Assessing necessity and proportionality separated from non-related adults192 is also covered in several recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). In some Member States – for example Latvia,193 Lithuania,194 or Poland 195 – when a  child is detained together with their parents, detention is ordered only for the parents. No detention decision is issued to the child, who is considered to be “hosted” in the detention facilities (and not detained) to preserve the family unity. This poses challenges to appealing against the decision to place a child in a closed facility. The ECtHR highlighted that in these cases the child is in a legal vacuum that does not allow them to challenge the detention; only their parents can.196 Ø Immigration detention of children with their families should not entail lower child protection standards than when the parents are detained under criminal law. In both cases, the best interests of the child and the right of the child not to be separated from its parents require that states carefully examine the possibility of applying less coercive measures, such as house arrest, to avoid separating the child from the parents, for example when a mother is breastfeeding. In the field of criminal detention, under certain conditions, younger children are allowed to stay with the imprisoned parent, particularly with the mother. The European Prison Rules, designed for children in conflict with the law, recommend that infants (meaning children up to three years) should be allowed to stay in prison with a parent only when this is in their best interests.197 A decision to keep a child with their parents in prison must be always based on the best interests of the child.198 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 192 PACE, Resolution 1810 (2011), Unaccompanied children in Europe: issues of arrival, stay and return, para. 5.9; PACE, Recommendation 1985 (2011), Undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation: a real cause for concern, para. 9.4.4. 193 Latvia, Immigration Law (Imigrācijas likums), Article 59(5) adopted on 31 October 2010, in force from 1 May 2003. 194 Lithuania, State Border Guard Service, 19 February 2016. 195 Poland, Headquarters of Border Guard (Komenda Główna Straży Granicznej), 17 February 2016. 196 ECtHR, Popov v. France, Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012, para. 124. ECtHR, A.B. and Others v. France, No. 11593/12, 12 July 2016, para. 134. 197 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, European Prison Rules, Recommendation Rec(2006)2, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 at 36.1. 198 UN, General Assembly, Resolution 70/175, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), 8 January 2016, A/RES/70/175, Rule 29. Punishment states that “the need to keep the family together is a not sufficient reason to legitimize or justify the deprivation of liberty of a child, given the prejudicial effects that such measures have on the emotional development and physical well-being of children. The Special Rapporteur shares the view of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights that, when the child’s best interests require keeping the family together, the imperative requirement not to deprive the child of liberty extends to the child’s parents, and requires the authorities to choose alternative measures to detention for the entire family”.199 Many EU  Member States also require that national authorities seek alternatives to detention and apply less coercive measures when deciding on the imprisonment of parents for criminal purposes, especially mothers. In Italy, for example, national law provides that, unless condemned for violent crimes, mothers whose children are aged under six years may have their imprisonment suspended and may be held under alternative forms of detention, such as in correctional institutions or home detention. The possibility of accessing alternative detention measures is extended to the father if the mother has died or is unable to take care of the child.200 Similarly, in Romania, national law provides that a mother may ask for the postponement or suspension of the prison sentence.201 Only when alternatives to imprisonment are not possible, for example because the crime is so serious or for national security reasons, may states allow the child to stay with their mother (or, in some Member States, father) in prison. This is based on the consideration that developing an emotional relationship with the mother and/or father is essential for development and, therefore, in the child’s best interests. Under criminal detention, the option to stay in prison with the mother is mainly limited to babies and infants (Table 7). 199 UN, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 5 March 2015, A/HRC/28/68, para. 80. 200 Italy, Law No. 354 of 26 July 1975, Norms governing the prison system and the enforcement of measures involving deprivation of, and limitation to liberty (Legge 26 luglio 1975, n. 354, Norme sull’ordinamento penitenziario e sulla esecuzione delle misure privative e limitative della libertà), as reformed by Law No. 62 of 21 April 2011, Modifications to the Criminal Procedure Code and to Law No. 354 of 26 July 1975 (Legge 21 aprile 2011, n. 62, Modifiche al codice di procedura penale e alla legge 26 luglio 1975, n. 354, e altre disposizioni a tutela del rapporto tra detenute madri e figli minori, Article 1(1), 3. 201 Romania, Law 286/2009 regarding the Criminal Code (Legea nr.286 din 24 iulie 2009 privind Codul penal), Articles 83 and 91. 53