SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT - JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 33 OF JUDGES ROZAKIS, TULKENS, KOVLER, HAJIYEV, SPIELMANN AND HIRVELÄ applicant was selected for detention on the basis that his case was suited for fast track processing” (see paragraph 76). In these circumstances, the Court found that the national authorities acted in “good faith” in detaining the applicant. Indeed, the policy behind the creation of the Oakington regime was generally to benefit asylum seekers; detention was therefore in their best interests. If even “small delays” were considered to disrupt the entire programme, it is difficult to discern why, on arriving at the airport and lodging his asylum claim, the applicant was first allowed to remain at liberty and was requested to go to a hotel and report of his own accord on the following days to the authorities responsible for his case (which he duly did). More fundamentally, not just in the context of asylum but also in other situations involving deprivation of liberty, to maintain that detention is in the interests of the person concerned appears to us an exceedingly dangerous stance to adopt. Furthermore, to contend in the present case that detention is in the interests not merely of the asylum seekers themselves “but of those increasingly in the queue” is equally unacceptable. In no circumstances can the end justify the means; no person, no human being may be used as a means towards an end. Next, as regards the purpose of detention, in stating that “since the purpose of the deprivation of liberty was to enable the authorities quickly and efficiently to determine the applicant's claim to asylum, his detention was closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry” (see paragraph 77 in fine), the Court does not hesitate to go a step further and assimilate all asylum seekers to potential illegal immigrants. In the interests of rigour we believe that for detention to be authorised the authorities must satisfy themselves in concreto that it has been ordered exclusively in pursuit of one of the aims referred to in the Convention, in this instance to prevent the person's effecting unauthorised entry into the country. This has in no sense been established in the present case, as the applicant did not enter or attempt to enter the country unlawfully. On the other hand, if the authorities had objectively verifiable grounds to believe that the applicant was liable to abscond before his claim for asylum had been determined, they could have made use of detention in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. In that case, the detention would have been aimed at preventing the asylum seeker from entering or remaining in the country for a purpose other than that for which he had been granted temporary admission. Conversely, it is not permissible to detain refugees on the sole ground that they have made a claim for asylum. It is not disputed in the present case that the applicant's detention was aimed at ensuring the speedy resolution of his claim for asylum and hence the adoption of a decision on the subject at the earliest date possible. His detention therefore pursued a purely bureaucratic and administrative goal, unrelated to any need to prevent his unauthorised entry into the country. As