Alternatives to detention for asylum seekers and people in return procedures review was, in the Committee’s view, arbitrary and constituted a violation of article 9, paragraph 1. Saed Shams and Others v. Australia, CCPR/C/90/D/1255, 1256, 1259, 1260, 1266, 1268, 1270 & 1288/2004, HRC, 11 September 2007 7.2 […] While the State party has advanced general reasons to justify the authors’ detention, apart from the statement that some of them, without stating who, attempted to escape, the Committee observes that the State party has not advanced grounds particular to the authors’ cases which would justify their continued detention for such prolonged periods. In particular, the State party has not demonstrated that, in the light of each authors’ particular circumstances, there were no less invasive means of achieving the same ends. F.K.A.G. v. Australia, Communication No. 2094/2011: Views adopted by the Committee at its 108th session (8 – 26 July 2013), 20 August 2013, CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011 9.3 The Committee recalls that the notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability, and due process of law. Detention in the course of proceedings for the control of immigration is not per se arbitrary, but the detention must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. Asylum-seekers who unlawfully enter a State party’s territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims, and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims are being resolved would be arbitrary absent particular reasons specific to the individual, such as an individualized likelihood of absconding, danger of crimes against others, or risk of acts against national security. The decision must consider relevant factors case-by-case, and not be based on a mandatory rule for a broad category; must take into account less invasive means of achieving the same ends, such as reporting obligations, sureties, or other conditions to prevent absconding; and must be subject to periodic re-evaluation and judicial review. The decision must also take into account the needs of children and the mental health condition of those detained. Individuals must not be detained indefinitely on immigration control grounds if the State party is unable to carry out their expulsion. 18