appropriate medical care on return.
Swedenoers health checks to asylum seekers onarrival but this is only mandatory i thereare visible signs o illness that may impactpublic health.
Identity checks establish the key elementso a person’s identity such as their name,
country of origin, country of citizenship
and date o birth. This is sometimes easilyestablished when identity and traveldocuments, such as passports, concur withall other evidence. However, establishingidentity can prove dicult i the person hasbeen orced to fee a country o persecutionwithout original documentation or i theyare attempting to enter under an assumedname.
This research cannot speak to theseissues; however, the inability to providedocumentation establishing identity shouldnot lead to prolonged detention, which may renderdetention arbitrary. Many countries house asylumseekers in open accommodation centres whileundertaking identity conrmation, including Sweden,Finland and Germany, while Canada directsits ocials to release individuals who areco-operating with eorts to establish theiridentity but whose identity cannot beestablished.
A security check establishes that theindividual concerned does not pose athreat to national security or public order. Ahistory o participating in terrorist networksor human rights abuses may, amongother things, preclude entry into the territory i it isconsidered an issue o national security or publicorder. Countries that include security concerns inrisk assessments include the United Kingdom, theU.S.A. and Hong Kong (Box 5). Such checks should beundertaken as soon as possible and in a timely mannerto ensure detention is not prolonged unnecessarily. Aswith identity checks, individuals who are co-operatingwith eorts to undertake a security check should notbe orced to endure prolonged detention.Individuals who are considered a securityrisk through this process must have anopportunity to understand the basis o thatassessment and have the chance to provideurther inormation to deend their claimsbeore an independent body with legaladvice. The assessment o risk associatedwith migrants who have completed a prisonsentence is included as an issue o characterin Section 4.2.4.
An assessment o vulnerability can ensurea management program is sensitive to theparticular needs o vulnerable individualsand incorporates appropriate support.Such an assessment can identiy thoseindividuals who require additional supportto meet their basic needs or undertake dailyactivities, as well as identiying those whorequire extra assistance to understand and negotiatemigration procedures and to meet the conditions o
their release. Vulnerable individuals may have fewer
personal resources to enable them to cope with thedetention environment and may be athigher risk o harm.
In some countries ithas been established that some vulnerablegroups should never be detained, as
discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.1. Vulnerable
individuals are best protected rom theharms associated with detention throughmanagement in a community setting.
Vulnerability assessments identify the
ways in which an individual’s positionin society places them in an unequalrelationship with others. Recent workon this concept ocuses on the contextsthat create vulnerability by raming assessmentsaround what people may be
However,most vulnerability assessments currently in use identiycertain categories o people as being vulnerablebased on particular personal characteristics.
For thepurposes o this report we will discuss our areas thathave traditionally been used to identiy vulnerablegroups, as seen in Figure 3.
Provision forrelease of othervulnerableindividuals in law,policy or practice:Belgium, Malta,Canada, Indonesia,Sweden, NewZealand, AustraliaChildren, includingunaccompaniedminors, notdetained or aprovision forrelease into analternative inlaw, policy orpractice:Belgium,Italy, Ireland,Philippines,Hungary, HongKong, Australia,Denmark,Netherlands, theUnited Kingdom,France, Panama,New Zealand