E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3 page 11 20. The Working Group conducted separate interviews of a large number of detainees. The impressions of the Group were as follows: (a) A large majority of asylum seekers were economic migrants; (b) A large number of economic migrants were aware of the fact that their travel documents were either forged or that they were not in possession of the correct identification documentation, and of the risks entailed in being apprehended and discovered at the time of entry; (c) A small percentage were genuine asylum seekers. 21. The Government’s position is that lack of availability of space for detention obliges it to release a large number of asylum seekers who otherwise may have been liable to be detained, though the Working Group does not accept the proposition put forth by the Government that it was the release of such persons which was arbitrary, rather than their detention. 22. The Working Group came across several instances where the authorities had detained persons who had been in the United Kingdom for long periods of time, in some instances, for over 10 and even 12 years. Throughout these years, the persons concerned complied with all the requirements and conditions of release imposed at the time of entry. The explanation given was that this situation was unavoidable since the appeal procedures and subsequent court proceedings had taken a long time; this does not, however, detract from the inherent injustice of the situation. The Group was informed that the person is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom only if the procedures are not completed within a period of 14 years. This period is far too long. To avoid such situations, the authorities must do everything possible to hasten the process of appeals and court proceedings. A rational rule based on proportionality may also be framed to obviate the necessity of detaining persons who have already been absorbed into society. 23. It must, however, be conceded that proceedings before appellate authorities and the courts are not entirely controlled by the Government. The issue requires a fresh look. Those who have overstayed in the United Kingdom or otherwise await completion of proceedings for long periods should not be subjected to detention. The Group was informed that the reason for detention was that pursuant to the conclusion of all legal remedies, it is likely that the persons concerned will abscond and will be therefore unavailable to the authorities for removal or deportation. Detention in these circumstances may be legally justified, but the fact remains that the removal in such circumstances of a person who has developed roots in the society from which his removal is sought is inherently unjust. 24. The Working Group came across instances where persons had been detained for long periods of time awaiting deportation. In many cases, countries of origin are reluctant or unwilling to accept their nationals, and the implementation of the deportation order takes a long time. Frequently, the person concerned does not have valid documentation for the issuance of a passport or entry permit. If the country of origin of the applicant does not respond favourably to the person awaiting deportation, the United Kingdom authorities have to find a third country to accept him. Locating such a