Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the activities of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture in Poland in 2017 Detention of juveniles The problem of juvenile detention is still awaiting resolution. In the centre in Przemyśl an 18-month-old child was deprived of liberty together with its mother. The NMPT: one needs to move away from placing children in closed centres and do it only as the last resort until a relevant ban is implemented in Law. When examining a motion for placing a foreigner in a closed centre, the court should consider adjudicating alternative preventive measures, other than detention. Such an approach derives from Article 401(5) of the Act on Foreigners121 and Article 88b (2) of the Act on granting protection to foreigners on the territory of the Republic of Poland122, and alternative preventive measures are listed, correspondingly, in Article 398(3) of the former and Article 88(1) of the latter. Yet, the analysis of selected rulings contained in foreigners’ personal files revealed that some courts did not even refer to the aforementioned provisions. The assessment of the possibility to apply alternative measures, other than detention, was missing, for example in the rulings passed by the District Court in Słubice. As established, that court was adjudicating on the use of detention with respect to nine foreigners staying in the Centre in Krosno Odrzańskie. Those cases as well as the decision-making practice of that court are being examined in separate explanatory proceedings in the Office of the CHR. At this point one should mention the first ruling of the European Court of Human Rights dated 10 April 2018 that directly pertained to the issue of placing children in centres for migrants123. The court ruled that by placing children in closed detention centres for migrants Poland violated Article 8 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which grants children the right to family life. When deciding on the placement of the family in the closed detention centre the well-being of three children was ignored, which stands in opposition to the obligations imposed on Poland by, among others, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the court, the fact that children are placed in the closed detention centre together with their parents is not in the child’s best interest. Polish authorities should have considered applying the so called non-custodial supervision measures which constitute an alternative to detention. The court emphasized that detention should be the last resort. 121 consolidated text: Dz.U. of 2017, item 2206 122 consolidated text: Dz.U. of 2018, item 51 123 Case Bistieva against Poland, judgement of 10.04.2018, application no. 75157/14. 72