Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. Libya is also a party to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Libya has not ratified and is not a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its Protocol. It has however ratified the 1969 Convention governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAU Convention), which adopts the same definition of a refugee as the 1951 Convention and its 1967 protocol. However, Libya has yet to implement the OAU Convention through the adoption of asylum legislation or establish asylum procedures. Under international human rights law, the detention of migrants solely for reasons related to their immigration status should never be mandatory or automatic. Migrants have a right to security and liberty of person.30 Irregular entry or stay within a country should not constitute a criminal offence as the individual has not committed a crime against the person, property or national security. 31 Detention should always be a measure of last resort, imposed only where less restrictive alternatives were found inadequate to meet legitimate purposes. It is only permissible on lawful grounds (such as national security, public health, verification of identity); decided on an individual basis; when strictly necessary and proportionate; for the shortest possible time;32 in humane conditions; and under judicial supervision. Children should never be detained on the basis of their or their parents’ migration status as detention is never in the best interest of the child,33 and always constitutes a violation of the rights of the child.34 Women in detention should be held separately from men and be guarded by female guards.35 30 See for example ICCPR, art. 9 The United Nations Committee on Migrant Workers, General Comment No. 2, para. 24, states: “crossing the border of a country in an unauthorized manner or without proper documentation, or overstaying a permit of stay does not constitute a crime. Criminalizing irregular entry into a country exceeds the legitimate interest of States parties to control and regulate irregular migration, and leads to unnecessary detention. While irregular entry and stay may constitute administrative offences, they are not crimes per se against persons, property or national security”. 32 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, A/HRC/20/24, para. 68 which notes that “Detention for immigration purposes should never be mandatory or automatic. According to international human rights standards, it should be a measure of last resort, only permissible for the shortest period of time and when no less restrictive measure is available. Governments have an obligation to establish a presumption in favour of liberty in national law, first consider alternative non-custodial measures, proceed to an individual assessment and choose the least intrusive or restrictive measure”. See also Communication No. 560/1993, A. v. Australia, Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 30 April 1997, paras. 9.3-9.4; Communication No. 794/1998, Jalloh v. Netherlands, Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 15 April 2002, para. 8.2; Communication No. 1557/2007, Nystrom v. Australia, Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 18 July 2011, paras. 7.2-7.3; Committee against Torture, concluding observations: Poland, CAT/C/POL/CO/5-6, para. 13; and Concluding Observations: Sweden CAT/C/SWE/CO/6-7, para. 10. This principle was also highlighted in para. 33 of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in which Member States pledged to consider reviewing policies that criminalize cross-border movements and to pursue alternatives to detention while the assessments were under way. 33 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/HRC/28/68, para. 80 which notes that “Within the context of administrative immigration enforcement, it is now clear that the deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration 31 9