with disabilities, Article 14(1)(b) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2006 provides that ‘the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty’. In the case of children with disabilities, who are often placed in special institutions, this strict prohibition of any disability-based detention needs to be interpreted together with the principle of the best interests of the child in Article 3(1) CRC and the principle of last resort in Article 37(b) CRC. The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children of 2010 call for an ‘overall deinstitutionalization strategy’ and emphasise the family as the ‘natural environment for the growth, well-being and protection of children’.29 This approach finds support in Article 20 CRC. As a consequence, ‘efforts should primarily be directed to enabling the child to remain in or return to the care of his/her parents and, when appropriate, other close family members. The State should ensure that families have access to forms of support in the caregiving role.’30 Pregnant women or mothers with infants should, in principle, not be sentenced to imprisonment so that they can take care of their young children outside of a prison. In this respect Article 30(a) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child of 1990 requires States parties to ensure that a non-custodial sentence will always be first considered when sentencing such mothers. However, Article 30(d) goes even a step further and imposes an obligation on States parties to ‘ensure that a mother shall not be imprisoned with her child’. This raises again highly difficult questions of interpretation. In our opinion, a more careful balancing of different interests of the mother (or other primary caregivers) and the child need to be taken into account. If the imprisonment of the primary caregiver is unavoidable, children shall only be permitted to stay with their incarcerated mother (or other caregiver) if there are no alternatives and if this is in the best interest of the child as stipulated in Article 3 CRC. In other words, children shall only be detained if all other non-custodial measures have failed or are expected to fail. The test of whether deprivation of liberty as an absolutely exceptional measure is permissible under Articles 3 and 37(b) CRC must be applied on a case-by-case basis and might lead to different results with respect to the different situations of deprivation of liberty outlined above. While detention of migrant or refugee children is never permissible and children should, in principle, not be deprived of liberty in institutions, there might be cases in the context of armed conflict, the administration of justice or in the context of national security where no suitable alternative measures are 29 UN General Assembly, UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, A/RES/64/142, 24 February 2010, paras. 3 & 23. 30 Ibid., para. 3. 71