the detention period for up to twelve months if the individual does not cooperate or where the necessary documents to execute the removal are not received.203 The individual can challenge the detention decisions and appeal for alternatives to detention, but in practice many “unreturnable” persons spend at least a year at the FRC, especially if the individual has no personal identification documents.204 The case of M.A. is illustrative of how a lack of identity documents or recognition by a country of origin/ former habitual residence may contribute to restricting a person’s liberty. Also, it shows how “unreturnable” persons can be detained for excessive periods of time despite the fact that their return to the country of origin is not possible. CASE LAW Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania N-575-1289/2012 (24 October 2012) M.A. first arrived in Lithuania in June 2001 and applied for asylum. He was granted several temporary residence permits and, in February 2004, was granted subsidiary protection in Lithuania. Although the judgment does not reveal M.A.’s nationality, he is referred to as a “citizen” of a foreign country. In September 2008, M.A. was returned to Lithuania from Germany, where he allegedly lived under a false name. He was accommodated at the FRC. In April 2009, the Migration Department issued a decision not to grant asylum to M.A. and ordered his expulsion. M.A. absconded, leaving the Lithuanian territory. In October 2011, he was transferred to Lithuania from Luxemburg under the Dublin II Regulation. The 3rd Vilnius district court ordered his detention for a three-month period, until 20 January 2012. M.A. lodged an application for asylum, which the Migration Department rejected. It then ordered M.A.’s expulsion. On 13 January 2012, Švenčionys regional court ordered a cessation of his detention and on 18 January, M.A. was accommodated at the FRC without restricting his freedom of movement. On 24 January, the applicant absconded and was intercepted in Poland. On 26 January, Lazdijai regional court ordered M.A. be detained until his expulsion could be carried out. The court based its decision on the applicant’s irregular entry and stay in Lithuania and on the fact that a decision to expel M.A. had been adopted. On 16 March, M.A. approached the FRC officers, asking them to contact the authorities of his country of origin in order to obtain a confirmation of his nationality. On 10 April, the Švenčionys regional court agreed with a request to detain M.A until 10 May on the grounds of his irregular entry and stay and later extended the term until 10 July. On 14 June, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania returned M.A.’s asylum claim to the Migration Department for reexamination. On 9 July, the Švenčionys regional court agreed to extend the detention period for three months, until 10 December. On 6 August, the authorities received a response from M.A.’s country of origin as to his readmission. The response said that M.A. was not a citizen of that country and that it is impossible to verify his birth registration because the archives had been destroyed by fire. M.A. appealed the decision to detain him, but it was rejected despite his status as an asylum-seeker and the fact that his country of origin had refused to readmit him. M.A. claimed that the length of his detention was disproportionate, particularly because no date could be set for his expulsion through no fault of his own. The authorities cited M.A.’s history of absconding, doubted the veracity of his claims as to his citizenship, and claimed he was abusing the right to seek asylum. They emphasized that the country of origin confirmed that M.A. had never resided at the address he had provided to the Lithuanian authorities and thus was not 203 Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, Article 114 (5). 204 Interview with a representative of the FRC, 17 August 2012; interview with representatives of the Lithuanian Red Cross Society, 7 August 2012. U N H C R S TO C K H O L M , M AY 2 0 1 6 53