The terms “less coercive measures,” used throughout the Directives, are ambiguous. Although the Directives state that provisions must be implemented, it is unclear what exactly creates a “less coercive measure” and what factors each State must apply. The most common alternatives to detention include mandatory reporting to authorities, residence restrictions, surrender of travel documents, and bail release.102 However, it did not state whether these measures were provided by domestic legislation. The European Commission assessed the legal basis of 87 cases throughout 31 countries, in which it found that 32% of the cases have used less coercive measures, 23% of the cases had no practical application, and that 45% had no information regarding any use or application of less coercive measures.103 In regards to the ability of return through detention, a State’s ability to allow an effective return is typically insignificant when it is done through detention or less coercive measures104. Non-coercive measures such as granting travel documents typically result into an effective return of the applicant and are less costly than detention. Further, the RD states that judicial review may be longer if there are exceptionally large numbers of detainees or applicants. While this provision may seem reasonable and must be broad due to different States’ capacities, issues arise in the definition of “longer period” and “exceptionally large.” The Directive merely states that detention should be limited to six months or 12 months if there is a lack of cooperation by the applicant or if there is a delay in obtaining documents from a third country. The RD does not define the reasonableness of delays nor define cooperation among States to mitigate the delay in obtaining documents. Issues regarding these provisions may be at the forefront with the current mass migration of Syrians and Iraqis. 102 EUROPEAN MIGRATION NETWORK, supra note 99 at 4 Id. at 38 104 Id. at 7 103 31