14 SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT “The aim of detention is not to punish asylum seekers. Measures of detention ... may be resorted to only in the following situations: (a) when their identity, including nationality, has in case of doubt to be verified, in particular when asylum seekers have destroyed their travel or identity documents or used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the host state; (b) when elements on which the asylum claim is based have to be determined which, in the absence of detention, could not be obtained; (c) when a decision needs to be taken on their right to enter the territory of the state concerned; or (d) when protection of national security and public order so requires. ... Measures of detention of asylum seekers should be applied only after a careful examination of their necessity in each individual case. Those measures should be specific, temporary and non-arbitrary and should be applied for the shortest possible time. Such measures are to be implemented as prescribed by law and in conformity with standards established by the relevant international instruments and by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. ... Alternative and non-custodial measures, feasible in the individual case, should be considered before resorting to measures of detention. ...” 38. On 8 June 2005, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in his report on his visit to the United Kingdom (CommDH(2005)6), noted that: “I would like to raise a number of points regarding [asylum] proceedings. The first concerns the frequent resort to detention for asylum seekers at the very outset of proceedings. Whilst detention is not automatic in such proceedings, there would appear to be a strong presumption in its favour; mooted plans to increase the asylum detention estate in precisely this area suggest that this is the direction in which the UK is headed. The UK authorities have indicated to me that the UK courts have approved detention for the sole purpose of processing asylum applications. I do not exclude the possibility of detention being appropriate in certain circumstances, but I do not believe that this would be an appropriate rule. Open processing centres providing onsite accommodation and proceedings are, I believe, a more appropriate solution for the vast majority of applicants whose requests are capable of being determined rapidly.” C. European Union instruments 39. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) proclaims in Article 18: “the right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect to the rules of the [Refugee Convention]”. 40. Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326), which must be transposed into member States' national law by 1 December 2008) provides in Article 7: “Applicants shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure, until such time as the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the procedures at first instance set out in Chapter III. This right to remain shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit.” The Directive further provides in Article 18: “1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he/she is an applicant for asylum.