14 1 PROTECTING STATELESS PERSONS FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION country research identified people with each and a combination of these characteristics who were additionally either stateless or at risk of statelessness, and had been detained. The overarching call to action emerging from this research is for urgent reform to law, policy, and practice so that it better reflects, and applies without discrimination, international human rights standards, bringing an end to unlawful or arbitrary immigration detention in Europe. In the following sections, five key areas of action towards achieving this goal are outlined: Alternatives to detention; Identification of statelessness; Addressing vulnerability and protecting against discrimination; Integration in the community; and, Monitoring and implementation. ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION As discussed above, to safeguard against the arbitrary detention of stateless people and uphold international and regional legal standards, immigration authorities need to consider and implement less coercive measures throughout the process. It is important that governments and authorities recognise that people are more likely to cooperate if they can live in their communities, realise their fundamental rights, and enjoy a basic and dignified standard of life. To achieve this, requires a fundamental shift away from the enforcement and restriction approach prevalent in Europe, towards one more focused first and foremost on alternatives, which do not necessitate the deprivation of liberty. ‘Alternatives to detention’ is not a term that has been legally defined, but the International Detention Coalition defines it as, ‘Any law, policy or practice by which persons are not detained for reasons relating to their migration status’. A wide range of effective and human rights compliant community-based alternatives have been identified, such as: temporary identification and documentation schemes; residential housing, open reception or other accommodation in the community; temporary shelter arrangements for individuals in situations of particular vulnerability; regular reporting or supervision arrangements; and the provision of case management, safe spaces to access information, free legal assistance, and other community-based supports so that individuals are better able to comply with migration procedures without the threat of unnecessary detention. For stateless people and those at risk of statelessness, who face unique and often insurmountable barriers to removal, a proactive approach by decision makers to considering and implementing a range of community based alternatives to detention would not only significantly reduce harm, but also reduce the cost and inefficiency of futile periods of detention, and provide opportunities for more effective case resolution. The country research identified a notable lack of effective and suitable alternatives to detention currently being considered or implemented in practice: • In Bulgaria, detention orders usually accompany removal orders without any consideration of alternatives. There is no requirement for the authorities to ascertain the destination country before initiating removal procedures, so, in practice, this is determined after someone has been detained. • In Ukraine, the only available alternatives to detention are forms of bail and there are restrictions on eligibility. By comparison, in criminal proceedings there are four alternatives to imprisonment. • In the UK, although many people are detained for long periods without access to bail, many others are released on bail, raising questions as to why they were detained in the first place. The UK is the only EU country to use electronic tagging on immigration detainees, which is a traumatising and stigmatising way of restricting liberty, and considered an alternative form of detention, not a suitable alternative to detention. • In Poland, detention can be extended even if there is no realistic prospect of return and alternatives to detention are only considered as a last resort. • In Malta, there are no alternatives to detention aside from the possibility to request bail. People issued with a removal order are automatically detained. There is no formal administrative decision to detain to provide them with clear reasons in writing for their detention. Alternatives to detention that are tailored to individuals, provide case management, ensure basic needs can be met, and only apply restrictive conditions where absolutely necessary, are less costly, more humane and have been proven to be highly effective. • Immigration authorities should proactively consider and implement a range of appropriate community based alternatives to detention in line with international best practice. • Immigration authorities must improve their guidance for those making decisions to detain to ensure that all decisions are proportionate, reasonable, necessary, and in particular, that alternatives have been fully considered and implemented as a priority. • States must guarantee the right to appeal to an independent authority and provide a clear role for the judiciary in scrutinising the lawfulness of decisions to detain. • Decision makers must consider the specific circumstances facing stateless persons and those at risk of statelessness when determining removal procedures and making decisions to detain.