A/HRC/44/42/Add.1 five days without sufficient food and without proper explanation. Such experiences discourage other asylum seekers from putting forward their medical requests. 30. Asylum seekers in the transit zones expressed their frustration and desperation about their situation. The Special Rapporteur was concerned that all asylum seekers, including pregnant women, children as young as 8 months old and unaccompanied minors between 14 and 18 years old, were automatically confined to the transit zones for the entire duration of the asylum procedure. Under international standards, the detention of adult asylum seekers should be a measure of last resort and cannot be applied to children. Although the Hungarian authorities do not consider the transit zones as places of detention, departure from the transit zone is only possible in the direction of Serbia, very often resulting in the termination of the asylum application. 31. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the judgment of November 2019 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary and its annex, namely the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bianku, joined by Judge Vučinić. In order to determine whether someone has been “deprived of his liberty” within the meaning of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court emphasized that “account must be taken of a whole range of factors, such as type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question” (para. 212). In its judgment, the Court stressed that “the difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance” (ibid.). In determining the distinction between a restriction on liberty of movement and deprivation of liberty in the context of confinement of foreigners in airport transit zones and reception centres for the identification and registration of migrants, the Court further summarized a number of factors that should be taken into consideration. These included “i) the applicants’ individual situation and their choices, ii) the applicable legal regime of the respective country and its purpose, iii) the relevant duration, especially in the light of the purpose and the procedural protection enjoyed by applicants pending the events, and iv) the nature and degree of the actual restrictions imposed on or experienced by the applicants” (para. 217). 32. In the context of the transit zones in Hungary, the Special Rapporteur observes that although individuals, including families with children and unaccompanied children, entered the transit zones of their own accord, it is important to emphasize that they entered the transit zones for the purpose of seeking asylum in Hungary. Knowing that leaving the transit zones in the direction of Serbia would lead to the termination of their asylum claims, asylum seekers are given virtually no other option but to remain confined in the transit zones for the entire duration of their asylum proceedings. That results in many of them living in the prison-like transit zones for over a year. In the absence of any individual assessment of the possible danger to each asylum seeker when returned to Serbia, the Special Rapporteur considers that the notion that leaving the transit zone for Serbia is riskfree is mere speculation. Confinement in the transit zones is automatic and without any judicial decision. None of the asylum seekers in the transit zones could challenge the necessity of the measure of confinement in the zones that they are subjected to before a court. According to the law, the lawfulness of placement in a transit zone can be challenged before the competent administrative court, together with the decision rejecting the asylum application. 33. Considering the above-mentioned factors, in particular the severe restrictions on freedom of movement within the transit zones, the lack of possibility to leave during asylum proceedings and the length of confinement, the Special Rapporteur concludes that confinement to the transit zones in many cases constitutes a de facto deprivation of liberty of the asylum seekers. The Special Rapporteur stresses that restriction of movement of adult asylum seekers must be necessary, reasonable, proportionate and based on individual assessment. Automatic placement of asylum seekers in detention is in breach of international human rights standards. The availability, effectiveness and appropriateness of alternatives to detention must be considered before recourse to detention. 34. In addition, taking into consideration the overall conditions of the transit zones, particularly the prison-like environment, the severe restrictions on freedom of movement within the zones and the lack of access to health care and education, the Special Rapporteur stresses that the transit zones are definitely inappropriate and inadequate for accommodating children, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, or for other individuals with special needs. In that respect, the Special Rapporteur notes with appreciation that 8