Immigration Detention and Non-removability Before the European Court of Human Rights

Vrolijk, Marloes Anne

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_4

Marloes Anne Vrolijk⁴

1309 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

In this paper, case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is analysed to explore if repeated immigration detention amounts to a violation of fundamental human rights. This case law is compared to similar cases before other international human rights bodies. Finally, the paper recommends possible ways to address the problem of repeated immigration detention. Overall, this paper concludes that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR does not adequately clarify the situation and recommends turning to other disciplines to provide potential remedies.

This paper is a recapitulation of a master thesis which was written from May 2012 until July 2012 for the completion of a Master of Laws (cum laude) in Public International Law at Utrecht University, the Netherlands (2011–2012). The full thesis includes, amongst others, more detailed analyses of cases, a thicker description of international jurisprudence and a schematic table of the considered jurisprudence. When interested in receiving the full thesis, do not hesitate to contact me.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Benhabib (2004), p. 47; Cornelisse (2010), pp. 113–125; Goodwin-Gill n/a.
2.
Returns Directive (2008), Art. 15 (with respect to the European Union); Cornelisse (2010), p. 1 (all European Union Member States include the possibility to resort to immigration detention in national legislation).
3.
van Kalmthout et al. (2007), p. 50.
4.
Fialho (2012), p. 2 (with respect to the United States of America); Leerkes and Broeders (2010), p. 830 (with respect to Europe, the United States of America and Australia).
5.
a.o. Human Rights Council (2009); Council of Europe (2010).
6.
The International Detention Coalition is a coalition of more than 250 non-governmental organisations and individuals advocating more respect for the human rights of immigrant detainees. See: International Detention Coalition n/a, Sect. About Us.
7.
The Global Detention Product is an interdisciplinary research centre concerned with mapping the use of immigration detention and the role the administrative measure plays in response to migration. See: Global Detention Project n/a, Sect. About the Global Detention Project: Aims, Origins, Staff.
8.
a.o. Amnesty International (2009b), Human Rights Watch (2010) (for a focus upon immigration detention in the USA), Amnesty International (2008) (concerning immigration detention in the Netherlands), Equal Rights Trust (2009) (focusing upon stateless persons in immigration detention worldwide).
9.
International Law Commission (2010), pp. 117–123; the ILC notes in its Draft Articles relating to the Expulsion of Immigrants, including a Draft Article on immigration detention, that it cannot be denied that the length of detention has an impact upon the conditions of the detention. See: Ibid., p. 117.
10.
van Kalmthout et al. (2005), pp. 95–98.
11.
In this paper, the term irregular immigrant will be used to describe the group of people who are residing in a State without the proper documentation. This term is used in sake of neutrality and in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe (CoE). Other used terms to refer to this group of people include undocumented migrants, unauthorised immigrants and illegals. See: Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2006), para. 7.
12.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 29.
13.
Ibid., p. 34.
14.
Arcarazo (2011), pp. 8/16 (with respect to the EU); Fialho (2012), p. 2 (with respect to the USA).
15.
Lambert (2006).
16.
Zadvydas v. Davis 2001.
17.
Returns Directive (2008), Art. 15(5).
18.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1997), para. 2; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011), p. 60, para. 147 (regarding statelessness in the Netherlands); European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 27; Leerkes and Broeders (2010), p. 831.
19.
Leerkes and Broeders (2010), p. 831.
20.
Arcarazo (2011), pp. 8/16 (with respect to the EU); Fialho (2012), p. 2 (with respect to the USA).
21.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945), Art. 38(1)d.
22.
Arcarazo (2011), p. 7; European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 27.
23.
Kox (2011), p. 10; van Kalmthout et al. (2005), p. xviii.
24.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), pp. 29–30.
25.
This is, amongst others, addressed by the ECtHR in Boultif v. Switzerland and Üner v. the Netherlands. See: European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), pp. 30–31.
26.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), pp. 29–30.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Zwaan (2011), p. 1.
29.
Arcarazo (2011), pp. 8/16 (with respect to the EU); Fialho (2012), p. 2 (with respect to the USA).
30.
Arcarazo (2011), pp. 8/16.
31.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 29.
32.
Arcarazo (2011), p. 16.
33.
van Kalmthout et al. (2007), p. 50.
34.
Cornelisse (2010), pp. 1–2.
35.
van Kalmthout et al. (2007), p. 50.
36.
Siskin (2012), p. 6.
37.
Global Detention Project (2010), p. 12; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2010), p. 83; Fialho (2012), p. 2.
38.
Fialho (2012), p. 22.
39.
Ibid., pp. 28–30.
40.
Fialho (2012), p. 30.
41.
Fialho (2012), pp. 15/30.
42.
Leerkes and Broeders (2010), p. 831.
43.
Cornelisse (2010), p. 18.
44.
Federal Act on the Exercise of Aliens’ Police (2006), Art. 80(4); European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 47.
45.
Federal Act on the Exercise of Aliens’ Police (2006), Art. 81(3); European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 47.
46.
Immigration Act 1970, Art. 25(A)(12).
47.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 48.
48.
Ibid.
49.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2007), p. 3.
50.
Ibid., pp. 3–4.
51.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 48.
52.
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2012), para. 54.
53.
Ibid., p. 62.
54.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011), p. 1.
55.
Ibid., p. 2.
56.
Ibid., p. 2, para. 13.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Human Rights Council (2009), para. 81.
59.
Ibid.
60.
Akritidou et al. (2007), pp. 418–419.
61.
Ibid., p. 419.
62.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 47.
63.
Ibid., p. 47 (referring to the Case: 07P2836, [2007] Supreme Court of Portugal (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/5d58a7ea0581ce80802573640058fee7?OpenDocument. Accessed 3 August 2012).
64.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 47 (referring to Press release (2008, 7 January) Successive deportation in a ‘legal vacuum’: Actions of the Greek Ombudsman to stop successive deportations of aliens. www.synigoros.gr (in Greek). Accessed 3 August 2012).
65.
The European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) is an advisory body of the European Union which was established in 2007 by a legal act of the European Union. The FRA collects evidence regarding fundamental rights of people living in the EU. See: European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (n/a), Sect. About the FRA.
66.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011), p. 60, para. 147; European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 27.
67.
Ibid., p. 35.
68.
Ibid., p. 18.
69.
Leerkes and Broeders (2010), p. 831.
70.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) 1950, Art. 5(1)(f).
71.
Ibid.
72.
Returns Directive (2008), Art. 15(5).
73.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Art. 9(1).
74.
Ibid.
75.
Human Rights Committee (1982), para. 1.
76.
John v. Greece 2007, para. 33.
77.
Bleichrodt (2006), p. 481.
78.
Chahal v. The United Kingdom 1996, para. 112.
79.
Conka v. Belgium 2002, para. 38.
80.
Soldatenko v. Ukraine 2008, para. 109.
81.
Auad v. Bulgaria 2011, para. 128.
82.
International Commission of Jurists (2011), p. 152.
83.
Ibid.
84.
Ibid., p. 157.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Ibid.
87.
Cornelisse (2010), p. 310.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Soldatenko v. Ukraine 2008, para. 109.
90.
Ibid., para. 110.
91.
Ibid., para. 111.
92.
Ibid., para. 109 (referring to Khudoyorov v. Russia 2005, Ječius v. Lithuania 2000, Baranowski v. Poland 2000 and Amuur v. France 1996).
93.
Ibid., para. 111.
94.
Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia 2011, para. 120.
95.
John v. Greece 2007, para. 28.
96.
Costello (2012), p. 278.
97.
Auad v. Bulgaria 2011, pp. 131–135.
98.
Ibid., para. 133.
99.
Ibid., para. 131 (referring to Chahal, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Mikolenko v. Estonia, Raza).
100.
John v. Greece 2007, para. 28.
101.
Spijkerboer and Vermeulen (2005), p. 106; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011), pp. 37/60, para. 147.
102.
Spijkerboer and Vermeulen (2005), p. 106.
103.
Manitu Giama v. Belgium 1980, pp. 73–94.
104.
Z. v. the Netherlands 1984, p. 150, para. 1.
105.
The European Commission functioned from 1953 to 1988 alongside the European Court of Human Rights. See: Lawson (2009).
106.
Z. v. the Netherlands 1984, para. 31.
107.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011), p. 37, para. 81 (quoting UNHCR consultant Mandal R (2010) Discussion Paper no. 4: What Status Should Stateless Persons Have at the 109 National Level? Discussion papers series for the establishment of a UNHCR Handbook on the Determination of Statelessness, p. 20).
108.
Ibid., p. 60, para. 147.
109.
Returns Directive (2008), Art. 15.
110.
Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti is a reference to the ECJ from the Bulgarian ‘Sofia City Administrative Court’ to give a preliminary ruling concerning a declared stateless person residing in immigration detention. See: Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti 2009, para. 1-2/22.
111.
Costello (2012), p. 264.
112.
Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti 2009, paras. 59–62.
113.
Costello (2012), p. 295.
114.
El-Dridi (2011), paras. 25/58/59.
115.
Clark v. Martinez 2005; Demore v. Kim 2003; Zadvydas v. Davis 2001; United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy 1950.
116.
Zadvydas v. Davis 2001.
117.
Ibid., p. 9.
118.
Demore v. Kim 2003, p. 20.
119.
Clark v. Martinez 2005, pp. 2-3/5.
120.
Fialho (2012).
121.
A. v. Australia 1997, para. 9.4.
122.
Ibid., para. 9.3.
123.
Ibid., para. 9.3; C. v. Australia 2002, para. 8.2; Samba Jalloh v. the Netherlands 2002, para. 8.2.
124.
Applicant is stateless since he has no birth certificate from Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh mission to Australia does not recognise him as citizen of Bangladesh due to the omission of a birth certificate. See: Danyal Shafiq v. Australia 2006, para. 2.2.
125.
Danyal Shafiq v. Australia 2006, para. 7.2.
126.
Ibid.
127.
Samba Jalloh v. the Netherlands 2002, para. 8.2.
128.
C. v. Australia 2002, para. 8.2.
129.
Vélez Loor v. Panama 2010, para. 167.
130.
Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo 2010, para. 82.
131.
Ali Aqsar Bakhtiyari and Roqiha Bakhtiyari v. Australia 2003, para. 9.3 (referring to A. v. Australia and C. v. Australia); Vélez Loor v. Panama (2010), para. 166; Samba Jalloh v. the Netherlands 2002, para. 8.2; C. v. Australia 2002, para. 8.2.
132.
Ali Aqsar Bakhtiyari and Roqiha Bakhtiyari v. Australia 2003, para. 9.3 (referring to A. v. Australia and C. v. Australia).
133.
Vélez Loor v. Panama 2010, para. 166.
134.
Samba Jalloh v. the Netherlands 2002, para. 8.2; C. v. Australia 2002, para. 8.2.
135.
Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo 2010, para. 82.
136.
Vélez Loor v. Panama 2010, para. 166.
137.
Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo 2010, para. 79.
138.
Shaw (2008), p. 121.
139.
ILC (2010).
140.
ILC (2010), pp. 122–123.
141.
International Law Commission (2010), pp. 122–123.
142.
Ibid., p. 287.
143.
International Commission of Jurists (2011), p. 157.
144.
Costello (2012), pp. 308–312.
145.
Costello (2012), p. 267.
146.
Longa Yonkeu v. Lativa 2011, para. 120; Soldatenko v. Ukraine 2008, paras. 109–111; John v. Greece 2007, para. 28.
147.
Manitu Giama v. Belgium 1980, para. 13.
148.
Z. v. the Netherlands 1984, p. 145.
149.
International Law Commission (2010), p. 123.
150.
Cornelisse (2010), p. 7.
151.
Ibid., p. 18.
152.
Human Rights Council (2009), para. 81.
153.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010), p. 47.
154.
Ibid.
155.
Federal Act on the Exercise of Aliens’ Police (2006), Art. 80(4).
156.
Fialho (2012), p. 30.
157.
Costello (2012), p. 287.
158.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1997), para. 2.
159.
United Nations Secretary-General (2011), p. 6.
160.
Ibid.
161.
Costello (2012), p. 287.
162.
Returns Directive (2008), Art. 15(1).
163.
Ali Aqsar Bakhtiyari and Roqiha Bakhtiyari v. Australia 2003, para. 9.3 (referring to A. v. Australia and C. v. Australia); C. v. Australia 2002, para. 8.2.
164.
International Detention Coalition (2011); Office of the High Commission for Human Rights’ United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2011).
165.
Sampson et al. (2011).
166.
Ibid.; Fialho (2012), p. 20.
167.
Jesuit Refugee Service Europe (2011), Amnesty International (2009a) (general report), Amnesty International (2011) (concerning the Netherlands specifically).
168.
Arcarazo (2011), pp. 8/16.
169.
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), p. 334.
170.
Costello (2012), p. 303.
171.
John v. Greece 2007, para. 33.
172.
Chahal v. The United Kingdom 1996, para. 112; Conka v. Belgium 2002, para. 38; Soldatenko v. Ukraine 2008, para. 109; Auad v. Bulgaria 2011, para. 128.
173.
Cornelisse (2010), pp. 277–308; Costello (2012).
174.
Longa Yonkeu v. Lativa 2011, para. 120; Soldatenko v. Ukraine 2008, paras. 109–111; John v. Greece 2007, para. 28.
175.
Auad v. Bulgaria 2011, paras. 131–135; John v. Greece 2007, para. 28.

References

Books and Contributions in Edited Volumes

Akritidou M, Antonopoulo A, Pitsela A (2007) Greece. In: van Kalmthout A, Hofstee-van der Meulen F, Dünkel F (eds) Foreigners in European prisons, vol 1. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 393–423
Google Scholar
Arcarazo D (2011) The returns directive: possible limits and interpretations. In: Zwaan K (ed) Returns directive: central themes, problems, issues and implementation in selected Member States. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 7–24
Google Scholar
Benhabib S (2004) The right of others: aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Bleichrodt E (2006) Right to liberty and security of person (Article 5). In: van Dijk P, van Hoof F, van Rijn A, Zwaak L (eds) Theory and practise of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Google Scholar
Cornelisse G (2010) Immigration detention and human rights: rethinking territorial sovereignty. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Book Google Scholar
Lawson R (2009) The European Convention on Human Rights. In: Krause C, Scheinin M (eds) International protection of human rights: a textbook. Gummerus Printing Abo Akademi University, Abo, pp 423–462
Google Scholar
Shaw M (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, New York
Book Google Scholar
Spijkerboer T, Vermeulen B (2005) Vluchtelingenrecht. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen
Google Scholar
van Kalmthout A, Graft A, Hansen L, Hadrouk M (2005) Terugkeermogelijkheden van Vreemdelingen in de Vreemdelingenbewaring. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen
Google Scholar
van Kalmthout A, Hofstee-van der Meulen F, Dünkel F (2007) Foreigners in European prisons, vol 1. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen
Google Scholar
Zwaan K (2011) Introduction. In: Zwaan K (ed) Returns directive: central themes, problems, issues and implementation in selected Member States. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen
Google Scholar

Journal Articles

Costello C (2012) Human rights and the elusive universal subject: immigration detention under international human rights and EU law. Indiana J Global Leg Stud 19(10):257–303
Article Google Scholar
Fialho C (2012) Rethinking pre-removal immigration detention in the United States: lessons from Europe and proposals for reform. Refugee Surv Q 31:69–100
Google Scholar
Leerkes A, Broeders D (2010) Formal and informal functions of administrative immigration detention: a case of mixed motives? Br J Criminol 50:830–850
Article Google Scholar

Case Law and Treaties

A. v. Australia (1997) Comm. No. 560/1993 (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993). Human Rights Committee
Google Scholar
Ali Aqsar Bakhtiyari and Roqiha Bakhtiyari v. Australia (2003) Comm. No. 1069/2002 (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002). Human Rights Committee
Google Scholar
Auad v. Bulgaria (2011) App. No. 46390/10. EctHR
Google Scholar
C. v. Australia (2002) Comm. No. 900/1999 (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999). Human Rights Committee
Google Scholar
Chahal v. The United Kingdom (1996). App. No. 22414/93. ECtHR
Google Scholar
Clark v. Martinez (2005) 543 U.S. SCOTUS
Google Scholar
Conka v. Belgium (2002) App. No. 51564/99. ECtHR
Google Scholar
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) 1950
Google Scholar
Danyal Shafiq v. Australia (2006) Comm. No. 1324/2004 (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004). Human Rights Committee
Google Scholar
Demore v. Kim (2003) 538 U.S. SCOTUS
Google Scholar
El-Dridi (2011) Case C-61/11. ECR
Google Scholar
Federal Act on the Exercise of Aliens’ Police (2006) The Issue of Documents for Aliens and the Granting of Entry Permits (2005 Aliens’ Police Act). http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/46adc4932.html. Accessed 3 August 2012
Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia (2011) App. No. 57229/09. ECtHR
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
Google Scholar
Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) http://www.uscis.gov. Accessed 3 August 2012
John v. Greece (2007), App. No. 199/05. ECtHR (only available in French)
Google Scholar
Manitu Giama v. Belgium (1980) App. No. 7612/76. Decisions and Reports (21). ECommHR
Google Scholar
Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (2010). ICJ
Google Scholar
Returns Directive: Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (2008) Official Journal of the European Union: 98–107
Google Scholar
Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (2009) Case C-357/09. ECR
Google Scholar
Samba Jalloh v. the Netherlands (2002) Comm. No. 794/1998 (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/74/D/794/1998). Human Rights Committee
Google Scholar
Soldatenko v. Ukraine (2008) App. No. 2440/07. ECtHR
Google Scholar
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945)
Google Scholar
United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) 345 U.S. 544
Google Scholar
Vélez Loor v. Panama (2010). IACtHR
Google Scholar
Z. v. the Netherlands (1984) App. No. 10400/83. Decisions and Reports (38). ECommHR
Google Scholar
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) 533 U.S. SCOTUS
Google Scholar

Reports, Webpages and Miscellaneous Sources

Amnesty International (2008) The Netherlands: the Detention of Irregular Migrants and Asylum-Seekers. http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/rap_nederland_vreemdelingendetentie_0.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2012
Amnesty International (2009a) Irregular Migrants and Asylum-Seekers: Alternatives to Immigration Detention. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL33/001/2009/en/08b817ac-d5ae-4d47-a55c-20c36f7338cf/pol330012009en.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
Amnesty International (2009b) Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA. http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2012
Amnesty International (2011) Vreemdelingendetentie in Nederland: Het Moet en Kan Anders. http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/1110_vreemdelingendet.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2007) Report on a visit to closed detention centres for asylum seekers and immigrants in Belgium (European Parliament Doc. PE404.456v01-00) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pv/714/714008/714008en.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
Council of Europe (2010) The Detention of Asylum Seekers and Irregular Migrants in Europe (Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1707). http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b6bec802.html. Accessed 2 August 2012
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2006) Human Rights of Irregular Migrants (Resolution 1509)
Google Scholar
Equal Rights Trust (2009) Unravelling Anomaly Detention; Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of Stateless Persons. http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/UNRAVELLING%20ANOMALY%20small%20file.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2012
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2012) Report to the Government of the Netherlands on the visit to the Netherlands carried out by the CPT from 10 to 21 October 2011. http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/nld/2012-21-inf-eng.pdf. Accessed 9 August 2012
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (n/a) European Union Fundamental Rights Agency: Helping to make fundamental rights a reality for everyone in the European Union. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/about_fra/about_fra_en.htm. Accessed 6 May 2012
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2010) Detention of Third Country Nationals in Return Procedures. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/detention-third-country-nationals-report-092010_en.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (2011) Fundamental Rights of Migrants in an Irregular Status in the European Union. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA_2011_Migrants_in_an_irregular_situation_EN.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2012
Global Detention Project (n/a) Global Detention Project: Mapping the Use of Detention in Response to Growing Global Migration. www.globaldetentionproject.org/. Accessed 1 August 2012
Global Detention Project (2010) Immigration and Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework. http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/US_Legal_Profile.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2012
Goodwin-Gill G (n/a) International Migration Law. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ls/Goodwin-Gill_IML_video_1.html. Accessed 18 June 2012
Human Rights Committee (1982) General Comment no. 8: Right to Liberty and Security of Person (Art. 9). Sixteenth session CCPR
Google Scholar
Human Rights Council (2009) Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development (Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. A/HCR/10/21/Add.5)
Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch (2010) Costly and Unfair; Flaws in US Immigration Detention Policy. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/usimmigration0510webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2012
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2010) Report on Immigration in the United States; Detention and Due Process. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/migrants/docs/pdf/Migrants2011.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
International Commission of Jurist (2011) Migration and International Human Rights Law, Practitioners Guide No. 6. http://www.icj.org/dwn/img_prd/PGNo6-ElectronicDistribution1.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2012
International Detention Coalition (n/a), International Detention Coalition: Human Rights for detained refugees asylum seekers and migrants. www.idcoalition.org. Accessed 1 August 2012
International Detention Coalition (2011) There Are Alternatives to Prevent Unnecessary Immigration Detention. http://idcoalition.org/cap/. Accessed 7 August 2012
International Law Commission (2010) Sixth Report on the Expulsion of Aliens; by Mr. Maurice Kamto, Special Rapporteur (doc. A/CN.4/625)
Google Scholar
Jesuit Refugee Service Europe (2011) From Deprivation to Liberty: Alternatives to Detention in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom. http://jrseuropefromdeprivationtoliberty20122011.pdf/. Accessed 7 August 2012
Kox M (2011) Leaving Detention? A Study on the Influence of Immigration Detention on Migrant’s Decision Making Processes Regarding Return, International Organization for Migration Publication
Google Scholar
Lambert H (2006) The Position of Aliens in Relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publication, Strasbourg
Google Scholar
Office of the High Commission for Human Rights/United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2011) Global Roundtable on Alternative to Detention of Asylum-Seekers, Refugees, Migrants and Stateless. http://www.unhcr.org/4dde23ab9.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
Sampson R, Mitchell G, Bowring L (2011) There Are Alternatives: A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention. International Detention Coalition Publication, Melbourne. http://massivefishball.com/IDC_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2012
Siskin A (2012) Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues. Congressional Research Service Publication
Google Scholar
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1997) Brief on Statelessness and Detention Issues. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4410638fc.html. Accessed 3 May 2012
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2011) Staatloosheid in Nederland. http://www.unhcr.nl/unhcr-in-nederland/campagnes/staatloosheid.html. Accessed 12 July 2012 (report is currently not available online)
United Nations Secretary-General (2011) Guidance Note of the Secretary General: The United Nations and Statelessness. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e11d5092.html. Accessed 4 May 2012

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Marloes Anne Vrolijk

Authors

Marloes Anne Vrolijk
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marloes Anne Vrolijk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Coimbra, Portugal
Maria João Guia
College Park, Maryland, USA
Robert Koulish
Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Valsamis Mitsilegas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vrolijk, M.A. (2016). Immigration Detention and Non-removability Before the European Court of Human Rights. In: Guia, M., Koulish, R., Mitsilegas, V. (eds) Immigration Detention, Risk and Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_4
Published: 25 February 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24688-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24690-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics