European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children to children at all three levels of inter-state regulation (EU, Council of Europe and UN normative layers), showing where they converge and where they differ. 2.1. Provisions applicable to all Most requirements deriving from the right to liberty and security apply to anyone, including children. In broad terms such requirements are similar under EU law, Council of Europe law and under international human rights law, although important differences exist. For example, whereas European law contains a list of exhaustive grounds for deprivation of liberty, which are to be interpreted restrictively (see Chapter 4), international human rights law requires that grounds for detention be set forth in national law in an exhaustive manner (see Article 9 (1) of the ICCPR). namely the presence of a legal basis, clarity, predictability, accessibility and protection against arbitrariness.”51 Ø The Return Directive regulates the detention of migrants in an irregular situation pending removal (Articles  15-17) and the Reception Conditions Directive governs how applicants for international protection are detained and the related safeguards (Articles  8-11). Article  28 of the Dublin Regulation on the detention of Dublin transferees complements these directive articles.52 2.1.1. EU law The Charter proclaims the right to liberty and security (Article 6). As this right corresponds to an ECHR right (Article 5, right to liberty and security), its meaning and scope must be the same as laid down in the ECHR and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – although, under Article 52 (3) of the Charter, EU law may provide more extensive protection. Its scope and content as shaped by the ECtHR thus represent a minimum threshold of protection under EU law. Any possible limitations on the exercise of the right to liberty and security must be provided for by law, must respect the essence of that right and must be subject to the principle of proportionality (Article 52 (1)). Such guarantees have also been echoed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).49 The CJEU recalled in J.N. v. Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie that “in view of the importance of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter and the gravity of the interference with that right which detention represents, limitations on the exercise of the right must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary.”50 The CJEU addressed several key questions relating to the interpretation of detention rules under EU law. The court emphasised that, as detention in the context of migration constitutes a serious interference with the right to liberty, it must be “subject to compliance with strict safeguards, 49 CJEU, C-528/15, Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v. Salah Al Chodor and Others, 15 March 2017, para. 37. 50 CJEU, C601/15 PPU, J.N. v. Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, 15 February 2016, para. 56. 26 Asylum-related detention and return-related detention are thus covered by two different legal regimes under EU  law. The Reception Conditions Directive defines detention as “confinement of an applicant by [an EU]  Member State within a  particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his or her freedom of movement” (Article  2  h)). The Return Directive does not define detention for persons involved in return procedures. 2.1.2. Council of Europe Article 1 of the ECHR requires that states secure the rights and freedoms of the convention for everyone within their jurisdiction. The human rights that the ECtHR most commonly refers to in cases concerning the detention of migrant children are the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 of the ECHR), the right to liberty and security (Article 5) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). Article 3 of the ECHR absolutely prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The ECtHR has stressed that this positively obliges states to protect individuals in vulnerable situations.53 Such a positive obligation entails taking reasonable and suitable measures to safeguard the rights of an individual. 51 CJEU, C-528/15, Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v. Salah Al Chodor and Others, 15 March 2017, para. 40. 52 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a thirdcountry national or a stateless person, OJ 2013 L 180, pp. 31-59 (Dublin Regulation). 53 ECtHR, Rahimi v. Greece, No. 8687/08, 5 April 2011, para. 87. These principles have also been enshrined by the Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), Resolution 1810 (2011), Unaccompanied children in Europe: issues of arrival, stay and return, paras. 5.2 and 5.15.