Ambiguous and unclear application of judicial review results in prolonged and arbitrary detentions that could be inhumane with a lack of access to essential services. Another issue arises due to a lack of clear assessment indicators and criteria. Unclear indicators may result in a violation of fundamental rights. Challenges arise for authorities when interviewing individual, interpreting risk of absconding, proportionate measures, and assessing vulnerabilities of individuals or the validity of documents. Misinterpretations could result in placing an applicant in detention due to the lack of clear indicators.105Alongside the uncertainty of criteria, there is also a complex legal framework, which results in non-uniformity and possible violations of fundamental rights.106 For example, Lithuania’s domestic legislation does not include explicit criteria for the risk of absconding. Ireland and Norway’s different factors create a challenge in providing proportionate measures. Belgium’s authorities have challenges in identifying relevant aspects for detention. Cyprus does not have a formal mechanism in assessing vulnerable individuals.107 Although the very nature of EU Directives allows for state interpretation, the inconsistent policies that are created across Europe pose a challenge to the rights of asylum seekers and migrants alike. Lastly, evidence suggests that detainees’ fundamental rights are more difficult to protect than rights for applicants placed in alternatives to detention.108 For example, in Belgium, 30 complaints were lodged by detainees, as opposed to zero by persons in family units who were not in detention. Twenty of the complaints were deemed admissible by the judicial authority responsible for reviewing complaints by detainees.109 In Latvia, nine complaints were filed regarding detention conditions and availability of legal assistance. Although the State found that 105 Id. at 27 Id. at 27 107 Id. at 27 108 Id. at 39 109 Id. at 39 106 32