Detention of third-country nationals in return procedures Automatic periodic judicial reviews are an important safeguard to ensure that detention is kept as short as possible. Reviews should be carried out by a court at regular intervals, preferably not less than once a month. Procedural guarantees Given the challenges to implement Article 5.2 ECHR in practice, it may be advisable to specify expressly in national legislation that the reason for detention as contained in the detention order and the procedure to access judicial review be translated in a language the detainee understands. The reasons should also be given to him/her in written form as well as read out with the help of an interpreter, if necessary. The right to judicial review of the detention order must be effectively available in all cases. This can best be achieved by requiring a judge to endorse each detention order, as many EU Member States already do. Moreover, measures to alleviate practical barriers restricting access to judicial review procedure should be put in place, including as regards information, language assistance, and the simplification of procedural requirements. Courts or tribunals reviewing the detention order must have the power and be adequately equipped to examine the lawfulness of detention. Reasonable deadlines should also be introduced to avoid protracted review proceedings without undermining their fairness. In light of the variety of obstacles that irregular migrants need to overcome to access legal assistance, EU Member States are encouraged when reviewing their aliens or immigration laws to enter into a dialogue with civil society organisations as well as bar associations in order to find pragmatic legislative and practical solutions to the obstacles encountered which are non-discriminatory and remain in compliance with international obligations. Furthermore, detailed comparative research on whether legal assistance is accessible in practice should be undertaken covering all European Union countries. Information on asylum should be readily available in detention facilities. EU Member States should allow non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and those who provide legal advice access to detention facilities and the possibility to provide counselling. Where immediate release upon submission of a request for international protection is not envisaged, the applicant should be released as soon as the claim is neither considered inadmissible nor abusive or manifestly unfounded. 10 Alternatives to detention EU Member States, who have not yet done so, are encouraged to set out in national legislation rules dealing with alternatives to detention, without disproportionately restricting other fundamental rights. Innovative forms of alternatives, which include counselling the individual on the immigration outcome should be explored wherever possible. By contrast, given the restrictions on fundamental rights derived from electronic tagging, such an alternative should normally be avoided. Detention should not be resorted to when less intrusive measures are sufficient to achieve the legitimate objective pursued. To ensure that less coercive measures are applied in practice, EU Member States are encouraged to set out in national legislation rules dealing with alternatives to detention. Such rules should require that the authorities examine in each individual case whether the objective of securing the removal can be achieved through less coercive measures before issuing a detention order, and provide reasons if this is not the case. Detention of children EU Member States are encouraged to include in their national legislation a strong presumption against detention and in favour of alternatives to detention for families with children, giving a primary consideration to the best interests of the child. Children should not be deprived of their liberty if they cannot be held in facilities that can cater for their specific needs. Safeguards should also be considered to ensure that when children are deprived of their liberty, detention is not unduly prolonged. These could include lower maximum time limits or more frequent reviews. When determining whether families with children should be detained with their parents or primary caregiver, paramount importance has to be given to the child’s best interests and alternatives to detention actively considered. Where, exceptionally, alternatives are not sufficient and it is considered necessary to detain the parent(s), children should only be detained with their parents, if – after a careful assessment of all individual circumstances and having given due weight to the views of the child in accordance with his/her age and maturity – keeping the child with them is considered to be in the child’s best interests. This should be clarified in national legislation. Several EU Member States currently prohibit the detention of separated and/or unaccompanied children,