A/HRC/44/42/Add.4 Security and human rights It has to be taken into account that only a small proportion of people arriving to Hungary were asylum seekers during the migration crisis in 2015, which shall be reflected in the report when speaking about migration/migrants in general. The report refers to the protection needs of migrants at the time of mass influx. However, under such circumstances it was not possible to take into account these needs. As it is suggested also by FRONTEX, 6 hours is needed for the thorough hearing of an applicant. Conditions at the transit zones The question of qualification of the transit zones as places of detention In its judgment in case Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (delivered on 21 November 2019) the ECtHR accepted that, in accordance with the rules of public international law, States have a right to control entry into their territory. We would like to highlight the following statements of the judgment: “1. The Court considers that in drawing the distinction between a restriction on liberty of movement and deprivation of liberty in the context of the situation of asylum seekers, its approach should be practical and realistic, having regard to the present-day conditions and challenges. It is important in particular to recognise the States’ right, subject to their international obligations, to control their borders and to take measures against foreigners circumventing restrictions on immigration. 2. […] It is also clear that, at all events, the Hungarian authorities were entitled to do the necessary verifications and examine their claims before deciding whether or not to admit them. 3. […] in situations generally similar to those in the present case, as long as the applicants’ stay in the transit zone does not exceed significantly the time needed for the examination of an asylum request and there are no exceptional circumstances, the duration in itself should not affect the Court’s analysis on the applicability of Article 5 [i.e. qualification as detention] in a decisive manner. 4. The Court thus considers that the applicants’ situation was not influenced by any inaction of the Hungarian authorities and that no action was imputable to them other than what was strictly necessary to verify whether the applicants’ wish to enter Hungary to seek asylum there could be granted.” Furthermore the ECtHR also made it clear, repeatedly, that only a direct threat to the asylum-seekers lives and physical integrity would call into question the voluntary nature of their stay in the transit zone: “5. […], the Court also notes that the applicants did not cross the border from Serbia because of a direct and immediate danger for their life or health in that country but did so of their free will. 6. It is further of relevance that what the applicants feared in case of return to Serbia, […], was not a direct threat to their life or health but deficiencies in the functioning of Serbia’s asylum system […]. 7. The Court reiterates however that, in the absence of a direct threat to the applicants’ life or health, known by or brought to the attention of the Hungarian authorities at the relevant time, the discontinuation of the applicants’ asylum proceedings in Hungary was a legal issue which did not affect their physical liberty to move out of the transit zone by walking into Serbian territory.” The above-mentioned circumstances still prevail in the transit zones, therefore the asylumseekers’ accommodation in the transit zones cannot be qualified as detention. As to the duration of their stay in the transit zones, its legality can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis, but the length of stay is generally not due to the authorities’ inaction (c.f. § 229 of the judgment). 2