Has the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Saadi v UK struck the right balance between the protection of human rights and the control of irregular migration?

Extraits

[...] Providing that detention of a person is a major interference with personal liberties, the State was able to regard any applicant's entry as “unauthorised” until expressly expressed that he was granted leave to remain in the UK. The Court held that to interpret the first limb of Article 5 as permitting detention only of a person who is shown to be trying to evade entry restrictions would be too narrow. Moreover, the Court emphasised that such detention must be compatible with the overall purpose of Article 5 which is to safeguard the right to liberty and ensure that no one should be dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion. [...]

[...] Has the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Saadi v UK struck the right balance between the protection of human rights and the control of irregular migration? The objective of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may be defined as to ensure twhe rights and fundamental liberties of any individual who enters the European territory and give remedies against unlawful actions by the States. However, it has in some cases had troubles to strike the right balance between two conflicting rights, such as the protection of human rights and the control of irregular immigration. [...]

[...] The question rose when looking at Saadi v UK is whether the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights struck the right balance between the protection of human rights and the control of irregular migration? In order to give a furnished response to this problematic, we first have to go back to the judgement in Saadi v UK and study the steps and arguments of the decision in details. We will thus be able to discuss the issue in question. [...]

[...] On June 2005, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights noted in his report on his visit to the United Kingdom that The UK Courts have approved detention for the sole purpose of proceeding asylum applications. [ . ] I would not believed that this would be an appropriate rule. Open processing centres providing on- site accommodation and proceedings are, I believe a more appropriate solution. The applicant's detention was pursued for a “purely bureaucratic and administrative and this unrelated to any need to prevent his unauthorised entry into the country. [...]

[...] In their report, the judges expressed their concern about the fact that the judgment in Saadi v UK took a step backward in protecting refugees and more generally immigrants, by affirming the right for States to detain any of them in such centres as the Oakington Centre which has been considered by them as a conveying a “prison-like atmosphere”, and that regardless of the necessity-test.” The judgement in Saadi v UK has failed to strike the right balance between Human Rights and the control of irregular immigration in the sense that it failed to give more rights to immigrants when treating them as “felons”. Moreover, the aspect of “good faith” of the State when detaining the applicant is being questioned by the Judges. The Court exposed very clearly that it was in the applicant's best interest to be detained in Oakington Centre because it was the best and quickest way for him to get an answer to his claim. [...]