However, this does not mean that removal is practical, and cases where stateless persons were put on a plane to then be denied entry in the target country and find themselves flown back to the US or stranded in a third country, have been reported.161 Furthermore, persons (including stateless persons) ordered to be removed from the US (based on criminal convictions) can be detained for a period of up to six months, or indeed even longer, followed by supervised release, if there is no country to remove them to.162 The European Court of Human Rights tackled the issue of effective and adequate remedies in the case of Kuric and Others v Slovenia.163 The case involved eight applicants from Slovenia (two of whom were stateless) deprived of their permanent residency status in 1992 (the ‘erased’). The erasure, which affected not only the applicants but thousands of other persons as well, was found to be unlawful and unconstitutional by the Slovenian Constitutional Court in 1999.164 Governmental reforms followed, aiming at regularizing the legal status of the erased living in Slovenia or abroad, through retroactive permanent residence permit being granted. UNHCR found the new process to be deficient in several aspects.165 The case deals with a number of important issues, including the impact of the erasure (and for some, statelessness) in terms of enjoyment of other rights than permanent residence status. Firstly, the Court considered the applicants to be ‘victims’ under Article 34 ECHR despite the fact that they had been issued permanent residence permits. It thus reversed the finding of the Chamber that issuance of the retroactive residence permits constituted an adequate and sufficient remedy for the applicants. The Court justified departure from its previous case law by relying on all the circumstances of the case, namely, the seriousness and the widespread human-right concern of the ‘erasure’, and the fact that none of the ‘erased’ had been awarded compensation for the damage sustained.166 Secondly, the Court found a violation of Article 8 ECHR on the ground that applicants had been arbitrarily deprived of the possibility of preserving their legal status as permanent residents in Slovenia. In a rare decision, it found the interference (the legislative measure) to the country of which they are citizens, or to the country with which they have a lesser connection, or to any other country whose government will accept them (Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. (2005) 335, at 341). 161 Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. (2005) 335 is one such case. See also, the story of Igor Skrijevski and Galina Skrijevskaia , blog of 23 July 2012 available at http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/statelessnetherlands-stuck-paradise [last accessed on 21 March 2014] 162 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. (2001) 678; and Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. (2005) 371. 163 Application no. 26828/06, Grand Chamber, judgment of 26 June 2012. 164 Decisions No U-I-284/94 of 4 Feb 1999 and No U-I-246/02-28 of 3 April 2003. 165 UNHCR, Submission in Kuric and Others v Slovenia, pp.1-10. UNHCR found the procedure to be excessively complex; the requirement of proof to be unreasonable since these were illegally deprived of their legal status; the erased bear the entire burden of proof; the required documents might be difficult to produce since many of the erased were denied core basic rights (to work or to receive health insurance); fee of around 75 euros; if the erased is abroad, difficulty in obtaining entry visas for the sake of following up their application. 166 Kuric and Others v Slovenia, para.267. 29