CCPR/C/GC/35 must be subject to periodic re-evaluation and judicial review.45 Decisions regarding the detention of migrants must also take into account the effect of the detention on their physical or mental health.46 Any necessary detention should take place in appropriate, sanitary, non-punitive facilities and should not take place in prisons. The inability of a State party to carry out the expulsion of an individual because of statelessness or other obstacles does not justify indefinite detention. 47 Children should not be deprived of liberty, except as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, taking into account their best interests as a primary consideration with regard to the duration and conditions of detention, and also taking into account the extreme vulnerability and need for care of unaccompanied minors.48 19. States parties should revise outdated laws and practices in the field of mental health in order to avoid arbitrary detention. The Committee emphasizes the harm inherent in any deprivation of liberty and also the particular harms that may result in situations of involuntary hospitalization. States parties should make available adequate communitybased or alternative social-care services for persons with psychosocial disabilities, in order to provide less restrictive alternatives to confinement.49 The existence of a disability shall not in itself justify a deprivation of liberty but rather any deprivation of liberty must be necessary and proportionate, for the purpose of protecting the individual in question from serious harm or preventing injury to others. 50 It must be applied only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, and must be accompanied by adequate procedural and substantive safeguards established by law. 51 The procedures should ensure respect for the views of the individual and ensure that any representative genuinely represents and defends the wishes and interests of the individual. 52 States parties must offer to institutionalized persons programmes of treatment and rehabilitation that serve the purposes that are asserted to justify the detention.53 Deprivation of liberty must be reevaluated at appropriate intervals with regard to its continuing necessity. 54 The individuals must be assisted in obtaining access to effective remedies for the vindication of their rights, including initial and periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, and to prevent conditions of detention incompatible with the Covenant.55 20. The Covenant is consistent with a variety of schemes for sentencing in criminal cases. Convicted prisoners are entitled to have the duration of their sentences administered 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 6 1014/2001, Baban v. Australia, para. 7.2; 1069/2002, Bakhtiyari v. Australia, paras. 9.2–9.3; see UNHCR, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of AsylumSeekers and Alternatives to Detention (2012), guideline 4.3 and annex A (describing alternatives to detention). 1324/2004, Shafiq v. Australia, para. 7.3; 900/1999, C. v. Australia, paras. 8.2 and 8.4. 2094/2011, F.K.A.G. v. Australia, para. 9.3. 1050/2002, D. and E. v. Australia, para. 7.2; 794/1998, Jalloh v. Netherlands, paras. 8.2–8.3; see also Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 3, para. 1, and 37 (b). See concluding observations: Latvia (CCPR/C/LVA/CO/3, 2014), para. 16. 1061/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.3; 1629/2007, Fardon v. Australia, para. 7.3; see concluding observations: Russian Federation (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, 2009), para. 19; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 14, para. 1 (b). 1061/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.3. See concluding observations: Czech Republic (CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2, 2007), para. 14; see also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 9, para. 48. See concluding observations: Bulgaria (CCPR/C/BGR/CO/3, 2011), para. 10. 754/1997, A. v. New Zealand, para. 7.2; see Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 9, para. 50. 1061/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, paras. 8.3–8.4; 754/1997, A. v. New Zealand, para. 7.3; general comment No. 31, para. 15.