69. 在这方面，工作组讨论了该国政府提出的论点，即拘留时间长短不是一个决定性因素，根据国际法，只要拘留的理由是正当的，在移民背景下继续拘留是合法的。这是对适用的国际人权法的明显曲解。工作组必须再次强调，在移民程序过程中无限期拘留个人是没有道理的，是任意的，12 这就是为什么工作组要求，在移民程序过程中拘留的最长期限必须由立法规定，一旦法律规定的拘留期限到期，被拘留者必须自动获释。13 因此，工作组拒绝接受该国政府所说，拘留时间长短本身不是一个决定性因素，只要存在证明拘留合理的理由，拘留就可以合法地继续的论点。采纳政府的推理将意味着接受这样一个事实，即个人可能会陷入对其拘留的无休止的定期审查，而没有任何实际释放的希望。这种情况类似于无限期拘留，是无法补救的，即使是对拘留进行持续的最有意义的审查也无法补救。14 正如经修订的关于剥夺移民自由的第 5 号审议意见第 27 段所述：
69. In that connection, the Working Group addresses the argument presented by the Government that the length of detention is not a determining factor and that the continuing detention in the context of migration is lawful under international law as long as the grounds for detention are justifiable. This is a plain misinterpretation of the applicable international human rights law. The Working Group must once again underscore that the indefinite detention of individuals in the course of migration proceedings cannot be justified and is arbitrary,12 which is why the Working Group has required that a maximum period for the detention in the course of migration proceedings must be set by legislation and that, once the period for detention set by law has expired, the detained person must be automatically released. 13 The Working Group therefore rejects the Government’s submission that the length of detention in itself is not a determining factor and that, as long as reasons justifying detention are present, the detention may legally continue. Following the reasoning of the Government would entail accepting that individuals could be caught up in an endless cycle of periodic reviews of their detention without any prospect of actual release. This is a situation akin to indefinite detention that cannot be remedied, not even by the most meaningful review of detention on an ongoing basis.14 As stated in paragraph 27 of its revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants: