20 SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT expediency in wide circumstances that were incompatible with general principles of international refugee and human rights law. Properly construed, Article 5 § 1(f) should confer robust protection against detention for asylum seekers. The sub-paragraph stipulated a purpose, the effecting of an unauthorised entry, which detention must prevent. Asylum seekers had to be distinguished from general classes of illegal entrants or those facing deportation, and in order to detain an asylum seeker under Article 5 § 1(f), there had to be something more than the mere absence of a decision on the claim; the detention had to be necessary, in the sense that less intrusive measures would not suffice, and proportionate to the aim pursued. 55. UNHCR reminded the Court that, as with the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights had to be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it formed part, particularly where such rules were found in human rights treaties which State Parties to the Convention had ratified and were therefore willing to accept (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI). It further had to be interpreted in a manner which ensured that rights were given a broad construction and that limitations were narrowly construed, in a manner which gave practical and effective protection to human rights, and as a living instrument, in light of present day conditions and in accordance with developments in international law so as to reflect the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights. 56. Under international law, there was an obligation on States not to refoule persons who had accessed the jurisdiction or territorial frontier and claimed the fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum. There was a further duty, except in mass influx situations, to admit such persons to fair and efficient determination procedures (see Articles 3-31 of the Refugee Convention, paragraph 33 above). Where a State admitted an asylum seeker to procedures, and the asylum seeker complied with national law, his temporary entry into and presence on the territory could not be considered as “unauthorised”; the grant of temporary admission was precisely an authorisation by the State temporarily to allow the individual to enter its territory consistent with the law. In such a situation, the asylum seeker was not seeking unauthorised entry, but rather, had been granted temporary but authorised entry for the purpose of having the asylum claim considered (see Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, paragraph 33 above; Szoma, paragraph 21 above; EU Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Article 7, paragraph 40 above). 57. UNHCR referred to a number of international instruments relating to the detention of asylum seekers, including Article 9 of the ICCPR as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in cases such as A. v. Australia, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the Executive Committee's Conclusion No. 44 and the UNHCR's Guidelines on detention of asylum