limitations, as seen in Section 4.1.In spite o this, detention is a growing elemento migration management in many countries and isunlikely to be entirely abandoned in the near uture.As a result, detention is included in the CAP model tobe used only as a last resort in line with internationalhuman rights standards in a small number o casesater all other options have been tried and ailed. Iauthorities can show beore a court that detention isnecessary and proportionate to the reasons or thedetention and that they have come to that decisionthrough a thorough assessment o the individualwithout discrimination, and all other options have beenexplored, then detention in appropriate conditions, olimited duration and with regular judicial review in linewith international standards may be considered thelast resort.This research was designed to ocus on thoseorms o migration management that allow migrantsto live with reedom o movement in the communitywhile their migration status is being resolved. As aresult o this ocus, any orm o management that isdesigned to substantially curtail or completely denyreedom o movement has been regarded as a
detention includetransit zones, closed accommodationcentres,
alternative places o detention,home detention (including curews) andtraditional immigration detention centres. Inaddition, electronic monitoring is includedhere as an alternative
detention dueto its use to substantially curtail reedom omovement. Electronic monitoring devices,or ‘ankle bracelets’, are used to monitor thelocation o an individual whose movementwithin the community has been strictlylimited to certain areas or at particulartimes o day.
These devices are attached to theperson’s body, usually by being securely strappedaround the ankle. Some o these devices use GlobalPositioning System (GPS) technology to be able toidentiy the specic location o an individual at anygiven time. Other devices require the person wearingthe device to be at a base unit at set times and is usedto monitor compliance with curews. All such ormso detention are covered within this section becausethey substantially curtail reedom o movement andconsequently require an extremely high thresholdbeore application and require the same high level oregulation including judicial review and independentaccess and oversight as traditional orms o detention.
4.5.1 immg d dd
The impact and experience o immigration detentionvaries considerably depending on the structuresunderpinning the detention system and the conditionsand culture established within particular detentioncentres. The International Detention Coalition’s
Checklist for Monitoring Places of ImmigrationDetention
can be ound in Appendix III.
This sectionwill outline some o the key areas to review andmonitor to ensure immigration detention standardsremain at an acceptable level, although this list is notcomprehensive. These areas include:
• Grounds for detention• Independent oversight including automatic judicial
review and monitoring
• Avenues for release• Length of time in detention• Conditions• Treatment including behaviour management• Access to information and the outside world
Gud f d
The Universal Declaration o Human Rightsprovides that
has the right to libertyand to protection rom arbitrary detention.As it intereres with these rights, any useo immigration detention must meet thosestandards that have been established ininternational law including,
, that itis lawully applied; that it is reasonable andnecessary in the individual case; that it isproportionate to the reasons or the detention; andthat it is applied without discrimination.
Alternativesshould rst be considered and detention should onlyused as a last resort in exceptional cases. Detentionshould be avoided or particular groups in accordancewith international, regional and national law.
Whenused, it must be necessary and proportionate to theobjectives o identity and security checks; prevention oabsconding; or compliance with an expulsion order. The
Specific groundsfor detentionestablished inlaw:Lithuania,Finland, Hungary,Germany, theUnited Kingdom