two months,161 almost half of the Member States have not introduced timelines for automatic reviews of detention. Even if national law in these countries establishes a duty by the administration to confirm ex officio the continuing existence of grounds for detention throughout the entire period,162 this guarantee cannot be considered as effective as automatic periodic reviews in ensuring that detention is kept as short as possible. Where countries provide for specific deadlines to review the detention and order an extension, the courts shall be given the flexibility to define the future period of detention according to the circumstances of the specific case. A situation, such as the one currently existing in Italy, where after the initial 60 days, the deprivation of liberty is either terminated or extended for 90 days (and subsequently for further 90 days) does not facilitate that detention is maintained for as short as possible a period.163 FRA Opinion 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. 161 In addition to France, this includes, Ireland Portugal and Spain (see Chapter 3.1). 162 See, for example, Czech Republic, Article 126 FORA. See also Slovak Aliens Act, Article 63(e) and Germany, General Administrative Regulations to the Residence Act [Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Aufenthaltsgesetz], 26 October 2009, at 62.3.0.1 and 62.3.3. 163 Italy, LD 286/98 at Article 14.