detention of families with minor children30. This measure had been widely requested31. It means giving priority to compulsory residence orders, in cases of application of deportation measures to families with young children, pending implementation of the said measures. Moreover, the nature of these directives was virtually inevitable in the wake of the judgement of 19th January 201232 in which the European Court of Human Rights censured the excessive disrespect of family life resulting from the placement in detention of a family from Kazakhstan, in particular at the detention centre for illegal immigrants (CRA) of Rouen-Oissel. The Court noted that France was one amongst only three European countries that systematically resort to the detention of accompanied minors, that the family did not show any identified risks of eluding the deportation measure and that no alternatives to detention had really been considered. “The higher interest of the child, it writes, cannot be limited to keeping the family together33 however (…) the authorities shall implement all necessary means in order to limit the detention of families accompanied with children as far as possible and effectively protect the right to family life”. This view is all the more justified in that, as the Contrôleur général has frequently noted in its inspections of detention centres for illegal immigrants (and a fortiori in the case of detention facilities), very few of the latter are really equipped to accommodate children. Although families are placed separately in rooms of suitable dimensions, spaces for walking are reduced to a strict minimum, as are available activities34. It is true that two significant limitations are included in the ministerial directives. The first of these is the fact that compulsory residence orders cannot be found to apply in scenarios where families have attempted to elude previous deportation procedures. This might be regretted, however, such a possibility was specifically acknowledged by the ECHR. The second is that application of the directives is (implicitly) limited to metropolitan France35. However specific the nature of certain public authorities in French overseas departments and territories may be, as far as immigration policy is concerned, their special characteristics do not appear to justify families - with regard to the right to a family life - and children - with regard to the higher interest of the child upheld by current texts – being dealt with differently in metropolitan France and overseas, notwithstanding the fact that the CESEDA indeed provides for notable exceptions to the law relating to foreign nationals in certain overseas departments and territories. 2.1.2 A few observations concerning Waiting areas 2.1.2.1 Waiting areas under the Act of 16th June 2011 30 th Circular to prefects of 6 July 2012 (NOR INTK1207283C). See, amongst others, the report of the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty for 2010, in particular the table of recommendations given therein, page 295, no. 38. 32 ECHR, Fifth Section, Aff. Popov vs. / France, Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07. 33 Editor’s note: which precisely would lead to the placement in detention of all of the members of the same family, including the children. 34 By way of illustration, cf. photo no. 6 published in the report of the contrôle général for 2010, centre section, p. VI. 35 We know that children are often placed in detention in French overseas departments and territories (where, according to the associations, almost half of deportations are carried out), in particular at the CRA of Pamandzi (Mayotte) where, in August 2012, a very young child was found dead beside its mother. If the initial investigations have been verified, that is to say that the child had already died the day before, when the group of Comorans were taken in for questioning on their disembarkation from the boat, one might have doubts as to the validity of the brief examination of this group carried out by a nurse at the time of disembarkation. 31 24