- 11 III. FOREIGN NATIONALS DETAINED UNDER ALIENS LEGISLATION A. Preliminary remarks 24. CPT visiting delegations frequently encounter foreign nationals deprived of their liberty under aliens legislation (hereafter "immigration detainees"): persons refused entry to the country concerned; persons who have entered the country illegally and have subsequently been identified by the authorities; persons whose authorisation to stay in the country has expired; asylum-seekers whose detention is considered necessary by the authorities; etc. In the following paragraphs, some of the main issues pursued by the CPT in relation to such persons are described. The CPT hopes in this way to give a clear advance indication to national authorities of its views concerning the treatment of immigration detainees and, more generally, to stimulate discussion in relation to this category of persons deprived of their liberty. The Committee would welcome comments on this section of its General Report. B. Detention facilities 25. CPT visiting delegations have met immigration detainees in a variety of custodial settings, ranging from holding facilities at points of entry to police stations, prisons and specialised detention centres. As regards more particularly transit and "international" zones at airports, the precise legal position of persons refused entry to a country and placed in such zones has been the subject of some controversy. On more than one occasion, the CPT has been confronted with the argument that such persons are not "deprived of their liberty" as they are free to leave the zone at any moment by taking any international flight of their choice. For its part, the CPT has always maintained that a stay in a transit or "international" zone can, depending on the circumstances, amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that consequently such zones fall within the Committee's mandate. The judgement delivered on 25 June 1996 by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Amuur against France can be considered as vindicating this view. In that case, which concerned four asylum seekers held in the transit zone at Paris-Orly Airport for 20 days, the Court stated that "The mere fact that it is possible for asylum seekers to leave voluntarily the country where they wish to take refuge cannot exclude a restriction ("atteinte") on liberty ...." and held that "holding the applicants in the transit zone .... was equivalent in practice, in view of the restrictions suffered, to a deprivation of liberty". 26. Point of entry holding facilities have often been found to be inadequate, in particular for extended stays. More specifically, CPT delegations have on several occasions met persons held for days under makeshift conditions in airport lounges. It is axiomatic that such persons should be provided with suitable means for sleeping, granted access to their luggage and to suitably-equipped sanitary and washing facilities, and allowed to exercise in the open air on a daily basis. Further, access to food and, if necessary, medical care should be guaranteed.