies which involve an element of detention; and

	

(b) d
 ecision-makers, including judges, in making assessments about the
necessity of detention in individual cases.

2. In view of the hardship which it entails, and consistent with international
refugee and human rights law and standards, detention of asylum-seekers
should normally be avoided and be a measure of last resort. As seeking
asylum is not an unlawful act, any restrictions on liberty imposed on persons
exercising this right need to be provided for in law, carefully circumscribed
and subject to prompt review. Detention can only be applied where it
pursues a legitimate purpose and has been determined to be both necessary
and proportionate in each individual case. Respecting the right to seek
asylum entails instituting open and humane reception arrangements for
asylum-seekers, including safe, dignified and human rights-compatible
treatment.2

6

3. There are various ways for governments to address irregular migration
– other than through detention – that take due account of the concerns
of governments as well as the particular circumstances of the individual
concerned.3 In fact, there is no evidence that detention has any deterrent
effect on irregular migration.4 Regardless of any such effect, detention policies
aimed at deterrence are generally unlawful under international human rights
law as they are not based on an individual assessment as to the necessity
to detain. Apart from ensuring compliance with human rights standards,
governments are encouraged to review their detention policies and practices
in light of the latest research in relation to alternatives to detention (some of
which is documented in these Guidelines). UNHCR stands ready to assist
governments in devising alternative to detention programmes.

7

Scope
4. These Guidelines reflect the state of international law relating to detention – on
immigration-related grounds – of asylum-seekers and other persons seeking
international protection. They equally apply to refugees and other persons
found to be in need of international protection should they exceptionally be
detained for immigration-related reasons. They also apply to stateless persons
who are seeking asylum, although they do not specifically cover the situation
of non-asylum-seeking stateless persons,5 persons found not to be in need
of international protection6 or other migrants, although many of the standards
detailed herein may apply to them mutatis mutandis. This is particularly true
with regard to non-refugee stateless persons in the migratory context who
face a heightened risk of arbitrary detention. The Guidelines do not cover
asylum-seekers or refugees imprisoned on the basis of criminal offences.

8

Terminology
Detention
5.

For the purposes of these Guidelines, “detention” refers to the deprivation
of liberty or confinement in a closed place which an asylum-seeker is
not permitted to leave at will, including, though not limited to, prisons or
purpose-built detention, closed reception or holding centres or facilities.

6.

The place of detention may be administered either by public authorities
or private contractors; the confinement may be authorised by an
administrative or judicial procedure, or the person may have been
confined with or without “lawful” authority. Detention or full confinement
is at the extreme end of a spectrum of deprivations of liberty (see Figure
1). Other restrictions on freedom of movement in the immigration context
are likewise subject to international standards.7 Distinctions between
deprivation of liberty (detention) and lesser restrictions on movement is
one of “degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance”.8 While
these Guidelines focus more closely on detention (or total confinement),
they also address in part measures short of full confinement.

7.

Detention can take place in a range of locations, including at land and
sea borders, in the “international zones” at airports,9 on islands,10 on
boats,11 as well as in closed refugee camps, in one’s own home (house
arrest) and even extraterritorially.12 Regardless of the name given to a
particular place of detention, the important questions are whether an
asylum-seeker is being deprived of his or her liberty de facto and whether
this deprivation is lawful according to international law.

Liberty

Restrictions
on liberty

Detention

Figure 113

9

Alternatives to Detention
8.

“Alternatives to detention” is not a legal term but is used in these
Guidelines as short-hand to refer to any legislation, policy or practice
that allows asylum-seekers to reside in the community subject to a
number of conditions or restrictions on their freedom of movement.
As some alternatives to detention also involve various restrictions on
movement or liberty (and some can be classified as forms of detention),
they are also subject to human rights standards (see Figure 2).

Asylum-Seeker
9.

The term “asylum-seeker” in these Guidelines refers to persons
applying for refugee status pursuant to the definition of a “refugee”
in the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of
Refugees (“1951 Convention”)14 or any regional refugee instrument,15 as
well as other persons seeking complementary, subsidiary or temporary
forms of protection.16 The Guidelines cover those whose claims are
being considered within status determination procedures, as well as
admissibility, pre-screening or other similar procedures. They also apply
to those exercising their right to seek judicial review of their request for
international protection.

Stateless Person
10.

10

A “stateless person” is defined under international law as a person
“who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation
of its law.”17 An asylum-seeking stateless person refers to a
stateless person who seeks to obtain refugee status under the 1951
Convention,18 or another form of international protection.

UNHCR Detention Guidelines
Guideline 1.

The right to seek asylum must be respected

Guideline 2.

The rights to liberty and security of person and to freedom of
movement apply to asylum-seekers

Guideline 3.

Detention must be in accordance with and authorised by law

Guideline 4.

Detention must not be arbitrary, and any decision to detain
must be based on an assessment of the individual’s particular
circumstances, according to the following:
Guideline 4.1

Guideline 4.2

Guideline 4.3

Detention is an exceptional
measure and can only be
justified for a legitimate
purpose

Detention can only
be resorted to when
it is determined to be
necessary, reasonable
in all the circumstances
and proportionate to a
legitimate purpose

Alternatives to detention
need to be considered

Guideline 5.

Detention must not be discriminatory

Guideline 6.

Indefinite detention is arbitrary and maximum limits on detention
should be established in law

Guideline 7.

Decisions to detain or to extend detention must be subject to
minimum procedural safeguards

Guideline 8.

Conditions of detention must be humane and dignified

Guideline 9.

The special circumstances and needs of particular asylum-seekers
must be taken into account

Guideline 10.

Detention should be subject to independent monitoring and
inspection
11

Guideline 1:

The right to seek asylum
must be respected
11. Every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution, serious human rights violations and other serious harm. Seeking
asylum is not, therefore, an unlawful act.19 Furthermore, the 1951 Convention
provides that asylum-seekers shall not be penalised for their illegal entry or
stay, provided they present themselves to the authorities without delay and
show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.20 In exercising the right to
seek asylum, asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive at, or enter, a territory
without prior authorisation. The position of asylum-seekers may thus differ
fundamentally from that of ordinary migrants in that they may not be in a
position to comply with the legal formalities for entry. They may, for example,
be unable to obtain the necessary documentation in advance of their flight
because of their fear of persecution and/or the urgency of their departure.
These factors, as well as the fact that asylum-seekers have often experienced
traumatic events, need to be taken into account in determining any restrictions
on freedom of movement based on irregular entry or presence.

12

Guideline 2:

The rights to liberty and security of
person and to freedom of movement
apply to asylum-seekers
12. The fundamental rights to liberty and security of person21 and freedom of
movement22 are expressed in all the major international and regional human
rights instruments, and are essential components of legal systems built on the
rule of law. The Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme
(ExCom) has addressed on a number of occasions the detention of asylumseekers.23 These rights apply in principle to all human beings, regardless of
their immigration, refugee, asylum-seeker or other status.24
13. Article 31 of the 1951 Convention specifically provides for the non-penalisation
of refugees (and asylum-seekers) having entered or stayed irregularly if they
present themselves without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry
or stay. It further provides that restrictions on movement shall not be applied
to such refugees (or asylum-seekers) other than those which are necessary
and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status is regularised or
they gain admission into another country.25 Article 26 of the 1951 Convention
further provides for the freedom of movement and choice of residence for
refugees lawfully in the territory.26 Asylum-seekers are considered lawfully in
the territory for the purposes of benefiting from this provision.27
14. These rights taken together – the right to seek asylum, the non-penalisation
for irregular entry or stay and the rights to liberty and security of person and
freedom of movement – mean that the detention of asylum-seekers should be
a measure of last resort, with liberty being the default position.

13

Guideline 3:

Detention must be in accordance
with and authorised by law
15. Any detention or deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with and
authorised by national law.28 Any deprivation of liberty that is not in conformity
with national law would be unlawful, both as a matter of national as well as
international law. At the same time, although national legislation is the primary
consideration for determining the lawfulness of detention, it is “not always
the decisive element in assessing the justification of deprivation of liberty.”29
In particular, a specific factor that needs to be considered is the underlying
purpose of preventing persons being deprived of their liberty arbitrarily.30
16. Detention laws must conform to the principle of legal certainty. This requires,
inter alia, that the law and its legal consequences be foreseeable and
predictable.31 The law permitting detention must not, for example, have
retroactive effect.32 Explicitly identifying the grounds for detention in national
legislation would meet the requirement of legal certainty.33
17. Insufficient guarantees in law to protect against arbitrary detention, such as
no limits on the maximum period of detention or no access to an effective
remedy to contest it, could also call into question the legal validity of any
detention.34

14

Guideline 4:

Detention must not be arbitrary,
and any decision to detain must
be based on an assessment of the
individual’s particular circumstances
18. Detention in the migration context is neither prohibited under international law
per se, nor is the right to liberty of person absolute.35 However, international
law provides substantive safeguards against unlawful (see Guideline 3) as well
as arbitrary detention. “Arbitrariness” is to be interpreted broadly to include
not only unlawfulness, but also elements of inappropriateness, injustice and
lack of predictability.36 To guard against arbitrariness, any detention needs to
be necessary in the individual case, reasonable in all the circumstances and
proportionate to a legitimate purpose (see Guidelines 4.1 and 4.2).37 Further,
failure to consider less coercive or intrusive means could also render detention
arbitrary (Guideline 4.3).
19. As a fundamental right, decisions to detain are to be based on a detailed and
individualised assessment of the necessity to detain in line with a legitimate
purpose. Appropriate screening or assessment tools can guide decisionmakers in this regard, and should take into account the special circumstances
or needs of particular categories of asylum-seekers (see Guideline 9). Factors
to guide such decisions can include the stage of the asylum process, the
intended final destination, family and/or community ties, past behaviour
of compliance and character, and risk of absconding or articulation of a
willingness and understanding of the need to comply.
20. In relation to alternatives to detention (Guideline 4.3 and Annex A), the level
and appropriateness of placement in the community need to balance the
circumstances of the individual with any risks to the community. Matching an
individual and/or his/her family to the appropriate community should also be part
of any assessment, including the level of support services needed and available.

15

Mandatory or automatic detention is arbitrary as it is not based on an
examination of the necessity of the detention in the individual case.38
Guideline 4.1:

Detention is an exceptional measure and can
only be justified for a legitimate purpose
21. Detention can only be exceptionally resorted to for a legitimate purpose.
Without such a purpose, detention will be considered arbitrary, even if
entry was illegal.39 The purposes of detention ought to be clearly defined
in legislation and/or regulations (see Guideline 3).40 In the context of the
detention of asylum-seekers, there are three purposes for which detention
may be necessary in an individual case, and which are generally in line with
international law, namely public order, public health or national security.

4.1.1 To protect public order
To prevent absconding and/or in cases of likelihood of non-cooperation
 here there are strong grounds for believing that the specific asylum-seeker
22. W
is likely to abscond or otherwise to refuse to cooperate with the authorities,
detention may be necessary in an individual case.41 Factors to balance in
an overall assessment of the necessity of such detention could include, for
example, a past history of cooperation or non-cooperation, past compliance
or non-compliance with conditions of release or bail, family or community links
or other support networks in the country of asylum, the willingness or refusal
to provide information about the basic elements of their claim, or whether the
claim is considered manifestly unfounded or abusive.42 Appropriate screening
and assessment methods need to be in place in order to ensure that persons
who are bona fide asylum-seekers are not wrongly detained in this way.43

16

In connection with accelerated procedures for manifestly unfounded or
clearly abusive claims
23. D
 etention associated with accelerated procedures for manifestly unfounded
or clearly abusive cases must be regulated by law and, as required by
proportionality considerations, must weigh the various interests at play.44 Any
detention in connection with accelerated procedures should only be applied to
cases that are determined to be “manifestly unfounded” or “clearly abusive”;45
and those detained are entitled to the protections outlined in these Guidelines.
For initial identity and/or security verification
24. M
 inimal periods in detention may be permissible to carry out initial identity
and security checks in cases where identity is undetermined or in dispute, or
there are indications of security risks.46 At the same time, the detention must
last only as long as reasonable efforts are being made to establish identity or
to carry out the security checks, and within strict time limits established in law
(see below).
25. M
 indful that asylum-seekers often have justifiable reasons for illegal entry or
irregular movement,47 including travelling without identity documentation, it is
important to ensure that their immigration provisions do not impose unrealistic
demands regarding the quantity and quality of identification documents
asylum-seekers can reasonably be expected to produce. Also in the absence
of documentation, identity can be established through other information as
well. The inability to produce documentation should not automatically be
interpreted as an unwillingness to cooperate, or lead to an adverse security
assessment. Asylum-seekers who arrive without documentation because
they are unable to obtain any in their country of origin should not be detained
solely for that reason. Rather, what needs to be assessed is whether the
asylum-seeker has a plausible explanation for the absence or destruction of
documentation or the possession of false documentation, whether he or she
had an intention to mislead the authorities, or whether he or she refuses to
cooperate with the identity verification process.

17

26. Strict time limits need to be imposed on detention for the purposes of identity
verification, as lack of documentation can lead to, and is one of the main
causes of, indefinite or prolonged detention.
27. While nationality is usually part of someone’s identity, it is a complicated
assessment and as far as it relates to stateless asylum-seekers, it should be
undertaken in a proper procedure.48
In order to record, within the context of a preliminary interview, the
elements on which the application for international protection is based,
which could not be obtained in the absence of detention
28. It is permissible to detain an asylum-seeker for a limited initial period for
the purpose of recording, within the context of a preliminary interview, the
elements of their claim to international protection.49 However, such detention
can only be justified where that information could not be obtained in the
absence of detention. This would involve obtaining essential facts from the
asylum-seeker as to why asylum is being sought but would not ordinarily
extend to a determination of the full merits of the claim. This exception to
the general principle – that detention of asylum-seekers is a measure of last
resort – cannot be used to justify detention for the entire status determination
procedure, or for an unlimited period of time.

4.1.2	To protect public health
29. Carrying out health checks on individual asylum-seekers may be a legitimate
basis for a period of confinement, provided it is justified in the individual case
or, alternatively, as a preventive measure in the event of specific communicable
diseases or epidemics. In the immigration context, such health checks may
be carried out upon entry to the country or as soon as possible thereafter.
Any extension of their confinement or restriction on movement on this basis
should only occur if it can be justified for the purposes of treatment, authorised
by qualified medical personnel, and in such circumstances, only until the
treatment has been completed. Such confinement needs to be carried out in
suitable facilities, such as health clinics, hospitals, or in specially designated
medical centres in airports/borders. Only qualified medical personnel, subject
to judicial oversight, can order the further confinement on health grounds
beyond an initial medical check.

18

4.1.3 To protect national security
30. Governments may need to detain a particular individual who presents a
threat to national security.50 Even though determining what constitutes a
national security threat lies primarily within the domain of the government,
the measures taken (such as detention) need to comply with the standards in
these Guidelines, in particular that the detention is necessary, proportionate
to the threat, non-discriminatory, and subject to judicial oversight.51

4.1.4 Purposes not justifying detention
31. Detention that is not pursued for a legitimate purpose would be arbitrary.52
Some examples are outlined below.
Detention as a penalty for illegal entry and/or as a deterrent to seeking
asylum
32. As noted in Guidelines 1 and 2, detention for the sole reason that the person
is seeking asylum is not lawful under international law.53 Illegal entry or stay
of asylum-seekers does not give the State an automatic power to detain or to
otherwise restrict freedom of movement. Detention that is imposed in order
to deter future asylum-seekers, or to dissuade those who have commenced
their claims from pursuing them, is inconsistent with international norms.
Furthermore, detention is not permitted as a punitive – for example, criminal
– measure or a disciplinary sanction for irregular entry or presence in the
country.54 Apart from constituting a penalty under Article 31 of the 1951
Convention, it may also amount to collective punishment in violation of
international human rights law.55

19

Detention of asylum-seekers on grounds of expulsion
33. As a general rule, it is unlawful to detain asylum-seekers in on-going asylum
proceedings on grounds of expulsion as they are not available for removal
until a final decision on their claim has been made. Detention for the purposes
of expulsion can only occur after the asylum claim has been finally determined
and rejected.56 However, where there are grounds for believing that the
specific asylum-seeker has lodged an appeal or introduced an asylum claim
merely in order to delay or frustrate an expulsion or deportation decision which
would result in his or her removal, the authorities may consider detention – as
determined to be necessary and proportionate in the individual case – in order
to prevent their absconding, while the claim is being assessed.

20

Guideline 4.2:

Detention can only be resorted to when
it is determined to be necessary, reasonable
in all the circumstances and proportionate
to a legitimate purpose
34. The necessity, reasonableness and proportionality of detention are to be
judged in each individual case, initially as well as over time (see Guideline 6).
The need to detain the individual is to be assessed in light of the purpose of
the detention (see Guideline 4.1), as well as the overall reasonableness of that
detention in all the circumstances, the latter requiring an assessment of any
special needs or considerations in the individual’s case (see Guideline 9). The
general principle of proportionality requires that a balance be struck between
the importance of respecting the rights to liberty and security of person and
freedom of movement, and the public policy objectives of limiting or denying
these rights.57 The authorities must not take any action exceeding that which
is strictly necessary to achieve the pursued purpose in the individual case.
The necessity and proportionality tests further require an assessment of
whether there were less restrictive or coercive measures (that is, alternatives to
detention) that could have been applied to the individual concerned and which
would be effective in the individual case (see Guidelines 4.3 and Annex A).

21

Guideline 4.3:

Alternatives to detention need to be considered
35. The consideration of alternatives to detention – from reporting requirements
to structured community supervision and/or case management programmes
(see Annex A) – is part of an overall assessment of the necessity, reasonableness
and proportionality of detention (see Guideline 4.2). Such consideration
ensures that detention of asylum-seekers is a measure of last, rather than
first, resort. It must be shown that in light of the asylum-seeker’s particular
circumstances, there were not less invasive or coercive means of achieving
the same ends.58 Thus, consideration of the availability, effectiveness and
appropriateness of alternatives to detention in each individual case needs to
be undertaken.59
36. Like detention, alternatives to detention equally need to be governed by laws
and regulations in order to avoid the arbitrary imposition of restrictions on
liberty or freedom of movement.60 The principle of legal certainty calls for proper
regulation of these alternatives (see Guideline 3). Legal regulations ought to
specify and explain the various alternatives available, the criteria governing
their use, as well as the authority(ies) responsible for their implementation and
enforcement.61
37.
Alternatives to detention that restrict the liberty of asylum-seekers may impact
on their human rights and are subject to human rights standards, including
periodic review in individual cases by an independent body.62 Individuals
subject to alternatives need to have timely access to effective complaints
mechanisms as well as remedies, as applicable.63 Alternatives to detention
need to be available not only on paper, but they need to be accessible in
practice.

22

38. Notably, alternatives to detention should not be used as alternative forms
of detention; nor should alternatives to detention become alternatives to
release. Furthermore, they should not become substitutes for normal open
reception arrangements that do not involve restrictions on the freedom of
movement of asylum-seekers.64
39. In designing alternatives to detention, it is important that States observe
the principle of minimum intervention and pay close attention to the
specific situation of particular vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant
women, the elderly, or persons with disabilities or experiencing trauma
(see Guideline 9).65

Liberty

Designated
residence

Eletronic
tagginG

Registration
and/or deposit
of documents

Community
release/
supervision

Home curfew

Bond/bail

Reporting
conditions

Detention

Figure 266

23

40. Alternatives to detention may take various forms, depending on the particular
circumstances of the individual, including registration and/or deposit/
surrender of documents, bond/bail/sureties, reporting conditions, community
release and supervision, designated residence, electronic monitoring, or
home curfew (for explanations of some of these alternatives, see Annex A).
They may involve more or less restrictions on freedom of movement or liberty,
and are not equal in this regard (see Figure 2). While phone reporting and the
use of other modern technologies can be seen as good practice, especially
for individuals with mobility difficulties,67 other forms of electronic monitoring
– such as wrist or ankle bracelets – are considered harsh, not least because
of the criminal stigma attached to their use;68 and should as far as possible
be avoided.
41. Best practice indicates that alternatives are most effective when asylumseekers are:
	

• t reated with dignity, humanity and respect throughout the asylum
procedure;

	

• informed clearly and concisely at an early stage about their rights
and duties associated with the alternative to detention as well as the
consequences of non-compliance;

	

• given access to legal advice throughout the asylum procedure;

	

•p
 rovided with adequate material support, accommodation and other
reception conditions, or access to means of self-sufficiency (including
the right to work); and

	

•a
 ble to benefit from individualised case management services in relation
to their asylum claim (explained further in Annex A).69

42. Documentation is a necessary feature of alternative to detention programmes
in order to ensure that asylum-seekers (and all members of their families)
possess evidence of their right to reside in the community. Documents also
serve as a safeguard against (re-)detention; and can facilitate their ability to
rent accommodation, and to access employment, health care, education and/
or other services, as applicable.70 Additional information about various types
of alternative to detention and other complementary measures can be found
at Annex A.

24

Guideline 5:

Detention must not be discriminatory
43. International law prohibits detention or restrictions on the movement of
a person on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, such
as asylum-seeker or refugee status.71 This applies even when derogations
in states of emergency are in place.72 States may also be liable to charges
of racial discrimination if they impose detention on persons of a “particular
nationality”.73 At a minimum, an individual has the right to challenge his or her
detention on such grounds; and the State will need to show that there was an
objective and reasonable basis for distinguishing between nationals and nonnationals, or between non-nationals, in this regard.74

25

Guideline 6:

Indefinite detention is arbitrary and
maximum limits on detention should
be established in law
44. As indicated in Guideline 4.2, the test of proportionality applies in relation
to both the initial order of detention as well as any extensions. The length of
detention can render an otherwise lawful decision to detain disproportionate
and, therefore, arbitrary. Indefinite detention for immigration purposes is
arbitrary as a matter of international human rights law.75
45. Asylum-seekers should not be held in detention for any longer than necessary;
and where the justification is no longer valid, the asylum-seeker should be
released immediately (Guideline 4.1).76
46. To guard against arbitrariness, maximum periods of detention should be set
in national legislation. Without maximum periods, detention can become
prolonged, and in some cases indefinite, including particularly for stateless
asylum-seekers.77 Maximum periods in detention cannot be circumvented by
ordering the release of an asylum-seeker only to re-detain them on the same
grounds shortly afterwards.

26

Guideline 7:

Decisions to detain or to extend
detention must be subject to
minimum procedural safeguards
47. If faced with the prospect of being detained, as well as during detention,
asylum-seekers are entitled to the following minimum procedural guarantees:
(i)		to be informed at the time of arrest or detention of the reasons for their
detention,78 and their rights in connection with the order, including
review procedures, in a language and in terms which they understand.79
(ii)		to be informed of the right to legal counsel. Free legal assistance should
be provided where it is also available to nationals similarly situated,80
and should be available as soon as possible after arrest or detention to
help the detainee understand his/her rights. Communication between
legal counsel and the asylum-seeker must be subject to lawyer-client
confidentiality principles. Lawyers need to have access to their client,
to records held on their client, and be able to meet with their client in a
secure, private setting.
(iii)		to be brought promptly before a judicial or other independent authority
to have the detention decision reviewed. This review should ideally be
automatic, and take place in the first instance within 24-48 hours of the
initial decision to hold the asylum-seeker. The reviewing body must be
independent of the initial detaining authority, and possess the power to
order release or to vary any conditions of release.81
(iv)		following the initial review of detention, regular periodic reviews of
the necessity for the continuation of detention before a court or an
independent body must be in place, which the asylum-seeker and his/her
representative would have the right to attend. Good practice indicates

27

that following an initial judicial confirmation of the right to detain, review
would take place every seven days until the one month mark and
thereafter every month until the maximum period set by law is reached.
(v)		irrespective of the reviews in (iii) and (iv), either personally or through a
representative, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before
a court of law at any time needs to be respected.82 The burden of proof
to establish the lawfulness of the detention rests on the authorities in
question. As highlighted in Guideline 4, the authorities need to establish
that there is a legal basis for the detention in question, that the detention
is justified according to the principles of necessity, reasonableness and
proportionality, and that other, less instrusive means of achieving the
same objectives have been considered in the individual case.
(vi)		persons in detention must be given access to asylum procedures, and
detention should not constitute an obstacle to an asylum-seeker’s
possibilities to pursue their asylum application.83 Access to asylum
procedures must be realistic and effective, including that timeframes for
lodging supporting materials are appropriate for someone in detention,
and access to legal and linguistic assistance should be made available.84
It is also important that asylum-seekers in detention are provided with
accurate legal information about the asylum process and their rights.
(vii)	to contact and be contacted by UNHCR.85 Access to other bodies,
such as an available national refugee body or other agencies, including
ombudsman offices, human rights commissions or NGOs, should
be available as appropriate. The right to communicate with these
representatives in private, and the means to make such contact, should
be made available.
(viii)	general data protection and confidentiality principles must be respected
in relation to information about the asylum-seeker, including health
matters.
(ix)		illiteracy should be identified as early as possible and a mechanism
that allows illiterate asylum-seekers to make “submissions” should be
in place, such as requests to meet with a lawyer, doctor, visitor, or to
make complaints.86

28

Guideline 8:

Conditions of detention must be
humane and dignified
48. If detained, asylum-seekers are entitled to the following minimum conditions
of detention:
(i)		Detention can only lawfully be in places officially recognised as places
of detention. Detention in police cells is not appropriate.87
(ii)		Asylum-seekers should be treated with dignity and in accordance with
international standards.88
(iii)		Detention of asylum-seekers for immigration-related reasons should not
be punitive in nature.89 The use of prisons, jails, and facilities designed
or operated as prisons or jails, should be avoided. If asylum-seekers are
held in such facilities, they should be separated from the general prison
population.90 Criminal standards (such as wearing prisoner uniforms or
shackling) are not appropriate.
(iv)		Detainees’ names and the location of their detention, as well as the
names of persons responsible for their detention, need to be kept in
registers readily available and accessible to those concerned, including
relatives and legal counsel. Access to this information, however, needs
to be balanced with issues of confidentiality.
(v)		

In co-sex facilities, men and women should be segregated unless they
are within the same family unit. Children should also be separated from
adults unless these are relatives.91 Where possible, accommodation for
families ought to be provided. Family accommodation can also prevent
some families (particularly fathers travelling alone with their children)
from being put in solitary confinement in the absence of any alternative.

29

(vi)		Appropriate medical treatment must be provided where needed,
including psychological counselling. Detainees needing medical
attention should be transferred to appropriate facilities or treated on site
where such facilities exist. A medical and mental health examination
should be offered to detainees as promptly as possible after arrival, and
conducted by competent medical professionals. While in detention,
detainees should receive periodic assessments of their physical and
mental well-being. Many detainees suffer psychological and physical
effects as a result of their detention, and thus periodic assessments
should also be undertaken even where they presented no such
symptoms upon arrival. Where medical or mental health concerns are
presented or develop in detention, those affected need to be provided
with appropriate care and treatment, including consideration for release.
(vii)	Asylum-seekers in detention should be able to make regular contact
(including through telephone or internet, where possible) and receive
visits from relatives, friends, as well as religious, international and/
or non-governmental organisations, if they so desire. Access to and
by UNHCR must be assured. Facilities should be made available to
enable such visits. Such visits should normally take place in private
unless there are compelling reasons relevant to safety and security to
warrant otherwise.
(viii)	The opportunity to conduct some form of physical exercise through
daily indoor and outdoor recreational activities needs to be available; as
well as access to suitable outside space, including fresh air and natural
light. Activities tailored to women and children, and which take account
of cultural factors, are also needed.92

30

(ix)		

The right to practice one’s religion needs to be observed.

(x)		

 asic necessities such as beds, climate-appropriate bedding, shower
B
facilities, basic toiletries, and clean clothing, are to be provided to
asylum-seekers in detention. They should have the right to wear their
own clothes, and to enjoy privacy in showers and toilets, consistent
with safe management of the facility.

(xi)		

 ood of nutritional value suitable to age, health, and cultural/
F
religious background, is to be provided. Special diets for pregnant or
breastfeeding women should be available.93 Facilities in which the food
is prepared and eaten need to respect basic rules on sanitation and
cleanliness.

(xii)	Asylum-seekers should have access to reading materials and timely
information where possible (for example through newspapers, the
internet, and television).
(xiii)	Asylum-seekers should have access to education and/or vocational
training, as appropriate to the length of their stay. Children,
regardless of their status or length of stay, have a right to access at
least primary education.94 Preferably children should be educated offsite in local schools.
(xiv)	The frequent transfer of asylum-seekers from one detention facility to
another should be avoided, not least because they can hinder access
to and contact with legal representatives.
(xv)	Non-discriminatory complaints mechanism (or grievance procedure)
needs to be in place,95 where complaints may be submitted either
directly or confidentially to the detaining authority, as well as to an
independent or oversight authority. Procedures for lodging complaints,
including time limits and appeal procedures, should be displayed and
made available to detainees in different languages.
(xvi)	All staff working with detainees should receive proper training,
including in relation to asylum, sexual and gender-based violence,96 the
identification of the symptoms of trauma and/or stress, and refugee
and human rights standards relating to detention. Staff-detainee ratios
need to meet international standards;97 and codes of conduct should be
signed and respected.
(xvii)	With regard to private contractors, subjecting them to a statutory duty
to take account of the welfare of detainees has been identified as good
practice. However, it is also clear that responsible national authorities
cannot contract out of their obligations under international refugee or

31

human rights law and remain accountable as a matter of international
law. Accordingly, States need to ensure that they can effectively oversee
the activities of private contractors, including through the provision of
adequate independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms,
including termination of contracts or other work agreements where duty
of care is not fulfilled.98
(xviii)	Children born in detention need to be registered immediately after birth
in line with international standards and issued with birth certificates.99

32

Guideline 9:

The special circumstances and
needs of particular asylum-seekers
must be taken into account
Guideline 9.1

Victims of trauma or torture
49. Because of the experience of seeking asylum, and the often traumatic events
precipitating flight, asylum-seekers may present with psychological illness,
trauma, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other physical, psychological
and emotional consequences. Such factors need to be weighed in the
assessment of the necessity to detain (see Guideline 4). Victims of torture
and other serious physical, psychological or sexual violence also need special
attention and should generally not be detained.
50. Detention can and has been shown to aggravate and even cause the
aforementioned illnesses and symptoms.100 This can be the case even
if individuals present no symptoms at the time of detention.101 Because of
the serious consequences of detention, initial and periodic assessments of
detainees’ physical and mental state are required, carried out by qualified
medical practitioners. Appropriate treatment needs to be provided to such
persons, and medical reports presented at periodic reviews of their detention.

33

Guideline 9.2

Children
51. General principles relating to detention outlined in these Guidelines apply
a fortiori to children,102 who should in principle not be detained at all. The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides specific
international legal obligations in relation to children and sets out a number of
guiding principles regarding the protection of children:

34

	

•	The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in
all actions affecting children, including asylum-seeking and refugee
children (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 22, CRC).

	

•	There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinions, national, ethnic or social
origin, property, disability, birth or other status, or on the basis of the
status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents,
legal guardians or family members (Article 2, CRC).

	

•	Each child has a fundamental right to life, survival and development
to the maximum extent possible (Article 6, CRC).

	

•	Children should be assured the right to express their views freely and
their views should be given “due weight” in accordance with the child’s
age and level of maturity (Article 12, CRC).103

	

•	Children have the right to family unity (inter alia, Articles 5, 8 and 16,
CRC) and the right not to be separated from their parents against their
will (Article 9, CRC). Article 20(1) of the CRC establishes that a child
temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment,
or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that
environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance
provided by the State.

	

•	Article 20(2) and (3) of the CRC require that States Parties shall, in
accordance with their national laws, ensure alternative care for such
a child. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement or, if
necessary, placement in suitable institutions for the care of children.
When considering options, due regard shall be paid to the desirability
of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious,
cultural and linguistic background.

	

•	Article 22 of the CRC requires that States Parties take appropriate
measures to ensure that children who are seeking refugee status or
who are recognised refugees, whether accompanied or not, receive
appropriate protection and assistance.

	

•	Article 37 of the CRC requires States Parties to ensure that the
detention of children be used only as a measure of last resort and
for the shortest appropriate period of time.

	

•	Where separation of a child or children from their parents is unavoidable
in the context of detention, both parents and child are entitled to essential
information from the State on the whereabouts of the other unless such
information would be detrimental to the child (Article 9(4), CRC).

52. Overall an ethic of care – and not enforcement – needs to govern interactions
with asylum-seeking children, including children in families, with the best
interests of the child a primary consideration. The extreme vulnerability of a
child takes precedence over the status of an “illegal alien”.104 States should
“utilize, within the framework of the respective child protection systems,
appropriate procedures for the determination of the child’s best interests,
which facilitate adequate child participation without discrimination, where the
views of the child are given due weight in accordance with age and maturity,
where decision makers with relevant areas of expertise are involved, and where
there is a balancing of all relevant factors in order to assess the best option.”105
53. All appropriate alternative care arrangements should be considered in the
case of children accompanying their parents, not least because of the
well-documented deleterious effects of detention on children’s well-being,
including on their physical and mental development. The detention of children
with their parents or primary caregivers needs to balance, inter alia, the right

35

to family and private life of the family as a whole, the appropriateness of the
detention facilities for children,106 and the best interests of the child.
54. As a general rule, unaccompanied or separated children should not be
detained. Detention cannot be justified based solely on the fact that the child
is unaccompanied or separated, or on the basis of his or her migration or
residence status.107 Where possible they should be released into the care of
family members who already have residency within the asylum country. Where
this is not possible, alternative care arrangements, such as foster placement
or residential homes, should be made by the competent child care authorities,
ensuring that the child receives appropriate supervision. Residential homes or
foster care placements need to cater for the child’s proper development (both
physical and mental) while longer term solutions are being considered.108
A primary objective must be the best interests of the child.
55. Ensuring accurate age assessments of asylum-seeking children is a specific
challenge in many circumstances, which requires the use of appropriate
assessment methods that respect human rights standards.109 Inadequate
age assessments can lead to the arbitrary detention of children.110 It can also
lead to the housing of adults with children. Age- and gender-appropriate
accommodation needs to be made available.
56. Children who are detained benefit from the same minimum procedural
guarantees as adults, but these should be tailored to their particular needs
(see Guideline 9). An independent and qualified guardian as well as a legal
adviser should be appointed for unaccompanied or separated children.111
During detention, children have a right to education which should optimally
take place outside the detention premises in order to facilitate the continuation
of their education upon release. Provision should be made for their recreation
and play, including with other children, which is essential to a child’s mental
development and will alleviate stress and trauma (see also Guideline 8).
57. All efforts, including prioritisation of asylum processing, should be made to
allow for the immediate release of children from detention and their placement
in other forms of appropriate accommodation.112

36

Guideline 9.3

Women
58. As a general rule, pregnant women and nursing mothers, who both have
special needs, should not be detained.113 Alternative arrangements should
also take into account the particular needs of women, including safeguards
against sexual and gender-based violence and exploitation.114 Alternatives to
detention would need to be pursued in particular when separate facilities for
women and/or families are not available.
59. Where detention is unavoidable for women asylum-seekers, facilities and
materials are required to meet women’s specific hygiene needs.115 The use of
female guards and warders should be promoted.116 All staff assigned to work
with women detainees should receive training relating to the gender-specific
needs and human rights of women.117
60. Women asylum-seekers in detention who report abuse are to be provided
immediate protection, support and counselling, and their claims must be
investigated by competent and independent authorities, with full respect for
the principle of confidentiality, including where women are detained together
with their husbands/partners/other relatives. Protection measures should take
into account specifically the risks of retaliation.118
61. Women asylum-seekers in detention who have been subjected to sexual
abuse need to receive appropriate medical advice and counselling, including
where pregnancy results, and are to be provided with the requisite physical
and mental health care, support and legal aid.119

37

Guideline 9.4

Victims or potential victims of trafficking
62. The prevention of trafficking or re-trafficking cannot be used as a blanket
ground for detention, unless it can be justified in the individual case (see
Guideline 4.1). Alternatives to detention, including safe houses and other care
arrangements, are sometimes necessary for such victims or potential victims,
including in particular children.120

Guideline 9.5

Asylum-seekers with disabilities
63. Asylum-seekers with disabilities must enjoy the rights included in these
Guidelines without discrimination. This may require States to make “reasonable
accommodations” or changes to detention policy and practices to match their
specific requirements and needs.121 A swift and systematic identification and
registration of such persons is needed to avoid arbitrary detention;122 and any
alternative arrangements may need to be tailored to their specific needs, such
as telephone reporting for persons with physical constraints. As a general
rule, asylum-seekers with long-term physical, mental, intellectual and sensory
impairments123 should not be detained. In addition, immigration proceedings
need to be accessible to persons with disabilities, including where this is
needed to facilitate their rights to freedom of movement.124

38

Guideline 9.6

Older asylum-seekers
64. Older asylum-seekers may require special care and assistance owing to their
age, vulnerability, lessened mobility, psychological or physical health, or other
conditions. Without such care and assistance, their detention may become
unlawful. Alternative arrangements would need to take into account their
particular circumstances, including physical and mental well-being.125

Guideline 9.7

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
or intersex asylum-seekers
65. Measures may need to be taken to ensure that any placement in detention
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex asylum-seekers avoids
exposing them to risk of violence, ill-treatment or physical, mental or sexual
abuse; that they have access to appropriate medical care and counselling,
where applicable; and that detention personnel and all other officials in the
public and private sector who are engaged in detention facilities are trained
and qualified, regarding international human rights standards and principles
of equality and non-discrimination, including in relation to sexual orientation
or gender identity.126 Where their security cannot be assured in detention,
release or referral to alternatives to detention would need to be considered.
In this regard, solitary confinement is not an appropriate way to manage or
ensure the protection of such individuals.

39

Guideline 10:

Detention should be subject to
independent monitoring and
inspection
66. To ensure systems of immigration detention comply with international legal
principles, it is important that immigration detention centres are open to
scrutiny and monitoring by independent national and international institutions
and bodies.127 This could include regular visits to detainees, respecting
principles of confidentiality and privacy, or unannounced inspection visits. In
line with treaty obligations, and relevant international protection standards,
access by UNHCR128 and other relevant international and regional bodies
with mandates related to detention or humane treatment129 needs to be made
possible. Access to civil society actors and NGOs for monitoring purposes
should also be facilitated, as appropriate. Independent and transparent
evaluation and monitoring are likewise important facets of any alternative
programme.130
67. In respect of monitoring the conditions of detention and treatment of women
detainees, any monitoring body would need to include women members.131

40

Annex A

Alternatives to Detention
There are a range of alternatives to detention, which are outlined below. Some
are used in combination, and as indicated in the main text, some impose
greater restrictions on liberty or freedom of movement than others. The list is
non-exhaustive.
(i)		Deposit or surrender of documentation: Asylum-seekers may be
required to deposit or surrender identity and/or travel documentation
(such as passports). In such cases, individuals need to be issued with
substitute documentation that authorises their stay in the territory and/
or release into the community.132
(ii)		Reporting conditions: Periodic reporting to immigration or other
authorities (for example, the police) may be a condition imposed on
particular asylum-seekers during the status determination procedure.
Such reporting could be periodic, or scheduled around asylum hearings
and/or other official appointments. Reporting could also be to an NGO
or private contractor within community supervision arrangements
(see vii).
		However, overly onerous reporting conditions can lead to
non-cooperation, and can set up individuals willing to comply to instead
fail. Reporting, for example, that requires an individual and/or his or her
family to travel long distances and/or at their own expense can lead
to non-cooperation through inability to fulfil the conditions, and can
unfairly discriminate on the basis of economic position.133

41

		

 he frequency of reporting obligations would be reduced over
T
time – either automatically or upon request – so as to ensure that any
conditions imposed continue to meet the necessity, reasonableness
and proportionality tests. Any increase in reporting conditions or other
additional restrictions would need to be proportionate to the objective
pursued, and be based on an objective and individual assessment of a
heightened risk of absconding, for examplee.

(iii)		Directed residence: Asylum-seekers may be released on condition
they reside at a specific address or within a particular administrative
region until their status has been determined. Asylum-seekers may
also be required to obtain prior approval if they wish to move out of
the designated administrative region; or to inform the authorities if they
change address within the same administrative region. Efforts should
be made to approve residency that facilitates family reunification or
closeness to relatives,134 and/or other support networks. Residency
conditions might also involve residence at a designated open reception
or asylum facility, subject to the rules of those centres (see iv).
(iv)		Residence at open or semi-open reception or asylum centres:
Release to open or semi-open reception or asylum centres with the
condition to reside at that address is another form of directed residence
(see above iii). Semi-open centres may impose some rules and
regulations for the good administration of the centre, such as curfews
and/or signing in or out of the centre. General freedom of movement
within and outside the centre should, however, be observed to ensure
that it does not become a form of detention.
(v)		Provision of a guarantor/surety: Another alternative arrangement
is for asylum-seekers to provide a guarantor/surety who would be
responsible for ensuring their attendance at official appointments and
hearings, or to otherwise report as specified in any conditions of release.
Failure to appear could lead to a penalty – most likely the forfeiture of a
sum of money – being levied against the guarantor/surety. A guarantor,
for example, could be a family member, NGO or community group.

42

(vi)		Release on bail/bond: This alternative allows for asylum-seekers
already in detention to apply for release on bail. Any of the abovementioned conditions (ii)-(v) may be imposed. For bail to be genuinely
available to asylum-seekers, bail hearings would preferably be
automatic. Alternatively, asylum-seekers must be informed of their
availability and they need to be accessible and effective. Access to
legal counsel is an important component in making bail accessible. The
bond amount set must be reasonable given the particular situation of
asylum-seekers, and should not be so high as to render bail systems
merely theoretical.
		Bail/bond and guarantor/surety systems tend to discriminate against
persons with limited funds, or those who do not have previous
connections in the community. As a consequence, where bail/bond
and guarantor/surety systems exist, governments are encouraged to
explore options that do not require asylum-seekers to hand over any
funds. They could, for example, be “bailed” to an NGO – either upon
the NGO acting as guarantor (see v above) – or under agreement with
the government.135 Safeguards against abuse and/or exploitation, such
as inspection and oversight, also need to be in place in these systems
involving NGOs and others. In all cases, what needs to be assessed is
whether payment of a bond or the designation of a guarantor/surety is
necessary to ensure compliance in the individual case. Systematically
requiring asylum-seekers to pay a bond and/or to designate a guarantor/
surety, with any failure to be able to do so resulting in detention (or
its continuation), would suggest that the system is arbitrary and not
tailored to individual circumstances.
(vii)	Community supervision arrangements: Community supervision
arrangements refer to a wide range of practices in which individuals and
families are released into the community, with a degree of support and
guidance (that is, “supervision”). Support arrangements can include
support in finding local accommodation, schools, or work; or, in other
cases, the direct provision of goods, social security payments, or other
services. The “supervision” aspect may take place within open or semiopen reception or asylum facilities, or at the offices of the relevant
service provider while the individual lives freely in the community.
Supervision may be a condition of the asylum-seeker’s release and may

43

thus involve direct reporting to the service provider, or alternatively, to
the immigration or other relevant authorities separately (see ii).
		Supervision may also be optional, such that individuals are informed
about the services available to them without any obligation to participate
in them. Community supervision may also involve case management
(see next).

Complementary measures and other
considerations
Case management
Case management has been identified as an important component in several
successful alternative to detention policies and programmes, and also as an
aspect of good asylum systems. Case management is a strategy for supporting
and managing individuals and their asylum claims whilst their status is being
resolved, with a focus on informed decision-making, timely and fair status
resolution and improved coping mechanisms and well-being on the part of
individuals.136 Such policies have led to constructive engagement with the
asylum process, and improvements in compliance/cooperation rates.
Case management is part of an integrated process, starting at an early stage
in the asylum process and continuing until refugee status or other legal stay is
granted, or deportation is carried out. The concept is that each asylum-seeker
is assigned a “case manager” who is responsible for their entire case, including
providing clear and consistent information and advice about the asylum
process (as well as other migration and/or return processes, as applicable),
as well as about any conditions on their release and the consequences of
non-cooperation. It is a stand-alone process, but it has been identified as
an element of successful alternative to detention programmes. Transparency,
active information-sharing and good cooperation between all actors involved
have also been shown to develop trust among the individuals concerned and
to improve compliance rates.137

44

Skill sets and personalities of staff
Skill sets and personalities of staff can contribute to the success or failure
of alternatives. Recruitment and training of staff need to be well managed,
including through tailored training, courses and/or certification.138 Codes
of conduct or other regulations relating to staff behaviour can be important
aspects of detention measures and alternatives to detention.
Alternatives operated by NGOs or private contractors
Where alternatives are operated by non-governmental or private
organisations, a legally binding agreement would need to be entered into
with the relevant governmental authority, and be subject to regular compliance
monitoring by the government, independent national inspectorates and/or
international organisations or bodies (such as UNHCR). The agreement would
set out the roles and responsibilities of each body as well as complaints and
inspection arrangements, and provide for termination of the agreement if
terms are not met. It is important that agreements do not provide incentives
to use more restrictive measures than are strictly necessary. Despite the
role of non-governmental or private organisations in the management and/
or implementation of alternatives, and while good practice might impose a
statutory duty on such entities to take account of the welfare of detainees, the
State remains responsible as a matter of international law for ensuring human
rights and refugee law standards are met. It is important to keep in mind that
the decision to impose restrictions on liberty or freedom of movement can
never be taken by a non-State body.139
The role of non-governmental or private organisations in the process of
enforcement of non-compliance orders (such as by reporting on absences
or absconding to the authorities for their follow-up) varies. It is, however, not
necessary that these organisations participate in the enforcement process.
 

45

Endnotes

46

1

	United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No.
15: The Position of Aliens under the Covenant, 11 April 1986, para. 5, available
at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45139acfc.html. See, also, Moustaquim
v. Belgium, (1991), Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),
App. No. 26/1989/186/246, para. 43, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b7018.html and Vilvarajah and Others v.
the United Kingdom, (1991), ECtHR, App. No. 45/1990/236/302-306, para. 103,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b7008.html.

2

	See, in particular, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Executive
Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme (ExCom), Conclusion on
Reception of Asylum-seekers in the Context of Individual Asylum Systems, No.
93 (LIII) – 2002, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dafdd344.
html. All ExCom Conclusions are also available by subject in UNHCR, A Thematic
Compilation of Executive Committee Conclusions, 6th edition, June 2011, http://
www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dafdd344.html.

3

	UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: The 10-Point Plan in Action,
February 2011, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d9430ea2.html.

4

	A. Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and
“Alternatives to Detention” of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons
and Other Migrants, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series,
PPLA/2011/01.Rev.1, April 2011, page 1 (“There is no empirical evidence that the
prospect of being detained deters irregular migration, or discourages persons from
seeking asylum.”) (Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of
Person and “Alternatives to Detention”), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4dc935fd2.html; as restated in United
Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants,
François Crépeau, A/HRC/20/24, 2 April 2012, para. 8, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e0bb62.html

	A clear distinction is required between stateless persons who are seeking asylum
in other countries and stateless persons who are residing in their “own” country
in the sense envisaged by Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR). The latter include individuals who are longterm, habitual residents of a State which is often their country of birth. Being in
their “own country” they have a right to enter and remain there with significant
implications for their status under national law. Rules governing the acceptable
grounds for detention will vary between these two groups (Guideline 4.1). In
relation to the former, the grounds outlined in these Guidelines apply; however,
such justifications for the detention of stateless persons residing in their “own”
country will in many instances lead to arbitrary and unlawful (including indefinite)
detention. For more on detention and stateless persons, see UNHCR, Guidelines
on Statelessness No. 2: Procedures for Determining whether an Individual is a
Stateless Person, 5 April 2012, HCR/GS/12/02, paras. 59-62, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f7dafb52.html.

5

	The term “‘persons found not to be in need of international protection’ is
understood to mean persons who have sought international protection and who
after due consideration of their claims in fair procedures, are found neither to
qualify for refugee status on the basis of criteria laid down in the 1951 Convention,
nor to be in need of international protection in accordance with other international
obligations or national law”, see UNHCR, ExCom, Conclusion on the Return of
Persons Found Not to be in Need of International Protection, No. 96 (LIV) – 2003,
preambular para. 6, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3f93b1ca4.html.

6

	See, below note 22.

7

	Guzzardi v. Italy, (1980), ECtHR, App. No. 7367/76, para. 93, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502d42952.html

8

	Amuur v. France, (1996), ECtHR, App. No. 19776/92, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b76710.html.

9

	See, for example, Guzzardi v. Italy, above note 8.

10

	See, for example, Medvedyev v. France, (2010), ECtHR, App. No. 3394/03,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502d45dc2.html and J.H.A. v.
Spain, UN Committee against Torture (CAT), CAT/C/41/D/323/2007, 21 November
2008, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a939d542.html.

11

	“Extraterritorial” detention refers to, inter alia, the transfer and detention of asylumseekers in another country’s territory, including under agreement with that State.
The responsibility of the sending State for the human rights standards in that place
of detention will depend on a range of factors, see, for example, UNHCR, Advisory
Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26
January 2007, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/45f17a1a4.pdf.

12

47

48

13

	Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and
“Alternatives to Detention”, above note 4, Figure 1.

14

	Article 1(A)(2), Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 (1951
Convention) as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967.

15

	See, in particular, Article I(2), Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of
Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969 (OAU Convention); Conclusion No. 3, Cartagena
Declaration on Refugees, Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees
in Central America, Mexico and Panama, 1984 (1984 Cartagena Declaration).

16

	See, in particular, European Union, Council Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December
2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless
Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for
Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of
the Protection Granted (recast), 20 December 2011, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f197df02.html; European Union, Council
Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on Minimum Standards for Giving Temporary
Protection in the Event of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons and on Measures
Promoting a Balance of Efforts Between Member States in Receiving such Persons
and Bearing the Consequences Thereof, 7 August 2001, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ddcee2e4.html.

17

	Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954 (1954
Statelessness Convention). See, further, UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness
No. 1: The Definition of “Stateless Person” in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention
relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 20 February 2012, HCR/GS/12/01,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f4371b82.html.

18

	Article 1(A)(2), second paragraph, 1951 Convention.

19

	Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR); Article 22 (7)
ACHR; Article 12(3), ACHPR; Article 27, American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man, 1948 (ADRDM); Article 18, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, 2000, (CFREU).

20

	Article 31, 1951 Convention.

21

	See, for example, Articles 3 and 9, UDHR; Article 9, ICCPR; Articles 1 and 25,
ADRDM; Article 6, ACHPR; Article 7 ACHR; Article 5, ECHR; Article 6, CFREU.

	See, for example, Article 12, ICCPR, covers the right to freedom of movement and
choice of residence for persons lawfully staying in the territory, as well as the right
to leave any country, including one’s own. See, also, Article 12, African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 (ACHPR); Article 22, American Convention on
Human Rights, 1969 (ACHR); Article 2, Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as amended), 1950 (ECHR); Article 2, Protocol
No. 4 to the ECHR, Securing Certain Rights and Freedoms Other Than Those
Already Included in the Convention and the First Protocol Thereto, 1963; Article
45, CFREU.

22

	See, UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers,
No. 44 (XXXVII) –1986, para. (b), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c43c0.html. See also in particular,
UNHCR ExCom, Nos. 55 (XL) – 1989, para (g); 85 (XLIX) –1998, paras. (cc), (dd)
and (ee); and 89 (LI) –2000, third paragraph, all available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/3d4ab3ff2.html.

23

	UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 18:
Non-discrimination, 10 November 1989, para. 1, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/453883fa8.html; HRC, General Comment No.
15: The Position of Aliens under the Covenant, above note 1.

24

	Article 31(2) of the 1951 Convention provides: “The Contracting States shall not
apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which
are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in
the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The
Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the
necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country”. See UNHCR, Global
Consultations on International Protection: Summary Conclusions on Article 31
of the 1951 Convention – Revised, Geneva Expert Roundtable, 8-9 November
2001 (UNHCR Global Consultations Summary Conclusions: Article 31 of the 1951
Convention), para. 3, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c783f4.pdf. See, also,
UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection/Third Track: Reception
of Asylum-Seekers, Including Standards of Treatment, in the Context of Individual
Asylum Systems, 4 September 2001, EC/GC/01/17 (UNHCR Global Consultations:
Reception of Asylum-Seekers), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3bfa81864.html.

25

	Article 26 of the 1951 Convention provides: “Each Contracting State shall accord
to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and
to move freely within its territory subject to any regulations applicable to aliens
generally in the same circumstances.” Article 26 of the 1954 Convention relating to
the Status of Stateless Persons provides an identical provision.

26

49

50

27

	UNHCR, “Lawfully Staying” – A Note on Interpretation, 1988,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/42ad93304.pdf; UNHCR Global
Consultations: Reception of Asylum-Seekers, above note 25, para. 3, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3bfa81864.html.

28

	For example, Article 9(1) of the ICCPR provides explicitly that: “No one shall
be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedure as are established by law.”

29

	Lokpo and Touré v. Hungary, (2011), ECtHR, App. No. 10816/10, para. 21 (final
decision), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e8ac6652.html.

30

	 Ibid. The ECtHR stated:“It must in addition be satisfied that detention during
the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of the relevant
provision, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an
arbitrary fashion.”

31

	 B
 ozano v. France, (1986), ECtHR, App. No. 9990/82, para. 54, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4029fa4f4.html;
H.L. v. United Kingdom, (2004), ECtHR, App. No. 45508/99, para. 114, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502d48822.html.
See, also, Dougoz v. Greece, (2001), ECtHR, App. No. 40907/98, para 55: the
law must be “sufficiently accessible and precise, in order to avoid all risk of
arbitrariness”, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3deb8d884.html.

32

	The general principle that laws ought not to have retroactive effect is wellestablished in most legal jurisdictions, especially as regards criminal prosecution,
arrest or detention: see, for example, Article 25 of the ADRDM, which provides
in part that “[n]o person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and
according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.”
See, also, Amuur v. France, above note 9, para. 53.

33

	This is the recommendation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
(WGAD), Report to the Fifty–sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights,
E/CN.4/2000/4, 28 December 1999, Annex II, Deliberation No. 5, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3b00f25a6.pdf.

34

	Louled Massoud v. Malta, (2010), ECtHR, App. No. 24340/08, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c6ba1232.html.

	Article 9 of the ICCPR may be derogated from in a public emergency subject to
being “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” and “provided such
measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law
and do not involve discrimination …” (Article 4, ICCPR). Also, A v. Australia, HRC,
Comm. No. 560/1993, 3 April 1997, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b71a0.html, which found no basis to
suggest that detention of asylum-seekers was prohibited as a matter of customary
international law (para. 9.3).

35

	 V
 an Alphen v. The Netherlands, HRC, Comm. No. 305/1988, 23 July 1990, para. 5.8,
available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol3en.pdf.

36

	Ibid. and A v. Australia, above note 35, paras. 9.2-9.4 (on proportionality).

37

	See, for example, A v. Australia, above note 35; C v. Australia, HRC, Comm. No.
900/1999, 28 October 2002, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f588ef00.html.

38

	A v. Australia, above note 35, para. 9.

39

	WGAD, Report to the Tenth Session of the Human Rights Council, 16 February
2009, A/HRC/10/21, para. 67, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e0de72.html. Some regional instruments
explicitly limit the grounds of immigration detention: for example, Article 5(f) of the
ECHR: “No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in
accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (f) the lawful arrest or detention
of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or
of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or
extradition.”

40

41

	A v. Australia, above note 35, para. 9.4.

42

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers,
above note 23, para. (b).

43

	International Detention Coalition (IDC), There are Alternatives, 2011, Introducing
the Community Assessment and Placement Model, available at:
http://idcoalition.org/cap/handbook.

44

	R (on the application of Suckrajh) v. (1) Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and (2)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ 938, United Kingdom:
Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 29 July 2011, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e38024f2.html.

45

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on the Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive
Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum, 20 October 1983, No. 30 (XXXIV)
-1983, para. (d), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c6118.html.

51

52

46

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers,
above note 23, para. (b).

47

	See, for example, UNHCR ExCom Conclusions No. 58 (XL) – 1989, Problem of
Refugees and Asylum-Seekers who Move in an Irregular Manner from a Country in
Which They Had Already Found Protection, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68c4380.html. See, also, UNHCR Global Consultations
Summary Conclusions: Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, above note 25.

48

	UNHCR and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),
Global Roundtable on Alternatives to Detention of Asylum-Seekers, Refugees,
Migrants and Stateless Persons: Summary Conclusions, May 2011 (Global
Roundtable Summary Conclusions), para 6, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e315b882.html. See also, UNHCR,
Guidelines on Statelessness No.2: Procedures for Determining Whether an
Individual is a Stateless Person, 5 April 2012, HCR/GS/12/02, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f7dafb52.html.

49

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers,
above note 23, para. (b)

50

	On the meaning of national security, see UN Commission on Human Rights, The
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 28 September 1984, E/CN.4/1985/4,
paragraphs 29-32, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4672bc122.html.

51

	See, for example, A. and others v. the United Kingdom, (2009), ECtHR, App. No.
3455/05, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/499d4a1b2.html.

52

	See, Bozano v. France, above note 31; Shamsa v. Poland, (2003), ECtHR, App.
Nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/402b584e4.html;
Gonzalez v. Spain, (2008), ECtHR, App. No. 30643/04, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e31e42.html,
and Amuur v. France, above note 9.

53

	Article 31, 1951 Convention; Article 18(1), European Union Council Directive
2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in
Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4394203c4.html.

54

	WGAD Report to the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/7/4/,
10 January 2008, para. 53: “criminalizing illegal entry into a country exceeds the
legitimate interest of States to control and regulate illegal immigration and leads to
unnecessary [and therefore arbitrary] detention.” Available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e0eb02.html

	Article 5 (3), ACHR; Article 7(2) ACHPR; Article 5(3) CFREU.

55

	See Lokpo and Touré v. Hungary, above note 29; R.U. v. Greece, (2011), ECtHR,
App. No. 2237/08, para. 94, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f2aafc42.html. See, also, S.D. v. Greece,
(2009), ECtHR, App. No. 53541/07, para. 62, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a37735f2.html. The ECtHR has held that
detention for the purposes of expulsion can only occur after an asylum claim has
been finally determined. See, also, UNHCR, Submission by the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the Case of Alaa Al-Tayyar Abdelhakim
v. Hungary, 30 March 2012, App. No. 13058/11, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f75d5212.html; UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees in the Case of Said v. Hungary, 30 March 2012, App. No. 13457/11,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f75d5e72.html.

56

	Vasileva v. Denmark, (2003), ECtHR, App. No. 52792/99, para. 37, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502d4ae62.html and Lokpo and Touré v.
Hungary, above note 29.

57

	 C v. Australia, above note 38, para. 8.2.

58

	See, for example, Sahin v. Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1995]
1 FC 214 available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b6e610.html.
See, also, WGAD, Opinion No. 45/2006, UN Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1, 16 January
2008, para. 25, available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/7session/reports.htm and WGAD,
Legal Opinion on the Situation regarding Immigrants and Asylum-seekers, UN Doc.
E/CN.4/1999/63, para. 69: “Possibility for the alien to benefit from alternatives to
administrative custody.” available at:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=1520 and WGAD, Report to
the Thirteenth Session of the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/13/30, 15 January
2010, para. 65, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e0fa62.html

59

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para 2.

60

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para 20.

61

53

54

62

	These other rights could include: the right to privacy (Article 12, UDHR; Article
17(1), ICCPR; Article 16(1), CRC; Article 11 ACHR; Article 5 ADRDM; Article 8
ECHR; Article 7 CFREU), the right to family life (Articles 12 and 16(3), UDHR;
Article 23(1), ICCPR; Article 10(1) ICESCR; Article 12(2), 1951 Convention and
Recommendation B of the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of
Refugees and Stateless Persons, Final Act of the United Nations Conference of
Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, 25 July 1951,
A/CONF.2/108/Rev.1, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/40a8a7394.html; Article 18, ACHPR; Article
17(1), ACHR; Article 6, ADPDM; Article 2 and 8 ECHR; Article 9, CFREU), the
prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 7, ICCPR; Article 1, CAT;
Article 3, ECHR;. Article 25 ADRDM; Article 4 CFREU; Article 5 ACHR; Article 5
ACHPR).

63

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para 31.

64

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 19.

65

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 21.

66

	Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and
“Alternatives to Detention”, above note 4, page 1.

67

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 21.

68

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 21.

69

	Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and
‘Alternatives to Detention’, above note 4; International Detention Coalition, There
are Alternatives, A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention,
2011, available at: http://idcoalition.org/cap/handbook/.

70

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 24.

71

	Article 3, 1951 Refugee Convention; Article 2, UDHR; Article 2, ICCPR; Article 2(2),
ICESCR; Article 2, CRC; Article 7, CMW and Article 5, CRPD as well as in regional
instruments such as Article 2, ADRDM; Article 24, ACHR; Art. 14 ECHR; Article 21,
CFREU and Articles 2 and 3, ACHPR.

72

	No derogations may be based on discriminatory grounds: Article 4, ICCPR. A like
provision is found in Article 15, ECHR and in Article 27, ACHR. See, also, Article 8,
1951 Convention.

	CERD, General Recommendation No. 30: Discrimination against Non-Citizens,
UN Doc. A/59/18, 10 January 2004, para. 19: The CERD Committee has called
in particular for States to respect the security of non-citizens, in particular in the
context of arbitrary detention, and to ensure that conditions in centres for refugees
and asylum-seekers meet international standards, available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/e3980a673769e229c1256f8d0057cd3d.

73

	For example, in deportation proceedings there may be a justified distinction drawn
between nationals and non-nationals, in the sense that the national has a right of
abode in their own country and cannot be expelled from it: Moustaquim v Belgium
(1991) 13 EHRR 802, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b7018.html. See, also, Agee v. UK (1976)
7 DR 164 (European Commission on Human Rights decision), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4721af792.html.

74

	See, A v. Australia, above note 35, para. 9.2; Mukong v. Cameroon, HRC Comm.
No. 458/1991, 21 July 1994, para. 9.8, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4ae9acc1d.html.

75

76

	A v. Australia, above note 35, para. 9.4; WGAD, Report to the Thirteenth Session of
the Human Rights Council, above note 59, para. 61; WGAD, Report to Fifty-sixth
Session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2000/4, 28 December 1999,
Annex II, Deliberation No. 5, Principle 7, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e10612.html.
See, too, Massoud v. Malta, above note 34.

77

	WGAD Report to the Thirteenth Session of the Human Rights Council, above note
59, para. 62. See also, UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No. 3: The Status of
Stateless Persons at the National Level, 17 July 2012, HCR/GS/12/03, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5005520f2.html.

78

	Article 9 (2), ICCPR; Article 7 (4), ACHR; Article 5 (2) ECHR and Article 6, ACHPR.

79

	See, further WGAD, Report to the Fifty–sixth session of the Commission on Human
Rights, E/CN.4/2000/4, 28 December 1999, Annex II, Deliberation No. 5 available
at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3b00f25a6.pdf.

80

	Article 16(2), 1951 Convention.

81

	A. v. Australia, above note 35 and C. v. Australia, above note 38.

82

	Article 9(4), ICCPR; Article 7(6), ACHR; Article 5(4), ECHR; Article 25, paragraph 3,
ADRDM; Article 7(6), ACHR; Article 6 read in conjunction with Article 7, ACHPR;
Article 5, ECHR. See, for example, Article 2(3), ICCPR; Article 25, ACHR; Article
13, ECHR.

55

56

83

	UNHCR ExCom Standing Committee Conference Room Paper, Detention of
Asylum-Seekers and Refugees: The Framework, the Problem and Recommended
Practice, June 1999, EC/49/SC/CRP.13, Figure 2, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47fdfaf33b5.pdf.

84

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers,
above note 23, para. (c). See, further, UNHCR Global Consultations: Summary
Conclusions on Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, above note 25; and I.M. v.
France, ECtHR, App. no. 9152/09, 2 February 2012, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f2932442.html.

85

	UNHCR ExCom Conclusion, No. 85 (XLIX) – 1998, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c6e30.html. See, also, WGAD, Report
to the Fifty–sixth session to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2000/4,
28 December 1999, Annex II, Deliberation No. 5; WGAD, Report to the Fifty-fifth
Session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1999/63, 18 December
1998, paras. 69 and 70, referring to principles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

86

	For further information refer to UNHCR, Age, Gender and Diversity Mainstreaming,
31 May 2010, EC/61/SC/CRP.14, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cc96e1d2.html.

87

	 A
 bdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (No.2), (2010), ECtHR App. No.50213/08,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c5149cf2.html, which found a
violation of Article 3 of the ECHR on account of the detention of refugees for three
months in the basement of police headquarters.

88

	A number of human rights provisions are specifically relevant to conditions in
detention, such as Articles 7 (prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment), 10 (right to humane conditions in detention) and 17 (right
to family life and privacy) of the ICCPR. See, also, UN Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, General
Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f219c.html; UN Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html; UN Rules for the Protection
of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990, A/RES/45/113, 14 December 1990,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f18628.html.

89

	Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights of Migrants,
International Standards and the Return Directive of the EU, resolution 03/08, 25
July 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/488ed6522.html;
Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, above note 87.

90

	 WGAD, Report to the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council, above note 54.

	Muskhadzhiyeva and others v. Belgium, (2010), ECtHR, App. No. 41442/07,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4bd55f202.html, in which it was
held inter alia that detaining children in transit facilities designed for adults not only
amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article 3 of the
ECHR, it also rendered their detention unlawful.

91

	UN, Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for
Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), A/C.3/65/L.5, 6 October 2010, Rule 42,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4dcbb0ae2.html.

92

	Rule 48, Bangkok Rules, ibid.

93

	Article 22, 1951 Convention; Art. 26, UDHR; Art. 13 and 14, ICESCR; Art. 28, CRC;
Art.10, CEDAW.

94

	See, UN General Assembly, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of
Crimes and Abuse of Power, 29 November 1985, A/RES/40/43 available at:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm.

95

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Refugee Women and International Protection,
No. 39 (XXXVI) – 1985, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68c43a8.html and
UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Women and Girls at Risk, No. 105 (LVII) –2005,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45339d922.html.

96

	Council of Europe Committee on Prevention of Torture Standards, December 2010,
available at: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards.pdf.

97

	UN, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, A/HRC/17/31, 21 March
2011, para. 5; Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 14.

98

99

	Article 7(1), CRC and Article 24(2), ICCPR. See, also, UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion
on Refugee Children, No. 47 (XXXVIII) – 1987, para. (f) and (g), available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c432c.html; UN Human Rights Council,
Resolution on Rights of the Child, 20 March 2012, A/HRC/19/L.31, paras. 16(c)
and 29-31, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502e10f42.html; UN
Human Rights Council, Resolution on Action on Birth Registration and the Right of
Everyone to Recognition Everywhere as a Person Before the Law, 15 March 2012,
A/HRC/19/L.24, available at:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/19/L.24.
	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 10.

100

	See, Jesuit Refugee Service - Europe (JRS-E), Becoming Vulnerable in Detention,
June 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4ec269f62.html.

101

57

	For the purposes of these Guidelines, a child is defined as “a human being below
the age of 18 years”, Article 1, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), 1990. See also UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of
their Liberty, above note 88.

102

	UNHCR, Best Interests Determination Children – Protection and Care Information
Sheet, June 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49103ece2.html.
UNHCR, Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child, May 2008, para.
20, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48480c342.html. UNHCR,
Field Handbook for the Implementation of UNHCR BID Guidelines, November
2011, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e4a57d02.html. UNHCR,
Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims under Articles
1(A)2 and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees, 22 December 2009, HCR/GIP/09/08 (UNHCR Guidelines on
International Protection on Child Asylum Claims) para. 5, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b2f4f6d2.html. CRC General Comment No.
6: Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of
Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6 available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42dd174b4.html.

103

	Muskhadzhiyeva and others v. Belgium, above note 91.

104

	UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No. 107 (LVIII) – 2007, on Children at Risk, para. G
(i), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/471897232.html. UNHCR
Guidelines on International Protection on Child Asylum Claims, above note 103.
See, also, International Detention Coalition, Captured Childhood: Introducing a
New Model to Ensure the Rights and Liberty of Refugee, Asylum-Seeking and
Irregular Migrant Children Affected by Immigration Detention, 2012,
http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Captured-Childhood-FINAL-June-2012.pdf;
IDC, Child Sensitive Community Assessment and Placement Model, available at:
http://idcoalition.org/ccap-5step-model/.

105

	Popov v. France, (2012), ECtHR, App. No. 39472/07 and 39474/07, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f1990b22.html.

106

	 Ibid.

107

	On reception conditions for children, see UNHCR, Refugee Children: Guidelines on
Protection and Care, 1994, para. 92, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3470.html. WGAD Report to the
Thirteenth Session of the Human Rights Council, above note 59, para. 60:
“Given the availability of alternatives to detention, it is difficult to conceive of a
situation in which the detention of unaccompanied minors would comply with the
requirements of article 37(b), clause 2, of the [CRC], according to which detention
can only be used as a last resort.”
Mitunga v. Belgium, (2006), ECtHR, App. No.13178/03, para. 103, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45d5cef72.html.

108

58

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 7. UNHCR
Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children
Seeking Asylum, February 1997, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3360.html. UNHCR Guidelines on
International Protection on Child Asylum Claims, above note 103.

109

	UNHCR, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied
Children Seeking Asylum, ibid.

110

	An adult who is familiar with the child’s language and culture may also alleviate the
stress and trauma of being alone in unfamiliar surroundings.

111

	See CRC General Comment No. 6: Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated
Children Outside their Country of Origin, above note 103, para. 61.

112

	See, also, the Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

113

	Special measures, for example, would need to be in place to protect the right to
live in dignity of women who have been trafficked into the country.

114

	Rule 5, Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

115

	Rule 19, Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

116

	Rule 33(1), Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

117

	Rule 25(1), Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

118

	Rule 25(2), Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

119

	See OHCHR, Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and
Human Trafficking, E/2002/68/Add. 1, available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Traffickingen.pdf.

120

	Article 14, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2008
(ICRPD).

121

	UNHCR ExCom, Conclusion on Refugees with Disabilities and Other Persons with
Disabilities Protected and Assisted by UNHCR, No. 110 (LXI) –2010, paras. (c), (f),
(h), (j), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cbeaf8c2.html.

122

	Language taken from ExCom Conclusion, ibid., preambular para. 3.

123

	Article 18(1)(b), ICRPD.

124

	See, for example, Article 17(1), European Union: Council of the European Union,
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, Laying Down Minimum Standards
for the Reception of Asylum Seekers in Member States, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ddcfda14.html.

125

59

	Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in
relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2006, Principle 9: The right to
treatment with humanity while in detention, available at:
http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/index.html.

126

	OHCHR, Chapter V, (pp. 87-93) of the Training Manual on Human Rights
Monitoring, Professional Training Series n°7, 2001, available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training7Introen.pdf; OHCHR,
Istanbul Protocol, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation
of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Professional Training Series no. 8, 2001, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4638aca62.html; Association for the
Prevention of Torture, Monitoring Places of Detention: A Practical Guide, 2004,
available at: http://www.apt.ch.

127

	Relevant treaty provisions include paragraph 8 of the UNHCR Statute in
conjunction with States’ obligations to cooperate with UNHCR in the exercise
of its international protection mandate, found in Articles 35 and 36 of the 1951
Convention and Article 2 of the 1967 Protocol; Article 45, ACHPR; European
Union, Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for
the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as
Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the
Content of the Protection Granted, Article 35, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4157e75e4.pdf.

128

	A range of international, regional and national bodies exist which have a
monitoring or inspection function, such as the Sub-Committee on the Prevention
of Torture and national preventive mechanisms set up pursuant to the Optional
Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, 2002 (OPCAT). National mechanisms
would include National Preventive Mechanisms, National Human Rights
Institutions, Ombubdsmans, and/or NGOs.

129

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 25.

130

	Rule 25(3), Bangkok Rules, above note 92.

131

	Article 27, 1951 Convention. Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above
note 48, para. 24.

132

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 22.

133

	On the right to family and personal life, see above note 62.

134

	Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and
“Alternatives to Detention”, above note 4, page 1.

135

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 29.

136

60

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 30.

137

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 31.

138

	Global Roundtable Summary Conclusions, above note 48, para. 14.

139

61

Useful links

The Guidelines are available online at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/503489533b8.html

Refworld special features page on Detention:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/detention.html

A Compilation of Summary Conclusions from UNHCR’s Expert
Meetings: Commemorating the Refugee and Statelessness
Conventions, 2010-2011:
http://www.unhcr.org/4fe31cff9.html

UNHCR Website:
http://www.unhcr.org

62

Division of International
Protection
United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
Case Postale 2500
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
www.unhcr.org