provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights13 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights14. There were situations when the BMA invoked the argument that the foreigner is listed in certain criminal cases, which turns public custody into pre-trial detention for foreigners. Moreover, these arguments are copied from one approach to another without taking into account the real situation of foreigners. In the cases of 26 Bangladeshi citizens in public custody during the monitored period, the use of the "criminal case" argument was ridiculous, as people were listed in criminal cases as victims of illegal migration. Likewise, we noticed the tendency to place victims of human trafficking in public custody. The first judicial decisions of placement in public custody were issued in 2009. The first appeals of the placement decisions, based on the fact that the placed persons applied for asylum in the Republic of Moldova, were filed in the courts in 2010. Between 31.05.2009 - 16.10.2010, the placement in public custody was decided based on the provisions of article 40 of the Contravention Code, and accompanied the expulsion of the contravention. The decisions were challenged through an appeal or a review of the placement decision. The appeal was selected depending on the procedural deadlines that allowed the appeal to be filed. As a rule, the appellants used the means of appeal, and when the term for filing the appeal was cancelled, the appellants used the means of review. Subsequently, when the placement in public custody was applied in the order of administrative contentious, based on the provisions of Law no. 200 of 2010 on the regime of foreigners in the Republic of Moldova, applications for release from public custody began to be submitted by asylum seekers both at the stage of examining the BMA's application for public custody and at the stage of examining the steps of extension of placement. Challenging placement / extension decisions is also used when requesting the release of asylum seekers from public custody. The authors of this Study do not have the complete official data of the cases in which the applications for refusal in placement / extension of placement or release from public custody were examined on the grounds that the placed persons applied for asylum. However, the data we have, regarding the cases in which LCA lawyers participated, allow us to state that the courts in most cases, admit such requests. Most cases, when asylum seekers are not released from public custody, are based on reasons related to national security or public order. 13 14 Article 5 (f), ECHR Article 9 (b), ICCPR 56