Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov). A State must show during a judicial review of detention that there is a “real prospect” of a successful removal. Such prospect does not exist when it is unlikely that a person could be admitted in another country.117 When dealing with administrative detention, Article 13 of the ECHR guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a national authority.118 Unlike the EU, there is no guarantee of a fair hearing before a court.119 Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the ECHR cannot be used in conjunction with article 13 when dealing with asylum seekers.120 However, Article 3 (prohibition of torture) can be used in conjunction with article 13.121 In detention dealing with migrants, Article 5(4) of the ECHR prevails.122 It requires that an independent and impartial judicial body perform the judicial review.123 Moreover, the judicial body should be capable to release of the person when appropriate.124 The ECtHR in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece held that “applicants must have a remedy at national level capable of addressing the substance of any arguable complaint under the ECHR and, if necessary, granting appropriate relief.”125 The CoE should follow the EU approach, which allows for a fair trial. The problem with using Article 13 in administrative detention cases is that it gives too much power to national authorities. This is a problem that the CoE wanted to resolve with Resolution 1707. By allowing the right to a fair hearing, the tribunal can make sure remedies are given to victims. 117 Case C-357/09, Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov), 2009 E.C.R. 741, para. 65-66. Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, at 100 (2014). [hereinafter, Council of Europe Handbook] 119 Id. 122 Ktistakis, supra note 12 at 42. 122 Ktistakis, supra note 12 at 42. 122 Ktistakis, supra note 12 at 42. 123 Id. at 43. 124 Id. 125 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], App.No. 30696/09, Eur. Ct. H.R., para 288 (2011). 118 37