A/HRC/20/24 65. Voluntary return programmes may be used as a mechanism to support and facilitate the departure of individuals who have no grounds to remain in the country and who have no protection or humanitarian concerns. Voluntary return programmes can be a solution for migrants who wish to return home but lack the means to do so. It can be a humane alternative to detention and deportation and, in certain circumstances, can allow a prepared, dignified and sustainable return and reintegration. However, care must be taken to ensure that the decision to return is fully voluntary and a result of a genuine, informed choice, particularly if the migrant is in a situation of closed detention when offered the option of an assisted voluntary return programme and that preparations have been made to ensure that his or her return is sustainable for the long term. 66. In order to ensure the success of alternatives to detention, all persons subject to noncustodial measures should receive clear and concise information about their rights and duties in relation to the measures in place, and on the consequences of non-compliance. They should also be treated with dignity, humanity and respect for their human rights throughout the relevant immigration procedure. Migrants subject to non-custodial measures should have access to legal advice, including on regularisation procedures and how to explore regular migration channels. The issuing of identification documents for those who do not have any is also a necessary feature of alternatives to detention, in order to avoid (re-)detention and facilitate the ability to find accommodation and work and to access health care, education and other services. Migrants who are subject to non-custodial measures also have a right, in accordance with the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to an adequate standard of living (food and water, clothing, housing) (art. 11) and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (art. 12). Migrants who are not permitted to work should receive the required State support to ensure an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, and States should consider allowing migrants access to the labour market. Releasing persons from detention to face destitution is not an appropriate response. Policies that restrict access to housing, basic welfare or health care amongst irregular migrants have not been associated with increased rates of independent departure or deterrence outcomes, and should be avoided. 67. Several countries already have a presumption against detention in their national laws, which may serve as good examples. States may also seek guidance from NGOs that have undertaken extensive research on alternatives to detention. For instance, the International Detention Coalition has introduced the Community Assessment and Placement model, which consists of five steps to prevent and reduce the likelihood of unnecessary detention. These steps are: (1) presume detention is not necessary; (2) screen and assess the individual case; (3) assess the community setting; (4) apply conditions in the community if necessary; (5) detain only as a last resort in exceptional cases. III. Conclusions and recommendations 68. 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. 69. The reasons put forward by States to justify detention should be clearly defined and exhaustively enumerated in legislation. If, as a measure of last resort, a State resorts to detention for immigration-control purposes in an individual case, this 17