handbooks are greatly detailed and useful, it is not helpful that they are so hard to access. One must know they exist in order to search and find them. European Union Certain provisions of the Directives are not being applied properly. Alternatives are necessary in order for detention to be humane, in accordance with international, EU, and domestic law, and to be less costly on the Member States and the Union. Pursuant to the above-mentioned Directives, problems arise due to lack of mandatory and ex officio judicial supervisions of detention. There is also a lack of data pursuant to detention facilities violations, despite the fact that States regularly report violations. States should strive to provide alternatives to detention, as evidence shows that detention may cause unduly delays for and is less effective in providing effective removals to third countries or effective repatriation. An effective removal policy is one of the missions the RD establishes in its preamble.96 Due to the rise in the number of detainees, there is a longer period for judicial review and a more complex legal framework. There appears to be a lack of clear assessment indicators and criteria regarding detention, proportionate measures used by the authorities, and special needs for vulnerable persons. The RCD and its recast state that detainees have the right to speedy judicial review of their detention, either at the applicant’s request or ex officio, and officials must make applicants aware of such procedures for requesting review. However, applicants are most likely not aware of procedures or the process of filing for judicial review, especially due to the recent unprecedented increase of migrants. Most States rely on administrative agencies and not a judge 96 Directive 2008/115/EC, preamble, para. 4. 29