SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 31 JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ROZAKIS, TULKENS, KOVLER, HAJIYEV, SPIELMANN AND HIRVELÄ (Translation) We do not share the majority's conclusion that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in the instant case, in a situation where it is not disputed that the applicant's detention for seven days in the Oakington reception centre amounted to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of the Convention. The issues at stake in this case are important on two counts. Firstly, the case concerns asylum seekers' rights under the Convention and the increasingly worrying situation regarding their detention. Secondly, this is the first case in which the Court has been called upon to provide an interpretation of the first part of Article 5 § 1 (f), which authorises “the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country” and, in particular, of the requirement of necessity imposed by that provision. It is generally accepted that the aim of the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention is to prevent illegal immigration, that is, entry into or residence in a country based on circumvention of the immigration control procedures. In the instant case the applicant fled the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq after treating members of the Iraqi Workers' Communist Party in the course of his duties as a doctor, and claimed asylum on his arrival at London Heathrow airport. The majority attach no importance to this fact, assimilating the situation of asylum seekers to that of ordinary immigrants. Paragraph 64 of the judgment is very clear in this regard and from the outset situates the exception provided for by Article 5 § 1 (f) in the overall context of immigration control. After reiterating that States enjoy “an 'undeniable sovereign right to control aliens' entry into and residence in their territory'”, the majority state that “[i]t is a necessary adjunct to this right that States are permitted to detain would-be immigrants who have applied for permission to enter, whether by way of asylum or not”. In such a radical form, this statement sits uncomfortably with the principle that asylum seekers who have presented a claim for international protection are ipso facto lawfully within the territory of a State, in particular for the purposes of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (liberty of movement) and the case-law of the Human Rights Committee, according to which a person who has duly presented an application for asylum is considered to be “lawfully within the territory” (see paragraph 32 of the judgment). The particular circumstances of this case, moreover, demonstrate this implicitly but with certainty. On his arrival at the airport on 30 December 2000 the applicant was granted temporary