Search the Immigration Detention Standards Navigator

A judicial or other authority shall be empowered to review as appropriate the continuance of detention.

Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment, respectively with information on and an explanation of his rights and how to avail himself of such rights.

A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of detention. No person may be kept under detention pending investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an authority. A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody.

Any form of detention, including detention in the course of migration proceedings, must be ordered and approved by a judge or other judicial authority. Anyone detained in the course of migration proceedings must be brought promptly before a judicial authority, before which they should have access to automatic, regular periodic reviews of their detention to ensure that it remains necessary, proportional, lawful and non-arbitrary. This does not exclude their right to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness or arbitrariness of their detention.

Every child arrested and deprived of his/her liberty should be brought before a competent authority to examine the legality of (the continuation of) this deprivation of liberty within 24 hours. The Committee also recommends that the States parties ensure by strict legal provisions that the legality of a pretrial detention is reviewed regularly, preferably every two weeks. In case a conditional release of the child, e.g. by applying alternative measures, is not possible, the child should be formally charged with the alleged offences and be brought before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body, not later than 30 days after his/her pretrial detention takes effect. The Committee, conscious of the practice of adjourning court hearings, often more than once, urges the States parties to introduce the legal provisions necessary to ensure that the court/juvenile judge or other competent body makes a final decision on the charges not later than six months after they have been presented.

In times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, States may take measures to accommodate practical constraints in the application of some procedural elements of the right to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the arbitrariness and lawfulness of detention and to obtain without delay appropriate and accessible remedies only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that:

(d) Such measures apply temporarily, only for as long as the exigencies of the situation require, and are accompanied by mechanisms to review periodically their continued necessity and proportionality.

The court reviewing the arbitrariness and lawfulness of the detention must be a different body from the one that ordered the detention.

The competence, independence and impartiality of such a court should not be undermined by procedures or rules pertaining to the selection and appointment of judges.

Given that circumstances can change and lead to the possibility that a previous legal justification for a detention is no longer applicable, detainees should have the right to challenge their detention periodically.

The initiation of the challenge multiple times does not relieve authorities of the obligation to ensure the regular, periodic judicial or other review of the necessity and proportionality of continuing detention, nor exclude the possibility of periodic review by the court proprio motu.

We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality, and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

(d) Provide access to justice for all migrants in countries of transit and destination who are or may be subject to detention, including by facilitating access to free or affordable legal advice and assistance of a qualified and independent lawyer, as well as access to information and the right to regular review of a detention order.

We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality, and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

(f) Reduce the negative and potentially lasting effects of detention on migrants by guaranteeing due process and proportionality, that it is for the shortest period of time, that it safeguards physical and mental integrity, and that, at a minimum, access to food, basic health care, legal orientation and assistance, information and communication as well as adequate accommodation is granted, in accordance with international human rights law.

Reaffirming that all individuals who have crossed or are seeking to cross international borders are entitled to due process in the assessment of their legal status, entry and stay, we will consider reviewing policies that criminalize cross border movements. We will also pursue alternatives to detention while these assessments are under way. Furthermore, recognizing that detention for the purposes of determining migration status is seldom, if ever, in the best interest of the child, we will use it only as a measure of last resort, in the least restrictive setting, for the shortest possible period of time, under conditions that respect their human rights and in a manner that takes into account, as a primary consideration, the best interest of the child, and we will work towards the ending of this practice.

Detention in the course of proceedings for the control of immigration is not per se arbitrary, but the detention must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. Asylum seekers who unlawfully enter a State party’s territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims are being resolved would be arbitrary in the absence of particular reasons specific to the individual, such as an individualized likelihood of absconding, a danger of crimes against others or a risk of acts against national security. The decision must consider relevant factors case by case and not be based on a mandatory rule for a broad category; must take into account less invasive means of achieving the same ends, such as reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions to prevent absconding; and must be subject to periodic re-evaluation and judicial review. Decisions regarding the detention of migrants must also take into account the effect of the detention on their physical or mental health. Any necessary detention should take place in appropriate, sanitary, non-punitive facilities and should not take place in prisons. The inability of a State party to carry out the expulsion of an individual because of statelessness or other obstacles does not justify indefinite detention. Children should not be deprived of liberty, except as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, taking into account their best interests as a primary consideration with regard to the duration and conditions of detention, and also taking into account the extreme vulnerability and need for care of unaccompanied minors.