AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE 1 17 • In Poland, there is no routine vulnerability assessment. The law does contain some safeguards, but in practice, the lack of a vulnerability assessment mechanism means that these do not guarantee effective protection against the discriminatory detention of vulnerable people. People with certain profiles may be more at risk of discrimination. One example is the routine detention of people subject to removal procedures following a criminal conviction. Detention in these instances escapes the scrutiny and safeguards of criminal law, and where there is no time limit, can be inhumane and degrading treatment, with deep psychological impact. • In the UK, discriminatory attitudes towards ex-offenders are evident in both law and practice. For example, those detained following a criminal conviction are denied equal rights to an automatic review of their detention. There is also provision for other vulnerable groups, including minors, pregnant women, the elderly, those with serious medical conditions, the disabled, and victims of torture or trafficking, to be detained in certain circumstances. Failure to fully apply protections against the detention of these groups have been recorded by civil society and in case law. • In Ukraine, the law does not identify any groups as vulnerable and provides no leniency, for example, in the case of the detention of families with children. In 2015, 41 children were detained and authorities frequently detain disabled people in centres lacking the facilities to provide adequate medical attention and care. When Peter (originally from Nigeria, interviewed in the UK) finished serving a criminal sentence, he was surprised to discover that he would not be released but rather detained under immigration powers without any time limit. Peter said he didn’t really understand at the time, but he soon learned from experience. The authorities first told him that he would be detained to facilitate his removal but for how long was unclear. Peter eventually spent more time in immigration detention than in prison. He says that prison is less traumatic than immigration detention because at least you know when it will be over. The profound uncertainty about the future is what affected him the most. States are clearly falling short of their duties to not discriminate, and to identify and protect those with vulnerabilities, including those who may also be stateless or at risk of statelessness, or who may be in vulnerable circumstances due to aspects of their identity, such as gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability. States should also acknowledge that the experience of detention in itself can cause vulnerability. Immigration authorities should take responsibility for ensuring ongoing vulnerability assessments are carried out and people’s health and wellbeing protected. Authorities must put in place robust mechanisms to identify and protect individuals’ rights, respond to vulnerabilities, and exercise their duty to not discriminate: • Immigration authorities must put in place robust mechanisms to identify and protect individuals’ rights, respond to vulnerabilities (including those that may arise from the experience of detention), and exercise their duty to not discriminate. • Immigration authorities should not routinely detain or otherwise discriminate against those who have previously served criminal sentences. • States should build specific protections for women and children into their immigration systems. • The immigration detention of children is never in their best interests: alternatives to detention should be provided for families and alternative care arrangements made for unaccompanied children. INTEGRATION IN THE COMMUNITY The country research demonstrates that a failure to grant legal status and protection to those released from detention or who cannot be removed, succeeds only in driving them into destitution, isolation, and long-term suffering. People must be granted the right to a basic and dignified standard of life. Essential to this, is providing a facilitated route to naturalisation for those people recognised as stateless. Many examples emerged from the research of men, women and children living in limbo, denied their rights and an opportunity to rebuild their lives. • In the Netherlands, if removal has not proven possible and there is no prospect of achieving it imminently, people may be released from detention, but the duty to return remains and no legal status is granted. To be granted a residence permit through the ‘no fault procedure’ people must prove they are cooperating with return, which can be very difficult to do in practice. • In Poland, people released from detention are not granted any legal status. They remain excluded from Polish society without rights to state support and if they were released before the end of the maximum detention period, they are subject to re-detention. • In the UK, release with ‘temporary admission’ status can be requested subject to various restrictions and conditions, but requests are almost always refused. The requirement to have accommodation is difficult to meet for those who are destitute and have no ties in the UK. Sometimes people qualify for basic support, but only if they are refused asylum seekers and can show they have attempted to leave the UK. If released, temporary admission does not give the right to work, study, nor many other rights attached to lawful status, nor does it protect someone from re-detention.