Alternatives to detention for asylum seekers and people in return procedures
to be present at the designated location at certain times, while absences are usually only
allowed with a well-founded justification.
Release on bail and provision of sureties by third parties
In the context of criminal law, it is not uncommon to allow the release of a detained person on
condition of bail, which will be forfeited if the person does not report to the authorities. Release
based on financial guarantees is infrequently used in asylum and pre-removal proceedings,
partly because it is assumed that many asylum seekers or third-country nationals in return
procedures would not have the necessary means to put up bail.
Regular reporting to the authorities
This alternative obliges people to report to the police or immigration authorities at regular
intervals, and is one of the more frequent alternatives to detention found in national legislation.
Reporting duties on a daily, bi-weekly, weekly or even less frequent basis may also be imposed
as an additional requirement to the obligation to reside in a specified area or location.
Placement in open facilities with caseworker support
This is an innovative alternative to detention that combines classical social work with time spent
at designated places. Asylum seekers or people in return procedures are placed in open facilities
and provided with individual coaches or counsellors to inform and advise them about their
situation and options. This form of alternative was established following evidence that
compliance with a return decision depends on the level of trust the person affected by the
decision has in the authorities of the host country. Such trust is created through individual
counselling and contacts with external actors, such as NGOs.
Electronic monitoring
Electronic monitoring or tagging is primarily used in the context of criminal law. Its use as a
substitute for immigration detention is limited. Electronic monitoring is the most intrusive of
the various alternatives to detention, as it substantially interferes with a person’s right to
privacy, restricts freedom of movement and can have a negative impact on their dignity. It can
also lead to discrimination through the potential association of people wearing an electronic
device with criminals.
2