23 | PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION IN BULGARIA seeking, to secure the issue of identity documents for the third-country national” (paragraph 83 of the judgment). Thirdly, the CJEU stated that “a third-country national who, in circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, has not obtained an identity document which would have made it possible for him to be removed from the Member State concerned may be regarded as having demonstrated a ‘lack of cooperation’ within the meaning of that provision only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct”.100 Following the judgment of the CJEU of 05 June 2014 in the Mahdi case C 146/14 PPU, by ruling of 06 June 2014 the SCAC replaced Mr. Mahdi’s detention with the less coercive measure of weekly reporting. The judge based her decision on the lack of a reasonable prospect of removal. Namely, in her decision the national judge said: “In view of the above data on the behaviour of Mr. Mahdi and considering possible actions for the enforcement of his return, it is concluded that there is not any reasonable need, based on the grounds provided by law, for the person to continue to be detained for the purpose of arranging his removal from the country, which is confined to the issue of an identity document from the Embassy of Sudan. Furthermore, the Directorate "Migration" has not listed specific actions that it intends to take and which require the presence of Mr. Mahdi.” Along the same lines, in his Opinion in the Kadzoev case,101 presented on 10 November 2009, the Advocate General stated that “the detention of a third-country national who is staying illegally is justified only for the purpose of his removal and in connection with ongoing removal procedures being undertaken with due diligence, which implies that there is a possibility of removal. However, as is clear from the wording of Article 15(4) of the Return Directive, the existence of an abstract or theoretical possibility of removal, without any clear information on its timetabling or probability, cannot suffice in that regard. There must be a ‘reasonable’, in other words realistic, prospect of being able to carry out the removal of the person detained within a reasonable period.”102 Unfortunately, the ruling of the national court in the case of Mahdi is the exception and not the rule in the Bulgarian case-law. In the majority of cases the burden of proof has been shifted to the detainee to prove that there is no reasonable prospect of removal. In its report analysing the Bulgarian case law in the field of immigration detention in the period from January 2013 till September 2015, the Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights Foundation concluded that “in most of the reviewed judicial acts, the court was satisfied that it formally found a theoretical, abstract possibility of removal by noting that no evidence has been provided that there is no reasonable prospect of removal for legal and other considerations, instead of requiring from the authorities to specifically indicate data, from which it is clear that removal is realistic and will happen in the foreseeable future, as soon as possible”.103 3.4 ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION As already stated in section 3.2. above, in spite of the declarations on paper that detention should be a measure of last, not first, resort, there is almost automatic imposition of both removal and detention orders upon identification of an irregularly present migrant in Bulgaria.104 Article 44, paragraph 5 of the LFRB, envisages one alternative to detention, weekly regular reporting (until March 2013, it was a daily reporting requirement). In order for this to be imposed, there must be obstacles to enforcing the removal order and a ‘guarantor’ shall provide a declaration and respective evidence that they will provide for the subsistence and accommodation of the migrant. Thus, as explained above, Mr. H’s application for replacing his detention with regular reporting was supported by a recommendation letter by his village mayor and by a friend of his standing as his guarantor. One month after submitting the application for alternatives to detention, Mr. H. was released. The only paper given to him upon release was an order that obliged him to report weekly at the local police station. In the case of Mr. A., he was detained one day after his arrival to Bulgaria and he had no social connections in the country. Once the maximum time limit to Mr. A.’s detention passed, he continued to be kept in detention, because he could not provide an address at which he would live upon his release and thus the Migration Directorate found it impossible to apply the alternative of, then, daily reporting to him. On 22 March 2010 the Migration Directorate submitted a request to the SCAC “to give concrete instructions” on how to implement the Ruling of 29 December 2009 of the SCAC, which ordered Mr. A.’s immediate release. By Ruling of 8 April 2010 the Court found the request of the Migration Directorate inadmissible and discontinued the case, because the powers of the court concerned only the issue “whether to prolong, to discontinue or to substitute the detention”, while “the court does not have the powers to give instructions to the Migration Directorate on how to implement in practice the daily regular reporting of the foreigner when the latter refuses to collaborate”. “For the sake of completeness”, with regard to the objection of the Migration Directorate that Mr. A. did not collaborate in providing an address for residence, the court noted that the authorities could order for the regular reporting to take place in the current address of Mr. A. as the law did not require for it to happen at a police station.105 Mr. A.