SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 13 35. To give effect to the above Conclusion, UNHCR published Guidelines in 1995, which it revised and reissued on 10 February 1999. The Guidelines made it clear that the detention of asylum seekers was “inherently undesirable”. Guideline 3 provides that such detention: “may exceptionally be resorted to for the reasons set out below ... as long as this is ... in conformity with general norms and principles of international human rights law (including Article 9 ICCPR) ... Where there are monitoring mechanisms which can be employed as viable alternatives to detention, (such as reporting obligations or guarantor requirements) ... these should be applied first unless there is evidence to suggest that such an alternative will not be effective in the individual case. Detention should therefore only take place after a full consideration of all possible alternatives, or when monitoring mechanisms have been demonstrated not to have achieved the lawful and legitimate purpose.” The Guideline continued: “... detention of asylum-seekers may only be resorted to, if necessary: (i) to verify identity. This relates to those cases where identity may be undetermined or in dispute; (ii) to determine the elements on which the claim for refugee status or asylum is based. This statement means that the asylum-seeker may be detained exclusively for the purpose of a preliminary interview to identify the basis of the asylum claim. This would involve obtaining the essential facts from the asylum-seeker as to why asylum is being sought and would not extend to a determination of the merits or otherwise of the claim. This exception to the general principle cannot be used to justify detention for the entire status determination procedure, or for an unlimited period of time; (iii) in cases where asylum-seekers have destroyed their travel and/or identity documents or have used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend to claim asylum. What must be established is the absence of good faith on the part of the applicant to comply with the verification of identity process. ... Asylum-seekers who arrive without documentation because they are unable to obtain any in their country of origin should not be detained solely for that reason ...” 36. On 18 December 1999 the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, reporting on its visit to the United Kingdom (E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3) recommended that the Government should: “ensure that detention of asylum seekers is resorted to only for reasons recognised as legitimate under international standards and only when other measures will not suffice ... Alternative and non-custodial measures, such as reporting requirements, should always be considered before resorting to detention. The detaining authorities must assess a compelling need to detain that is based on the personal history of each asylum seeker ...” B. Council of Europe texts 37. In 2003 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation (Rec (2003) 5) that stated, inter alia: