European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children Tools and guidance: Presenting legal sources and tools on alternatives to detention FRA has compiled guidance to policymakers and practitioners on the use of non-custodial measures for asylum seekers and people in return procedures. Alternatives to detention can include the obligation to surrender passports, the duty to live in a  particular address or region, or the obligation to report regularly to the police (see graphic). Any restrictions on the rights concerned must conform with human rights law. A  particularly useful tool in the FRA compilation is the 2015 handbook on There are alternatives by the International Detention Coalition. In 2015, UNHCR also issued a  paper on Options for governments on open reception and alternatives to detention. For more information, see FRA’s paper on Alternatives to detention Ø EU law, the Council of Europe and international human rights law require to provide for alternatives to detention. The ECtHR has been very firm in suggesting that respecting the best interests of the child requires states to adopt alternatives to detention. Where the authorities fail to examine all alternatives to detention, the detention of a  child will be considered arbitrary and a  violation of their rights to liberty and security.168 EU  secondary law requires Member States to first examine the viability of alternatives to detention before resorting to deprivation of liberty for asylum or return purposes. This requirement concerns everyone, regardless of age. Recital (20) of the Reception Conditions Directive allows detention only “after all non-custodial alternative measures to detention have been duly examined” and underlines that any alternative measure to detention must respect the fundamental human rights of asylum applicants. In Article 8 (4) the directive provides some examples of possible alternatives to detention (regular reporting to the authorities, the deposit of a financial guarantee, or an obligation to stay at an assigned place) and requires Member States to lay down alternatives to detention in national law. Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation and Article 15 (1) of the Return Directive require priority to be given to the use of “other sufficient but less coercive measures” than detention. The Return Directive establishes that deprivation of liberty is justified only if there are no less coercive measures that would be sufficient to achieve the same aim.169 Article 15 (1) of the directive must be interpreted as requiring each Member State to provide 168 ECtHR, Rahimi v. Greece, No. 8687/08, 5 April 2011, para. 109. 169 Return Directive, Article 15 (1) read in conjunction with recital (16). 50 alternatives to detention in its national legislation.170 Furthermore, the Return Handbook reminds Member States that they should end detention on a case-by-case basis if alternatives to detention become an appropriate option.171 Respecting the best interests of the child requires the state to explore all alternatives to detention for migrant children, the ECtHR considers. As a result, if the authorities do not examine the situation of the child, and do not verify that the child’s placement in administrative detention is a last resort and no alternative is available, then this amounts to a violation of the child’s right to liberty.172 The Court has also ruled that, if the authorities fail to examine all alternatives to detention, the detention of a child will be considered arbitrary and a violation of their rights to liberty and security as enshrined by Article 5 of the ECHR.173 The CPT also considers that there should be meaningful alternatives to detention for certain vulnerable categories of person, including children and families with young children.174 At the UN level, in interpreting the prohibition of arbitrary detention contained in Article 9 (1) of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee observed that deprivation of liberty cannot be considered necessary if other, less invasive means to achieve the same ends could have been available and applied (e.g. by the 170 European Commission (2015), Commission Recommendation of 1.10.2015 establishing a common “Return Handbook” to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks, C(2015) 6250 final, Brussels, 1 October 2015, p. 79. 171 Ibid, p. 84. 172 ECtHR, Popov v. France, Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012, para. 119. 173 ECtHR, A.B. and Others v. France, No. 11593/12, 12 July 2016; R.M. and M.M. v. France, No. 33201/11, 12 July 2016; A.M. and Others v. France, No. 24587/12, 12 July 2016; R.K. v. France, No. 68264/14, 12 July 2016. 174 Council of Europe, CPT, Factsheet on Immigration detention, CPT/Inf(2017)3, March 2017.