individuals in a group to challenge a negative prima facie finding on the question of status. 111. Group determination must allow for consideration of the exclusion clauses set out in Article 1(2) of the 1954 Convention on an individual basis. Persons falling within Article 1(2) would not be entitled to the protection of the 1954 Convention even though they meet the stateless person definition set out in Article 1(1) of that instrument.65 (2) Detention 40 112. Routine detention of individuals seeking protection on the grounds of statelessness is arbitrary.66 Statelessness, by its very nature, severely restricts access to basic identity and travel documents that nationals normally possess. Moreover, stateless persons are often without a legal residence in any country. Thus, being undocumented or lacking the necessary immigration permits cannot be used as a general justification for detention of such persons. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), guaranteeing the right to liberty and 65 Article 1(2) is concerned with persons undeserving of protection either because they have an alternative route to protection or because of their behaviour: 2. This Convention shall not apply: (i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance; (ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country; (iii) To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes; (b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country; (c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. 66 Please see, in regard to immigration detention generally, the position taken by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: (58)…it considers that immigration detention should gradually be abolished. Migrants in an irregular situation have not committed any crime. The criminalization of irregular migration exceeds the legitimate interests of States in protecting its territories and regulating irregular migration flows. (59) If there has to be administrative detention, the principle of proportionality requires it to be the last resort. Strict legal limitations must be observed and judicial safeguards be provided for. The reasons put forward by States to justify detention, such as the necessity of identification of the migrant in an irregular situation, the risk of absconding, or facilitating the expulsion of an irregular migrant who has been served with a removal order, must be clearly defined and exhaustively enumerated in legislation. UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/13/30, 18 January 2010, http://www.refworld.org/docid/502e0fa62.html In relation to stateless persons specifically, please see UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 106 (LV1) of 2006 on identification, prevention and reduction of statelessness and protection of stateless persons, http://www.unhcr.org/453497302.html which “Calls on States not to detain stateless persons on the sole basis of their being stateless and to treat them in accordance with international human rights law… ”.