Article 8(3) of the RCD is prohibited under EU law.[36] Whether the ground for detention is lawful must be subject to the principle of proportionality, indicating that the measures are necessary and genuinely meet objectives recognised by the EU. [37] This is evaluated through individual assessment, referred to above, on the specific facts of each case.[38] In the Case of Saadi v the United Kingdom, the Court reaffirmed that: [...] the principle of proportionality further dictates that where detention is to secure the fulfilment of an obligation provided by law, a balance must be struck between the importance of a democratic society of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the importance of the right to liberty.[39] Moreover, the Court emphasised that detention of "aliens at the point of entry" must be carried out in good faith, closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry, the place and conditions should be appropriate, and should not continue for an unreasonable length of time.[40] In Amuur v France, the Court reminded that the measure was applicable "not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country".[41] The RCD also emphasises that alternative measures should be considered before resorting to detention of people seeking international protection. [42] Alternatives should only be used where there is a legal basis or grounds for detention. Alternatives include 'enforcement-based' measures, such as reporting to police or securities, or community-based solutions, grounded in engagement and holistic support.[43] These alternatives should not impose onerous or excessively restrictive measures which amount to de facto detention. Under the RCD, member states are required to take "meaningful steps to ensure that the time needed to verify the grounds for detention is as short as possible", Member States must also ensure ___ [36] Ministerio Fiscal v VL [2020] CJEU (Case C-36/20). [37] Article 52(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights; see also preamble 15, Reception Conditions Directive. [38] Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). Article 8(2). [39] Saadi v the United Kingdom (GC) [2008] ECHR (App No 13229/03), para 70. [40] Ibid, para 72, 74. [41] Amuur v France (Chamber) [1996] ECHR (App No 19776/92), para 43. [42] Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). Article 8(2). Majcher and Gionco for PICUM. 2022. Immigration Detention and De Facto Detention: What does the law Say? Available here. [43] Majcher and Gionco for PICUM. 2022. Immigration Detention and De Facto Detention: What does the law Say? Available here. Page 12