A REGIONAL TOOLKIT FOR PRACTITIONERS 1 23 The academic Odysseus Network report titled Alternatives to Immigration and Asylum Detention in the EU -Time for Implementation states that “Despite the growing interest of States in implementing alternatives, there is no single legal definition of ‘alternative to detention’ and therefore in practice there are different understandings of the concept”. The authors come forth with a comprehensive “understanding of what constitutes an alternative to detention, informed by the positions advanced by other organisations and scholars as well as by recent developments in the EU legal framework [that] … takes into account the particular EU legal framework.” According to the report “for a scheme to be characterised as an alternative it must “fall short” of deprivation of liberty and constitute a non-custodial measure, or it would be an alternative form of detention. Alternative forms of detention could be authorised only in the same circumstances as detention and following the same guarantees. The fact that a person is not held at a detention facility does not necessarily mean that she is not deprived of her liberty. In addition, the characterisation or understanding by national authorities that a scheme constitutes an alternative to detention is not in itself enough to conclude that it is non-custodial.”104 ERT’s Detention Guidelines 31 – 36 relate to alternatives to detention. Guideline 31 reiterates that “detention should only be used as a measure of last resort” and that “ states have an obligation in the first instance to consider and apply appropriate and viable alternatives to immigration detention that are less coercive and intrusive than detention, ensure the greatest possible freedom of movement and that respect the human rights of the individual.” Guideline 32 encourages states to “have a range of alternatives available, so that the best alternative for a particular individual and/or context can be applied in keeping with the principle of proportionality and the right to equal treatment before the law,” and Guideline 33 establishes that the “choice of an alternative should be influenced by an individual assessment of the needs and circumstances of the stateless person concerned and prevailing local conditions” as well as special circumstances of the individual, including factors that can make said individual vulnerable. Significantly, Guideline 34 establishes that “the imposition of alternatives to detention which restrict a stateless person’s human rights including the right to liberty should be subject to the same procedural and substantive safeguards as detention. States should therefore, apply all the relevant standards … to ensure that alternatives to detention pursue a legitimate objective, and are lawful, nondiscriminatory, necessary, proportionate and reasonable.” 105