For migrants in particularly vulnerable situations, the use of detention should never be contemplated. Such individuals deserve appropriate care and support measures to assist them in complying with migration rules, but never the use of detention. For migrants who are not in a situation of particular vulnerability, the decision to detain must be carefully circumscribed and based on an individual assessment so as to avoid the overbroad and arbitrary application of detention measures. Detention must only ever be an exceptional measure of last resort, and only after the effective exploration of alternative measures to detention have been applied. Even in such carefully circumscribed situations of detention, it is nonetheless difficult to imagine why a regime that is fundamentally concerned with compliance with administrative migration procedures should ever contemplate the use of force or solitary confinement, for example. Such provisions are indicative of the draft codifying instrument's fundamentally flawed starting point. Rather than relying upon minimum criminal detention standards that are not appropriate for administrative immigration detention, we encourage the CDCJ to take a new approach-counting on the close cooperation and support of the undersigned civil society organisations-by taking action to address the following five priority areas: 1. Envision a fundamentally different regime We need a fundamentally different way of conceptualising what detention conditions are appropriate in the administrative immigration context. As migration is not a crime per se, traditional criminal detention regimes, which take into account legitimate public safety and security concerns, are not suited for the administrative detention of migrants. Similarly ill-suited are other administrative detention regimes, which may take into account legitimate concerns around self-harm and mental health, for example. Traditional detention standards from these contexts therefore fail to correspond to legitimate State aims in the context of migration management--namely to ensure compliance with administrative immigration procedures. As such, the body of international norms that establish the minimum standards for detention conditions in criminal law or other administrative detention regimes are fundamentally different in purpose than the appropriate norms in related immigration settings, and the CDCJ should actively ensure that they are fundamentally different in effect as well. The close similarities between the current draft instrument and criminal detention standards, in particular, hinder the process of defining the adequate regime that effectively protects migrants’ human rights in the context of administrative detention. For example, the current draft’s contemplation of the use of police stations and prisons is fundamentally incompatible with suitable administrative detention conditions for migrants. We therefore call on the CDCJ to review the scope of application of the Rules to avoid legitimizing the use of unsuitable places of detention by States. Norms based on existing human rights standards for migrants and on general principles of care and protection--not punishment or mitigation of threat--should be the driving rationale behind this current codifying exercise. 2. Reinforce a broader set of fundamental human rights Beyond the right to liberty and protections against torture and other ill-treatment, migrants have fundamental human rights that ensure their safety, dignity and humanity and require heightened duties of care in the context of administrative immigration detention. The right to liberty and the prohibition on torture are rights applying to all persons, regardless of immigration status or nationality. They are rightly 2