done through an enforcement mechanism, through the establishment of an agency, or perhaps through directing an agency to undertake the duty of transferring documents. This would facilitate the movement of necessary documents without undue pervasiveness by the EU. The CJEU’s Mahdi case ruled that a lack of identity papers does not justify immigration detention, which likely extends to the provision of delays due to third countries for proper documents. 138 The EU should enforce the holding by ensuring that prolonged detention does not occur for delays in obtaining documentation. Establishment of Assessment Indicators and Criteria There is a lack of clear assessment indicators and criteria, which results in fundamental rights violations. Uniformity is needed to rectify the situation. The EU needs to amend the Directives to include guidelines for determining risks of absconding and assessment criteria. The EU amendments cannot be too broad, but must serve as minimum standards, as States would be compelled to violate them or implement harsher standards in favor of detention. Several factors are key for determining whether or not there is a risk of absconding. Such factors include the non-compliance with a voluntary departure, an explicit expression of intent to avoid removal, possession of false documents, providing false information to authorities, convictions for criminal offenses, pending prosecution, and serious indications that the criminal has or will commit a crime.139 The guidelines should include such factors as the applicant’s history of absconding, whether the applicant is part of a family unit, whether the applicant has ties or connections to other countries, whether the applicant has a known criminal record anywhere in the world, and whether or not the individual has known vulnerabilities. 138 139 Case C-146/14, Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi, 2014 E.C.R. 1320. Directive 2008/115/EC, art. 7, para. 3. 43