A/HRC/20/24 to release. The UNHCR guidelines affirm that stateless persons are entitled to benefit from the same standards of treatment as those in detention generally. B. Alternatives to administrative detention of migrants 48. The Special Rapporteur would like to remind Governments that, in 2009, the General Assembly in its resolution 63/184 called upon all States “to respect the human rights and the inherent dignity of migrants and to put an end to arbitrary arrest and detention and, where necessary, to review detention periods in order to avoid excessive detention of irregular migrants, and to adopt, where applicable, alternative measures to detention”. There are many reasons why detention of migrants should be avoided and alternatives be sought. Immigration detention remains far less regulated and monitored than criminal detention, leaving migrants at risk of, inter alia, prolonged detention, inadequate conditions and mistreatment. Migrants in detention often do not benefit from their right to legal review and due process, sometimes due to the lack of access to legal counsel or interpretation services. Detention systematically deteriorates the physical and mental condition of nearly everyone who experiences it. Symptoms related to depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common. Prolonged detention deepens the severity of these symptoms, which are already noticeable in the first weeks of detention. Research has found that over 90 per cent compliance or cooperation rates can be achieved when persons are released to proper supervision and assistance. The alternatives have also proved to be considerably less expensive than detention, not only in direct costs but also when it comes to longer-term costs associated with detention, such as the impact on health services, integration problems and other social challenges. 50. The right to liberty and security of person, as set out above, obliges States to consider in the first instance less intrusive alternatives to detention of migrants. The Human Rights Committee held in communication No. 900/1999 that States have to demonstrate that “in the light of the author‟s particular circumstances, there were not less invasive means of achieving the same ends, that is to say, compliance with the State party‟s immigration policies, by, for example, the imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions which would take account of the author‟s deteriorating condition” (para. 8.2). The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in order to determine whether or not custody is arbitrary, considers inter alia the possibility for the alien to benefit from alternatives to administrative custody (E/CN.4/1999/63, para. 69, guarantee 13). The Working Group has recommended that “alternative and non-custodial measures, such as reporting requirements, should always be considered before resorting to detention” (E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3, para. 33). 51. At the regional level, in the case Vélez Loor v. Panama, the Inter-American Court stated that “those migratory policies whose central focus is the mandatory detention of irregular migrants, without ordering the competent authorities to verify in each particular case and by means of an individualized evaluation, the possibility of using less restrictive measures of achieving the same ends, are arbitrary”.5 Furthermore, the Council of Europe Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return6 provide that States may only resort to detention if “after a careful examination of the necessity of deprivation of liberty in each individual case, the authorities of the host state have concluded that compliance with the removal order cannot be ensured as effectively by resorting to non-custodial measures such as supervision systems, the requirement to report regularly to the authorities, bail or other 5 6 Judgment of 23 November 2010. CM(2005)40, 9 May 2005. 13