CAT/OP/ITA/1 sentence and were to be deported; b) migrants in an irregular situation who had been identified during spot checks; c) migrants in an irregular situation who had been rescued at sea. 87. Concerning the first category of detainee, the SPT was concerned to learn that most individuals had already served their full prison sentence but were allowed to be detained for a further 30 days due to practical obstacles in arranging the deportation to their countries of origin. The detention in the CIE was not connected to their original conviction. The SPT is aware that measures have been introduced to avoid this practice (such as an agreement signed between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior) but at the time of the visit this group of migrants still made up the majority of detainees. 88. The SPT regards the practice of placing persons who have completed their custodial sentence into immigration detention entirely inappropriate as it does not fulfil a legitimate purpose and represents de facto an additional punishment. The SPT recommends that Italy abolishes this practice of holding convicted migrants in immigration detention. 89. The SPT was concerned to learn that the second category of migrants also included individuals who had previously already been detained in a CIE for the purpose of expulsion. The SPT was made aware that if after 90 days an expulsion could not be carried out, the migrant would receive the expulsion order and be told to leave the territory. However, the practical obstacles preventing his/her return, such as lack of identity or travel documents, still persisted, making his/her return unviable. These migrants then remain in the territory and run the risk of being detained in a CIE yet again. It is the view of the SPT that this system is impracticable, as it also detracts from the fact that many of these migrants have family ties and jobs, sometimes already for many years, be it regularly or irregularly. Firstly, this puts in question the actual ‘risk of escape’ as a justification for their detention. Secondly, if a migrant had already been detained and his/her expulsion not successfully carried out, it is questionable whether an additional detention period would serve to remove the practical obstacles and effectuate the deportation. In addition, the SPT notes the considerable impact expulsion can have on migrants’ mental health. In such instances, the State Party may wish to consider in more detail the administrative circumstances that led to the individual’s irregular status and placing them in administrative detention. 90. The SPT recommends that Italy: (a) reconsider its practice of detaining migrants who have been living and working in Italy and provides alternatives to detention, in particular where the necessity and proportionality of immigration detention does not correspond with any real risk of escape; (b) abolish its practice of detaining migrants previously held in immigration detention for the same purposes, unless expulsion is imminent and there is a real risk of escape. 91. Migrants in an irregular situation who had arrived by boat via the Mediterranean represented the third category. This included asylum seekers whose claim was unsuccessful or individuals who were not entitled to other forms of temporary protection. The SPT noted with concern that also groups of individuals, usually of the same nationality, had been transferred to the CIE directly from the port of disembarkation. This is problematic at two levels as the practice indicates possible collective detention and risks contravening the prohibition of collective expulsion. There should be an individual assessment to determine the necessity and proportionality of each migrant’s detention. The SPT did not find that such individual determinations were adequately integrated into the decision-making processes. Secondly, as highlighted above (PARAS no.), the SPT is aware that during 16