A/HRC/33/50/Add.1 Group was informed that the Board would have the authority to grant release when detention was no longer required. 47. The Working Group was not in a position to assess the efficiency of this mechanism during its follow-up visit since it was not yet fully in force. However, the Working Group looks forward to receiving information in this regard, including on the capacity of the courts to review the proportionality of detention. 48. With respect to the recommendation made by the Working Group that the Government provide for an effective remedy for detainees to challenge the necessity and legality of detention at any point during a detention period and ex post facto and define the circumstances, it was brought to the attention of the Working Group that effective and speedy remedies for detainees to challenge the necessity and legality of detention at any point during their detention were still lacking. Although free legal assistance and representation before the Immigration Appeals Board will be provided once the law is enacted, the future regime will not enable such public defence lawyers to bring procedures before the civil and the constitutional courts or the European regional justice mechanisms. The Working Group stresses that the amendments under discussion should ensure that the judicial review of immigration cases covers the necessity and proportionality of the measures taken in each individual case, in line with the requirements of international law. In this regard, the Working Group encourages the Government of Malta to refer to relevant principles and guidelines in the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (see A/HRC/30/37, annex). The new amendments should also allow a defence lawyer to bring cases before all existing tribunals or mechanisms, including civil and constitutional courts, international human rights bodies and the European Court of Human Rights. 49. The Working Group had recommended in 2009 that, where there remained a regime of mandatory administrative detention for migrants in an irregular situation, the Government should legally define the maximum period of such detention rather than relying on Government regulations or policy to make such a determination. During its follow-up visit, the Working Group welcomed the plan to define the maximum period of detention. The amendments under discussion would establish a maximum period of detention of 18 months for migrants in an irregular situation and 9 months for asylum seekers, subject to administrative review introduced in 2014. 50. The Working Group notes that some alternatives to detention have been put in place. It emphasizes that, instead of automatic and mandatory detention, less restrictive measures should be applied, such as bail, home curfew, deposit of documents, reporting conditions, and community release or supervision in a designated residence. Detention should be applied only when necessary, reasonable in all circumstances, proportionate to a legitimate purpose, non-discriminatory and subject to judicial review. 51. As to its recommendation that the Government provide for a system of legal aid for immigration detainees, the Working Group observed during its visit that, while legal assistance for asylum seekers was provided through the valuable work of non-governmental organizations, such efforts were insufficient to ensure the provision of legal aid to all detainees. The Government would need to invest more in providing such legal assistance, as that was its international obligation. 52. The Working Group was informed that the Government provided asylum seekers with free legal aid only at the appeal stage of the application process, before the Immigration Appeals Board. Government officials indicated to the Working Group that changes would be introduced in the legal aid system and that legal aid would be provided at 11