allowing European Union member states to practice long-term detention, and increasing the possibility for states to increase their minimum duration of detention. 6. The Assembly is particularly concerned about the detention of asylum seekers who should be distinguished from irregular migrants. Under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees there are only specific and narrow exceptions to their right to freedom of movement. According to the convention, asylum seekers should not be detained solely on the basis of lodging a claim for asylum, nor for their illegal entry or presence in the country where they lodge a claim for asylum. 7. It is not just conditions of detention that are of concern. The lack of clarity over when detention may be legally justified preoccupies the Assembly. There is a clear lack of a precise, accessible legal framework governing the use of detention under international human rights law and refugee law. Furthermore, national laws and regulations are often insufficient (leaving too much discretion to immigration officials), detention policies are not transparent (leaving individuals open to abuse or arbitrariness), detainees’ access to lawyers is limited, and empirical data concerning detention lacking. In addition, there must be a clear, accessible framework, governing the operation of centers and the conditions afforded, which must also be subject to judicial review. 8. The Assembly reiterates that the grounds for immigration detention are limited by Article 5.1.f of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5). Detention should be used only if less intrusive measures have been tried and found insufficient. Consequently, priority should be given to alternatives to detention for the individuals in question (although they may also have human rights implications). Alternatives to detention are financially more attractive for the states concerned and have been found to be effective. Unfortunately, in some states, alternatives to 51