Aadel Collection
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL
A/HRC/10/21
16 February 2009
Original: ENGLISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Tenth session
Agenda item 3
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention*
Chairperson-Rapporteur: Manuela Carmena Castrillo
A
* Late submission.
GE.09-11043 (E) 260209
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 2
Sununary
During 2008, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Colombia, Italy,
Mauritania and Ukraine at the invitation of the Governments of these countries. The reports on
these visits are contained in the addenda to the present document (AIHRC/10/21/Add.2-5).
During the period from 1 December 2007 to 30 November 2008, the Working Group
adopted 46 Opinions concerning 183 persons in 22 countries. These Opinions are contained in
the first addendum to the present document (AIHRC/10/2 1/Add. 1).
Also during this period, the Group transmitted a total of 130 urgent appeals concerning
1,256 individuals, including 57 women, 4 boys and 3 girls, to 44 Governments. Governments
informed the Working Group that they had taken measures to remedy the situation of the
detainees: in some cases, the detainees were released; in other cases, the Working Group was
assured that the detainees concerned would enjoy fair trial guarantees.
The Working Group has continued to develop its follow-up procedure and has sought to
engage in a continuous dialogue with those countries visited by the Working Group, in respect of
which it had recommended changes to domestic legislation governing detention or to adopt other
measures. Information about the implementation of the Working Group's recommendations was
received from the Governments of Belarus, Canada, China, Ecuador and Turkey, countries
visited by the Working Group in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively.
The present report includes several issues which have given rise to concern during 2008.
In particular, the Working Group denounces the fact that an important proportion of the
9 million persons deprived of their liberty worldwide are unable to benefit from legal resources
and guarantees that they are entitled to for the conduct of their defence. Most do not have the
economic means to afford expensive and complex legal procedures. They not only have
difficulties in verifying the lawfulness of their detention, but also find themselves subject to lack
of an effective control of their other rights. Therefore, the Working Group proposes to the
Human Rights Council an extension of its mandate to include the monitoring of State
compliance with their obligations concerning all human rights of detained and imprisoned
persons.
The Working Group includes in its report a list of principles that it has elaborated
concerning deprivation of liberty of persons accused of acts of terrorism. It also proposes to hold
a special forum on the respect of the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty in the
counter-terrorism context, giving special consideration to the methods and framework applied by
the States in emergency situations.
The Working Group notes that the corruption it has observed in some countries makes the
whole system of guarantees devoid of any content and reduces the credibility of the entire
administration ofjustice system. It calls upon States to become a party to the United Nations
Convention against Corruption, which recently entered into force.
Finally, the Working Group reiterates that immigrants in irregular situations should not be
qualified or treated as criminals nor viewed only from the perspective of national security.
Detention should be of the last resort, permissible only for the shortest period of time.
I. INTRODUCTION .
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP IN 2008
A. Handling of communications addressed to the Working Group during 2008
B. Future activities
C. Country missions
III. THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
A. Rights of persons deprived of their liberty
B. Detentions in the framework of measures countering terrorism
C. Arbitrary detention and corruption
D. Detention of immigrants in irregular situations
E. Video and audio recording of criminal interrogations
IV. CONCLUSIONS
V. RECOMMENDATIONS CONTENTS
A/HRC/10/21
page 3
Paragraphs Page
1-3
4-41
5- 18
19
20 - 41
42 - 70
42 - 49
4
4
4
13
13
18
18
50 -55 20
56 -64 21
65 -68 23
69-70 23
71-76 24
77-83 25
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 4
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the former Commission on
Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42 and entrusted with the investigation of instances of
alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, according to the standards set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant international instruments accepted by the States
concerned. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified and extended by the Commission in
its resolution 1997/50 to cover the issue of administrative custody of asylum-seekers and
immigrants. At its sixth session the Human Rights Council assessed the mandate of the Working
Group and adopted resolution 6/4, in which it confirmed the scope of its mandate and extended
this for a further three-year period.
2. During the period 1 January to 30 April 2008, Ms. Soledad Villagra de Biedermann
(Paraguay), Ms. Lella Zerrougui (Algeria) and Mr. Tamás Ban (Hungary) were members of the
Working Group and Ms. Zerrougui was also its Chairperson-Rapporteur. They were replaced on
1 May 2008 by Mr. Roberto Garretón (Chile), Mr. Malick El Hadji Sow (Senegal) and
Mr. Aslan Abashidze (Russian Federation), respectively. During the period 1 January to
31 July 2008, Mr. Seyyed Mohammed Hashemi (Islamic Republic of Iran) was also a member of
the Working Group. He was replaced on 1 August 2008 by Ms. Shaheen Sardar Ali (Pakistan).
3. On 6 May 2008, Manuela Carmena Castrillo was appointed as Chairperson-Rapporteur of
the Working Group and Malick El Hadji Sow was appointed as the Working Group's
Vice-Chairperson.
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP IN 2008
4. During the period 1 January to 30 November 2008, the Working Group held its fifty-first,
fifty-second and fifty-third sessions. It also carried out official missions to Mauritania
(19 February-3 March 2008), Colombia (1-10 October 2008), Italy (3-14 November 2008) and
Ukraine (22 October-S November 2008) (see AIHRC/10/21/Add.2-5).
A. Handling of communications addressed to the Working Group during 2008
1. Communications transmitted to Governments
5. A description of the cases transmitted and the contents of the replies of Governments will
be found in the respective Opinions adopted by the Working Group (AIHRC/10/2 1/Add. 1).
6. During its fifty-first, fifty-second and fifty-third sessions, the Working Group
adopted 46 Opinions concerning 183 persons in 22 countries. Some details of the Opinions
adopted during these sessions appear in the table below and the complete texts of Opinions
Nos. 1/2008 to 16/2008 and 14/2007 to 40/2007 are reproduced in addendum ito the present
report.
A/HRC/10/21
page 5
2. Opinions of the Working Group
7. Pursuant to its methods of work,' the Working Group, in addressing its Opinions to
Governments, drew their attention to former Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1997/50
and 2003/31 and Human Rights Council resolution 6/4, requesting them to take account of the
Working Group's Opinions and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the
situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to inform the Working Group of the
steps they had taken. On the expiry of the three-week deadline, the Opinions were transmitted to
the source.
Table 1
Opinions adopted during the fifty-first, fifty-second and
fifty-third sessions of the Working Group
Opinion
No.
Country
Government's
reply
Person(s) concerned
Opinion
1/2008
Syrian Arab
Republic
Yes
Mr. Mus'ab al-Hariri.
Detention arbitrary,
category III.
2/2008
Equatorial
Guinea
No
Commandant Juan Ondo Abaga;
Lieutenant-Colonel Florencio Elá
Bibang, Pedro Esono Ntunu and
Antimo Edu Nchama.
Detention arbitrary,
categories I (between
3 July 2005 and
6 September 2005) and III
(since 3 July 2005).
3/2008
United Arab
Emirates
Yes
Mr. Abdullah Sultan Sabihat
Ali Alili.
Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III.
4/2008
Islamic Republic
of Iran
Yes
Ms. Shamila (Delara)
Darabi Haghighi.
Detention arbitrary,
category III.
5/2008
Syrian Arab
Republic
Yes
Messrs. Anwar al-Buimi;
Michel Kilo and
Mahmoud ‘Issa.
Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III.
6/2008
Saudi Arabia
Yes
Mr. Abdul Rahman b. Abdelaziz
al Sudays.
Detention arbitrary,
category III.
7/2008
Myanmar
Yes
Messrs. Ko Than Htun and
Ko Tin Htay.
Detention arbitrary,
category II.
8/2008
Colombia
Yes
Messrs. Frank Yair Estrada
Mann; Carlos Andrés Giraldo
Hincapié and Alejandro de Jesus
Gonzalez Duque.
Cases filed (paragraph 17(a)
of the Working Group's
methods of work) and
considering that their
detention was arbitrary.
Messrs. Frank Yair Estrada
Mann and Carlos Andrés
Giraldo Hincapié: detention
was arbitrary, to category I.
9/2008
Yemen
Yes
Mr. Saqar Abdeilcader
al Chouitier.
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and II.
E/CN.4/1998/44, annex I.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 6
Opinion
No.
Country
Government's
reply
Person(s) concerned
Opinion
10/2008 Syrian Arab Yes Messrs. Husam ‘Ali Muihim; Detention arbitrary,
Republic Tareq al-Ghorani; Omar ‘Ali categories II and III.
al-Abdullah; Diab Siriyeh;
Maher Isber Ibrahim;
Ayham Saqr and
Allam Fakhour.
11/2008 Saudi Arabia Yes Mr. Amer Said b. Muhammad Detention arbitrary,
al-Thaqfan al-Qahtani. category III.
12/2008 Myanmar Yes Ms. Mie Mie (Thin Thin Aye); Detention arbitrary,
Mr. Htay Kywe and category II.
Mr. Ko Aung Thu.
13/2008 Saudi Arabia Yes Mr. Ali Chafi Ali al-Chahri. Detention arbitrary,
category III.
14/2008 Uzbekistan Yes Mr. ErkinMusaev. Detention arbitrary,
category III.
15/2008 Gambia No Ms. Tania Bernath, Case filed (paragraph 17(a) of
Mr. Ayodele Ameen and the Working Group's methods
Mr. Yaya Dampha. of work - persons released).
16/2008 Turkey Yes Mr. Halil Savda. During the periods between
16 and 28 December 2004;
7 December 2006 and
2 February 2007, and
5 February and 28 July 2007:
Detention arbitrary
Since 27 March 2008:
Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III.
17/2008 Lebanon Yes Mr. Assem Kakoun. Detention arbitrary,
category III.
18/2008 Egypt Yes Mr. Djema'a al Seyed Detention arbitrary,
Suleymane Ramadhan. category III.
19/2008 United Kingdom Yes Mr. Adabert Glaise Emani Case filed (paragraph 17(a) of
of Great Britain (aka Michel Moungar). the Working Group's methods
and Northern of work - person deported).
Ire land
20/2008 Egypt Yes Mr. Islam Sobhy Abd El Latif Since 7 April 2007 to
Attia al-Mazeni. 7 July 2007: Detention
arbitrary, categories I and III.
Since 8 July 2007 to
19 December 2007: Detention
arbitrary, category I.
21/2008 China Yes Pastor Gong Shengliang. Case filed (paragraph 17(d)
of the Working Group's
methods of work)
(The Working Group did not
have sufficient elements of
information to render an
Opinion).
A/HRC/1O/21
page 7
Opinion
No.
Country
Government's
reply
Person(s) concerned
Opinion
22/2008 Saudi Arabia Yes Mr. Suleyman b. Nasser b. Detention arbitrary,
Abdullah al-Alouane. categories I, II and III.
23/2008 Syrian Arab Yes Mr. Nezar Rastanawi. Detention arbitrary,
Republic categories I, II and III.
24/2008 Syrian Arab Yes Dr. Mohamad Kamal Detention arbitrary,
Republic al-Labouani. categories II and III.
25/2008 Mexico Yes Mr. Olivier Acufia Barba. Case filed (paragraph 17(a) of
the Working Group's methods
of work - person released).
26/2008 Myanmar No Messrs. H. Kun Htun Oo; Detention arbitrary,
Sai Nyunt Lwin; Hso Ten; categories II and III.
Nyi Nyi Moe; Sai Myo
Win Htun; Htun Nyo and
Sai Hla Aung.
27/2007 Egypt Yes Messrs. Mohamed Khirat Saad Detention arbitrary,
Al-Shatar; Hassan Ezzudine categories I and III.
Malek; Ahmed AshrafMohamed Messrs. Khaled Abdelkader
Mostafa Abdul Warith; Ahmad Owda; Ahmad Ahmad
Mahmoud Shousha; Ayman Abd Nahhas; Ahmed Azzedin
El-Ghani Hassanin; Esam Abdul El-Ghoul; Amir Mohamed
Mohsen Afifi; Essam Abdul Bassam Al-Naggar;
Halim Hashish; Farid Aly Galbt; Gamal Mahmoud Shaaban;
Fathy Mohamed Baghdady; Yasser Mohamed Ali;
Mamdouh Ahmed Al-Husseini; Mahmoud Abdul Latif Abdul
Medhat Ahmad El-Haddad; Gawad; Mahmoud Morsi
Mohamed Ali Bishr; Koura; Mohamed Mahmoud
Mostafa Salem; Murad Salah Hafez; Mohamed Mehany
El-Desouky; Khaled Abdelkader Hassan; Mohammed Ali
Owda; Ahmad Ahmad Nahhas; Baligh; and Osama Abdul
Ahmed Azzedin El-Ghoul; Muhsin Shirby: Cases filed
Amir Mohamed Bassam (paragraph 17(a) of the
Al-Naggar; Gamal Mahmoud Working Group's methods of
Shaaban; Yasser Mohamed Ali; work - persons released).
Mahmoud Abdul LatifAbdul
Gawad; Mahmoud Morsi Koura;
Mohamed Mahmoud Hafez;
Mohamed Mehany Hassan;
Mohammed A u Baligh; and
Osama Abdul Muhsin Shirby.
28/2008 Syrian Arab Yes Messrs. Ahmed ‘Omar ‘Einein, Detention arbitrary,
Republic Khaled Hammaami, category III.
Khaled Jema', ‘Abd al-'Aal,
Mustafa Qashesha,
Muhammad Asa'd,
Ahmed Huraania, Hussein Jema
Othmaan, Samer Abu al-Kheir,
Abd al-Ma'ti Kilani,
Muhammad' Ali Huraania,
muhammad ‘Ezz al-Din Dhiyab
and Muhammad Kilani.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 8
Opinion
No.
Country
Government's
reply
Person(s) concerned
Opinion
29/2008 China Yes Mr. Alimujiang Yimiti Detention arbitrary,
(aka Alimjan Yimit). categories II and III.
30/2008 Sri Lanka Yes Mr. Gunasundaram Detention arbitrary,
Jayasundaram. categories II and III.
3 1/2008 Saudi Arabia Yes Mr. Abdel Rahman Marwan Detention arbitrary,
Ahmad Samara. categories I and III.
32/2008 Malaysia Yes Mr. Mat Sah Bin Mohammad Detention arbitrary,
Satray. categories I and III.
33/2008 Algeria Yes Mr. Mohammed Rahmouni. Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III.
34/2008 Islamic Republic No Mahvash Sabet; Detention arbitrary,
of Iran Fariba Kamalabadi; category II.
Jam aluddin Khanj ani;
AfifNaeimi; Saeid Rezaie;
Behrouz Tavakkoli and
Vahid Tizfahm.
35/2008 Egypt Yes Mr. Abdul Kareem Nabil Detention arbitrary,
Suliman Amer. category II.
36/2008 Saudi Arabia Yes Dr. Said b. Mubarek b. Zair. Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III.
37/2008 Saudi Arabia No Mr. Matrouk b. Hais b. Khalif Detention arbitrary,
al-Faleh. categories I, II and III.
38/2008 Sudan No Messrs. Ishag Al Sanosi Juma; Detention arbitrary,
Abdulhai Omer Mohamed category III.
Al Kalifa; Al Taieb Abdelaziz
Ishag; Mustafa Adam Mohamed
Suleiman; Mohammed
Abdelnabi Adam; Saber Zakaria
Hasan; Hasan Adam Fadel;
Adam ibrahim Al Haj; Jamal
Al Deen Issa Al Haj; and
Abdulmajeed Au Abdulmajeed.
39/2008 Islamic Republic No Messrs. Aziz Pourhamzeh, Detention arbitrary,
of Iran Kamran Aghdasi, categories II and III.
Fathollah Khatbj avan,
Pouriya Habibi, Simm Mokhtary,
Sima Rahmanian Laghaie,
Mina Hamran, Simm Gorji,
Mohammad Isamel Forouzan,
Mehrab Hamed, A u Ahmadi,
Houshang Mohammadabadi,
Mehraban Farmanbardar and
Vaheed Zamani Anari.
40/2008 Yemen No Mr. Abdeladhim Ali Abdeljalil Detention arbitrary,
Al-Hattar. categories I and III.
A/HRC/1O/21
page 9
Opinion
No.
Country
Government's
reply
Person(s) concerned
Opinion
41/2008 Indonesia Yes Messrs. Johan Teterisa; Detention arbitrary,
Ruben Saiya; Romanus Basteran; categories II and III.
Daniel Malwauw; Fredi Akihary;
Abraham Saiya; Jefta Saiya;
Alexander Tanate;
Yusup Sapakoli; Josias Sinay;
Agustinus Abraham Apono;
Piter Patiasina;
Stevanus Tahapary;
Jihordan Saiya; Daniel Akchary;
Baree Manuputty;
Izaak Saimima; Erw Samual
Lesnusa; Renol Ngarbinan;
Soni Bonseran; Ferdinan Waas;
Samual Hendrik;
Apner Litam ahaputty;
Philip Malwauw;
Alex Malwauw;
Marlon Pattiwael;
Thon Saranamual;
Yacob Supusepa; Jhonatan Riri;
Petrus Rahayaan; Elias Sinay;
Piter Latumahina;
Johanes Apono;
Domingus Salamena and
Deni de Fretes.
42/2008 Egypt Yes The source has specifically Detention arbitrary,
requested that the names not be categories II and III.
published; the Government was
fully informed about their
identities.
43/2008 Myanmar Yes Messrs. Mm Zayar (Aung Myin), Detention arbitrary,
Kyaw Mm Yu (Ko Jimmy), categories II and III.
Mm Ko Naing (Paw Oo Tun)
and Pyone Cho (Mtay Win
Aung).
44/2008 Myanmar No Mr. U Olm Than. Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III.
45/2008 India Yes Messrs. Manzoor Ahmad Waza, Detention arbitrary,
Nisar Ahmad Wani, Sh. Farooq categories II and III.
Ahmad Kana, Mohammed
Yousuf Mir, Mehraj -ud-Din
Khanday, Nazir A I im ad Dar,
Mohammed Younis Bhat,
Umar Jan, Reyaz Ahmad Tech
and Abdul Qadeer.
46/2008 Myanmar No Aung San Suu Kyi. Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 10
3. Government reactions to Opinions
8. lii a letter dated 11 April 2008, the Permanent Representative of the United States of
America to the United Nations Office at Geneva noted that his Government was deeply troubled
by several of the assertions in the Working Group's Opinion No. 43/2006 (United States of
America) concerning Mr. Ali Salem Kahlah Al-Marri. The Permanent Representative stated that
the United States is in a legal state of armed conflict with Al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their
affiliates and supporters. Al-Qaida leaders explicitly declared war against the United States, and
its members attacked United States embassies, military vessels and military headquarters, its
financial centre and capital city, killing more than 3,000 people in the process. The Taliban
allowed Al-Qaida to use Afghanistan as an area from which to plot attacks and train in the use of
weapons. The Security Council explicitly recognized the right of the United States to act in
self-defence in response to these armed attacks. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Security Treaty between Australia,
New Zealand and the United States of America (ANZUS) all invoked the collective self-defence
provisions of their respective treaties. Contrary to the Working Group's assertion, anyone who
takes up arms against another State is by definition an “enemy combatant” subject to detention
under international humanitarian law.
9. The Working Group takes note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of the
United States of America. However, it wishes to reiterate that it has consistently not supported
this position. 2
10. The Permanent Representative further pointed out that the use of material witness warrants
is a long-standing practice authorized by statute and dating back to 1789. Every material witness
has the right to challenge, in court, before a judicial officer, his or her confinement as a material
witness. An attorney will be appointed if the material witness cannot afford to pay for a lawyer.
Lastly, the Permanent Representative reported that Mr. Al-Marri's case is pending litigation at a
three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
4. Information received concerning previous Opinions
11. lii connection with Opinion No. 3 8/2005 (China), the source reported that Mr. Hu Shigen
was released on 26 August 2008. He had been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for carrying
out counter-revolutionary propaganda and organizing a counter-revolutionary group.
12. The source reported that Messrs. Moustapha Talal Mesto and Ayman Noureddine Tarabay
were released on 27 August 2008. Their detention had been considered arbitrary by the Working
Group in its Opinion No. 37/2007 (Lebanon).
5. Request for review of Opinions
13. By letter dated 29 February 2008, the Government of Lebanon requested a revision, in
accordance with paragraph 21 of the Working Group's methods of work, of Opinion
2 See, for example, E/CN.4/2006/120, paras. 19 et seq.
A/HRC/10/21
page 11
No. 37/2007 (Lebanon) (AIHRC/10/21/Add. 1, p. 79). After having carefully examined the
contents of this letter, the Working Group decided, at its fifty-second session, not to grant the
request. It considered that the letter neither contained entirely new facts on which the requests
were based and such as to have caused the Working Group to alter its decision had it been aware
of them (paragraph 21(a) of the methods of work), nor that facts had not been known or had not
been accessible to the Government (paragraph 21(b) of the methods of work). The Working
Group also wishes to highlight that, contrary to the statement of the Government of Lebanon in
this letter that it would have appreciated if the Working Group had brought to its attention the
information received from the source and upon which it based its Opinion No. 37/2007, the
Working Group had indeed transmitted this information to the Government and received its reply
as is reflected in the Opinion.
6. Follow-up on Opinions
14. The Working Group has, since 1992, been seized with innumerable allegations in relation
to the practice of arbitrary detention resorted to by the Government of Myanmar. The Working
Group has, on five occasions, 3 pronounced itself on the consecutive and renewed detentions that
have affected Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The Working Group is also aware
of other cases of arbitrary detention which violate the human conscience, such as the case of the
activist U Ohn Than forming the basis of Opinion No. 44/2008 (Myanmar). He also had spent a
large part of his life in prison for calls for democracy for his country, and was sentenced to life
imprisonment in 2008 for a peaceful and solitary demonstration in his homeland.
15. These Opinions were adopted in light of the lack of cooperation by the government
authorities with the Working Group, and with the Human Rights Council. The Working Group,
therefore, requests the Council to take these circumstances into account.
7. Communications giving rise to urgent appeals
16. During the period 1 December 2007 to 30 November 2008, the Working Group
transmitted 130 urgent appeals to 44 Governments concerning 1,256 individuals (603 men,
57 women, 4 boys, 3 girls and 589 unidentified persons). In conformity with paragraphs 22 to 24
of its methods of work (E/CN.4/1998/44, annex I), the Working Group, without prejudging
whether the detention was arbitrary, drew the attention of each of the Governments concerned to
the specific case as reported, and appealed to them to take the necessary measures to ensure that
the detained persons' right to life and to physical integrity were respected. When the appeal
made reference to the critical state of health of certain persons or to particular circumstances,
such as failure to execute a court order for release, the Working Group requested the
Government concerned to take all necessary measures to have the persons concerned released. In
accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/2, the Working Group integrated into its
methods of work the prescriptions of the Code of Conduct relating to urgent appeals and has
since applied them.
Opinion Nos. 8/1992 (E/CN.4/1993/24, p. 43), 2/2002 (E/CN.4/2003/8/Add. 1, p. 50),
9/2004 (E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 47), 2/2007 (AIHRC/7/4/Add.1, p. 56) and 46/2008.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 12
17. During the period under review, 130 urgent appeals were transmitted by the Working
Group. They are set out in table 2 below.
Table 2
Urgent appeals transmitted to Governments by the Working Group
Government concerned
Number of urgent
appeals
Persons concerned
Persons released 7
infonnation received
from
Algeria 1 1 man
Annenia 1 3 men
Azerbaijan 1 2 men
Bahrain 3 92 men
Belarus 1 iman
Belgium 1 1 man, 1 woman, 1 boy
Bulgaria 1 1 man
Burundi 1 iman
Cambodia 1 1 man
Cameroon 1 2 men
Chad 1 iman
China 18 18 men, 10 women, 1 man, 1 woman
570 unidentified persons (Source)
Colombia 1 13 men, 1 woman
Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 1 man
Denmark 1 iman
Egypt 3 18 men
Equatorial Guinea 1 1 woman 1 woman (Source)
Eritrea 1 2men
Fiji 1 12 women
India 2 2men
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 19 36 men, 21 women, 8 men, 7 women
3 girls, 2 boys and (Source)
19 unidentified persons
Kazakhstan 2 1 man, 2 women
Kyrgyzstan 1 1 woman
Lao People's Democratic Republic 1 3 men
Malaysia 2 7 men
Mexico 3 8 men 1 man (Source)
Mongolia 2 1 man, 1 woman
Morocco 3 10 men, 1 woman
Myamnar 7 9 men
Nigeria 2 4 men, 2 women
Peru 1 iman
Russian Federation 3 3 men
Saudi Arabia 4 12 men 1 man (Source)
Sri Lanka 2 6 men, 1 woman 3 men (Source)
Sudan 4 251 men 9 men (Source)
Sweden 1 1 man 1 man (Source)
Syrian Arab Republic 12 17 men, 2 women, 1 boy 1 man (Source)
Thailand 1 1 man
Tunisia 3 6 men 2 men (Source)
Turkmenistan 2 2 men
Uzbekistan 4 6 men
Venezuela 1 1 man
Yemen 3 48 men, 1 woman 1 (Source)
Zimbabwe 5 8 men 3 men (Source)
A/HRC/10/21
page 13
18. Sources reported that 40 persons had been released. The Working Group wishes to thank
those Governments that heeded its appeals and took steps to provide it with information on the
situation of the persons concerned, especially the Governments that released those persons. In
other cases, the Working Group was assured that the detainees concerned would receive fair trial
guarantees.
B. Future activities
19. The Working Group is aware of, and commends, the joint initiative on secret places of
detention launched by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment and by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights while countering terrorism, which aims at studying and analysing the reality, as
well as the objectives and implications, of secret places of detention on human rights. This
thematic subject is of great importance, as the human rights of persons arrested, detained or
imprisoned can only be enjoyed if the person is held in a public place. Access to legal counsel, to
family, to ajudge or other judicial authority, to education, to health and medical attention, and
the right to denounce torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading practices, would be rendered
impossible in secret or otherwise clandestine prisons. Therefore, the Working Group offers its
full cooperation to this initiative.
C. Country missions
1. Request for visits
20. The Working Group has been invited to visit Malta, Senegal and the United States of
America. The visit to Malta has been scheduled to take place in January 2009.
21. During its fifty-first session, the Working Group held meetings with representatives of the
Governments of Senegal and the United States to discuss possible dates for visits. The Working
Group has also asked to visit Sierra Leone, a country which, in spite of having extended an open
formal invitation to all the thematic mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, has not yet
replied to the Working Group's request. It has also made requests to visit Afghanistan, Algeria,
Argentina (a follow-up visit), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia,
Guinea-Bissau, India, Japan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua
(a follow-up visit to Bluefields), Papua New Guinea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Sierra Leone, Thailand, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
2. Follow-up to country visits of the Working Group
22. In accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group decided in 1998 to address a
follow-up letter to the Governments of the countries it visited, requesting information on such
initiatives as the authorities might have taken to give effect to the relevant recommendations
adopted by the Group contained in the reports on its country visits (E/CN.4/1999/63, para. 36).
23. In 2008, the Working Group received replies to communications sent in 2007 and 2008
from the Governments of Belarus (E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3), Canada (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2),
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 14
China (E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4), Ecuador and Turkey (AIHRC/4/40/Add.2 and 5, respectively).
No replies have been received from the Governments of Honduras (A/HRC/4/40/Add.4) or
Nicaragua (A/HRC/4/40/Add. 3).
Belarus
24. The Government of Belarus submitted information concerning the recommendations made
by the Working Group on the outcome of its visit, carried out from 16 to 24 August 2004. With
regard to the recommendation concerning taking all appropriate measures to guarantee the
effective independence of judges and lawyers, the Government reported that a new Code on the
Judicial System and the Status of Judges had been adopted on 13 January 2007. The Code has set
forth all the fundamental principles necessary for safeguarding judicial independence. Judges
may not be transferred to another position or court without their personal consent and are
inviolable during their term of office. They may not be held to account for any opinion they
express during the administration of justice or for the decisions they hand down. The Bar Act
establishes that the bar is an independent legal entity which assures genuine professional
self-government and enables lawyers to combine their efforts to establish and strengthen the rule
of law. No court may refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to represent the interests of a
person who applies for legal assistance. The activities of the National Bar Association, the
provincial bar associations, the Minsk City Bar Association and the specialized Belarusian bar
association “Belinyurkollegia” are governed by statutes adopted by the associations' higher
authorities.
25. In relation to the recommendation concerning reconsidering the legal framework relating
to pretrial detention, the Government reported that the procuratorial body must decide whether to
initiate proceedings within 12 hours of the actual arrest. If no decision is taken, the detained
person must be released. On the expiry of a 72-hour period, an appropriate preventive measure
must be imposed or the detained person must be released from custody. Article 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure sets out the guarantees allowing persons who are detained to have the
legality of their detention, remand or house arrest, reviewed by a court.
26. The Government reported that, between 2004 and 2007, the Penal Correction Department
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs implemented a raft of measures to reduce the number of
persons being held in remand centres and prisons and to provide detainees with the living space
required under health standards. The aggregate number of persons being held in remand centres
and prison remand wings is currently within the set limit. The Supreme Court and the
Procurator-General of Belarus are informed by the Penal Correction Department of instances in
which cassation courts have exceeded the legally established time limits for the consideration of
criminal cases and cases in which courts have extended custody after the deadline stipulated in
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Concerning detention of juveniles, the Government reported
that since 2005, work has been under way on the elaboration of a draft juvenile justice policy
with the participation of all interested organizations, including UNICEF.
27. In relation to administrative detention, the Government reported that a Code of
Administrative Procedure and Enforcement was adopted on 20 December 2006, and had been in
force since 1 March 2007. The Code provides an extensive and detailed description of the rights
and duties of the participants in administrative proceedings. Its norms extend, inter alia, to
A/HRC/10/21
page 15
foreign nationals and stateless persons detained for the purposes of identification or enforcement
of a decision to deport them. Lastly, concerning the Working Group's recommendation on
facilitating the participation of civil society in the oversight of prisons and other detention
facilities, the Government reported that, on 15 December 2006, the Ministry of Justice adopted
its decision No. 85 ratifying the Instructions on the Procedures for the Formation of Voluntary
Watchdog Committees.
Canada
28. By note verbale dated 13 November 2008, the Government of Canada informed the
Working Group about the implementation of the recommendations made by the Group following
its 1-15 June 2005 visit to Canada. In relation to the Working Group's recommendation to
reverse the trend to ever-increasing use of pretrial detention and to find innovative alternatives to
the detention on remand of accused without strong roots in the community, the Government
reported that, in January 2008, provincial and territorial Deputy Ministers endorsed the creation
of a Task Force to confirm and/or quantify the nature of adult corrections population as well as
the nature of recent shifts in its composition. The Task Force is expected to make preliminary
recommendations in January 2009 on the growing remand population and on the impact of
federal justice legislation on correctional capacity.
29. The Government pointed out that there were several opportunities for an accused without
strong roots in the community to be released pending trial or sentence. Over the next five years,
the Government will contribute CanS 560 million to provinces and territories for criminal legal
aid and $57 million for immigration and refugee legal aid. In the case of the Northwest
Territories, Yukon and Nunavut, funding for criminal legal aid, court work and public legal
education and information is administered through the Access to Justice Service Agreements. In
connection to the recommendation concerning the elimination of the use of security certificates,
the Government stated that security certificate proceedings should be characterized as
deportation proceedings. There is nothing arbitrary, ipso facto, about detention of an alien based
on the issuance of a security certificate provided for by law. The Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (IRPA) contains extensive procedural and human rights safeguards and is
subjected to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The security certificate process is
intended to deal with those people in Canada who are or have been involved in, for example,
terrorist activity. On 23 February 2008, IRPA was amended, strengthening the ability of the
person detained under a security certificate to know the case against him or her and participate in
the judicial process. This amendment requires the establishment of a security-cleared “special
advocate”, who will have access to the sensitive information against the detainee.
30. Finally, concerning the recommendation related to strengthening policies to address the
overrepresentation of Aboriginals among the prison population, the Government reported on
several law enforcement, justice and correctional services initiatives to reduce offending and
therefore, the overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples in the criminal justice system and among
the prison population. Several programmes are being carried out by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, the Judiciary and the Correctional Service of Canada. A forum on justice
system responses to violence in northern and remote Aboriginal communities took place in 2008
in Ottawa.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 16
China
31. The Government of China reported that, over the past four years, the Legal Committee of
the National People's Council, the People's Supreme Court, the People's Supreme Procuratorate,
the State Council Legislative Affairs Office and the Ministries of Public Security and Justice
have taken full account of the Working Group's recommendations made after its visit to China
in 2004, in the course of the legislative and judicial reform process under way in China.
Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure have been included in the legislative
programme of the tenth session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, in
order to prevent the extortion of confessions by torture; to strengthen arrangements to protect the
legal rights of litigants; to ensure better reflection of the policy of tempering severity injustice
with leniency; to ensure fair trials and to raise the standard of legal proceedings and to strengthen
protection of the rights ofjuvenile criminal suspects and defendants.
32. The Government reported that, on 28 August 2005, the Maintenance of Public Security
(Penalties) Act was enacted by the Standing Committee of the People's National Congress and
passed into law on 1 March 2006. The Act ensures that the degree of severity of administrative
detention is more appropriately determined, sets out more stringent procedures, further
standardizes the penalties and provides for more effective oversight. The Act is more strongly
people-oriented, ensuring respect for and protection of human rights, upholding the rights of
citizens to a remedy and attaching due priority to the regulation and oversight of police authority.
The new legislation further restricts the discretionary powers of the public security authorities to
impose administrative detention. In 2006, 1,277 proceedings were instituted challenging
administrative detention orders, of which 910 were granted, 77 dismissed and 28 revised.
33. Concerning the system of re-education through labour, the Government reported that the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress at its tenth session incorporated
legislation on labour re-education, specifically the Unlawful Conduct (Rehabilitation) Act, in the
five-year legislative plan. In addition, Beijing and certain other cities have set up pilot schemes
for the social correction of persons serving terms of labour re-education outside the custodial
facility. Regarding the Working Group's recommendation on mandatory medical treatment, the
Government reported that the relevant departments have completed the basic draft of a mental
health act, which has been included in the 2007 legislative plan. In 2005 the city of Ningbo and
in 2006 the city of Hangzhou promulgated mental health regulations setting out strict
requirements for the administration of mandatory psychiatric treatment. A new Narcotics Control
Act has been drafted, stipulating the conditions triggering compulsory treatment for drug
addiction and the protection of the rights and interests of those undergoing the treatment.
Ecuador
34. The Government of Ecuador submitted to the Working Group a complete report on the
implementation of the recommendations made by the Working Group after its February 2006
visit to the country. Provisions contained in Act No. 2003-10 1, which established “detencion en
firme” (mandatory preventive detention), were declared contrary to the Constitution by the
A/HRC/10/21
page 17
Constitutional Court on 23 October 2006. On 26 June 2007, the Government declared the
national prison system in a state of emergency. Necessary funding had also been provided to the
Judiciary, which had allowed the creation of 20 new penal courts, 11 new chambers at high
courts of appeal and 40 new specialized courts for minors.
35. The Government further reported that by Executive Decree No. 441 of 26 June 2007, a
criminal defence unit had been established in the new Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to
improve free access to public defenders. Around USS 7 million had been allocated to the new
unit. The overloading in pretrial detention centres and social rehabilitation centres had
diminished in 37 per cent. Nine legal firms in Guayaquil and five in Quito, with 183 lawyers,
had been recruited as public defenders. They are currently providing free legal services to
7,386 detainees. Ecuador is also promoting a flexible mechanism to provide pardons for
prisoners who are terminally ill or those who are serving unfair prison sanctions.
Turkey
36. In relation to the recommendations by the Working Group after its visit to Turkey
from 9 to 20 October 2006 (see AIHRC/4/40/Add.5 and AIHRC/4/G/8), the Government
reported on 9 October 2008 that the Ministry of Health was in the process of considering the
views expressed in section B (subsection 2 and 3) of the Working Group's report with a view to
formulating possible solutions and policies. The Ministry of Health has also been analysing the
Working Group's Deliberation No. 7 (E/CN.4/2005/6) on psychiatric detention pointed out in the
recommendations. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice is considering the issue of psychiatric
hospitalization pending a judicial intervention.
37. The Government further reported that article 252/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which
establishes the maximum duration of remand detention in cases of terrorist crimes, will enter into
force on 31 December 2010. Necessary measures will be taken to ensure its correct interpretation
and implementation in practice, in line with the recommendations of the Working Group. In
relation to its recommendation concerning the amendment of the definition of terrorism with a
view to limiting its scope, the Government reported that Law No. 5532 amended in 2006
article 1 of the Anti-Terror Law, repealing its second and third paragraphs. The anti-terror
legislations are under constant review, owing to the scourge of terrorism with which Turkey is
faced.
38. Concerning recommendations regarding the juvenile system, the Government reported that
the law enforcement agencies have been restructured in order to set up new child units, child
bureaux and departments which will deal with all proceedings concerning the child, including
those in need of protection, without parental care, seeking asylum, drawn into offences,
‘ According to the system of “detencion en firme”, judges were obliged to maintain in detention
a suspect without taking into consideration whether the time limit for pretrial detention had
elapsed. Thousands of persons were thus detained for longer periods than the Constitution
allows.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 18
homeless, etc. The Gendarmerie has also set up special child centres including special child
protection experts in order to deal with the proceedings against juvenile offenders within its
jurisdiction. Finally, concerning foreigners who do not have the financial means or necessary
documents in order to leave the country, the Government reported that they are accommodated in
special guest houses until their return and that the Government of Turkey will bear the travel
costs if they cannot be afforded by the foreigner, his relatives or the relevant consulate or
embassy.
3. Future country missions
39. The Working Group has been informed by the Secretariat that, when extending the
Group's mandate, the Human Rights Council provided for two country visits per year, each visit
not to exceed eight working days. Three visits of the Working Group have already been accepted
for 2009 and it conducted three visits in 2004, two in 2005, four in 2006, three in 2007 and four
in 2008. In order to be able to verify the implementation of its recommendations, the Working
Group should also be in a position to undertake follow-up visits.
40. The Working Group considers follow-up visits as an essential element of its mandate, the
only means to assess and monitor in situ the situation of personal liberty in various countries.
Furthermore, the Working Group believes that it should conduct further country visits, as they
are of great importance to victims of arbitrary detention. The usefulness of most of the
forthcoming visits of the Working Group might be hampered by a limitation to 10 calendar days.
The abolishment of a number of country mandates further adds to the necessity of answering
calls from the victims of human rights violations by the thematic mandates.
41. The Working Group calls on the Human Rights Council to take into account the fact that
the Working Group comprises five members. In order to best make use of its potential and
enable it to discharge its mandate more effectively, the Working Group would request the
Human Rights Council to provide it with additional funds to be able to conduct at least five
country visits per year and its relevant follow-up visits within an appropriate time frame.
III. THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
A. Rights of persons deprived of their liberty
42. It is estimated that many of the 9 million people who are currently imprisoned worldwide
suffer from violations of their human rights. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights establishes that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”, but reality looks
different in some parts of the world.
43. Since its establishment, the Working Group, entrusted with the investigation of instances
of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily, has visited prisons and detention centres during
30 country missions, where it has conducted interviews with detained and imprisoned persons. It
A/HRC/10/21
page 19
has reported systematically on some of their plight in its previous annual reports whenever the
particular rights issue fell within the ambit of its mandate, or has taken issues up immediately
with government authorities during country missions.
44. Its experience permits the Working Group to present before the Human Rights Council its
conclusions with a view to cooperate with States more efficiently in the protection of this
vulnerable group of people. The Working Group has certainly visited prisons and detention
centres which can be described as exemplary. However, even in these centres, the Working
Group has at times perceived difficulties in guaranteeing all rights to detained and imprisoned
people.
45. Although article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that “no one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”, the truth is that an important number of
persons deprived of their liberty are frequently unable to benefit from legal resources and
guarantees that they are entitled to for the conduct of their defence as required by law in any
judicial system and by applicable international human rights instruments.
46. The main element that defines deprivation of liberty is the inability of those who are in
detention to defend and protect themselves, as their daily life is largely dependent on the
decisions taken by the staff at the detention facilities. Additionally, and although legal safeguards
to prevent arbitrary detention from occurring have been adopted by the majority of countries,
many persons deprived of their liberty have no access to such substantive, procedural and
institutional guarantees. Most of them do not have the economic means to afford expensive and
complex legal procedures, especially when legal aid systems are absent or dysfunctional.
Moreover, the transmission of communications from detention centres may face obstacles and in
some cases means of communication are inexistent.
47. In such an environment, persons deprived of their liberty not only have difficulties in
verifying the lawfulness of their detention, but also find themselves subjected to a lack of an
effective control of their other rights. They are at risk of suffering abuse of authority,
humiliation, ill-treatment and other utterly unacceptable deprivations of rights, practices
which all run counter to the essential objective of social reintegration set out in paragraphs 65
and 66 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, approved by the
Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII)
of 13 May 1977, and principles 6, 8 and 10 of the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners
adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990.
48. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not the only mechanism aware of the social
reality in detention centres. Rather, other thematic special procedures, such as the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
For example, in AIHRC/7/4, paras. 55 et seq. (Groups in detention which are susceptible to
sexual abuse), AIHRC/4/40, paras. 59 et seq. (Overview of penitentiary systems and the
conditions of detainees), or E/CN.4/2005/6, paras. 68 et seq. (The negative impact on the right to
defence of inadequate conditions of detention).
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 20
and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, or the Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, frequently visit prisons and
other detention centres. However, and although a duplication of visits occasionally occurs, at
present there appears to be no special procedures mandate that could address the full range of
human rights enjoyed by detainees, and especially their right to rehabilitation, which can
potentially be violated while in detention. Certainly, there is no special procedure of the Human
Rights Council whose mandate provides for a global and comprehensive approach to the
protection of all human rights of all persons deprived of their liberty. In fact, a paradox emerges:
while important international standards such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners provide norms and standards
on the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, no mechanism which monitors the compliance
of these standards exists.
49. Therefore, and due to the Working Group's serious concern regarding the protection of this
vulnerable group, the Working Group has decided to formally propose to the Human Rights
Council an expansion of its mandate, to include the monitoring of State compliance with their
obligations concerning all human rights of detained and imprisoned persons. The mandates of
the Special Rapporteur on prisons and conditions of detention in Africa of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights as well as of the Rapporteurship on the rights of
persons deprived of liberty of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights might provide
some guidance as to the scope of such an extended mandate.
B. Detentions in the framework of measures countering terrorism
50. The Working Group already expressed, in previous reports, some concerns related to the
continuing tendency of using deprivation of liberty in the context of States' legitimate fight
against terrorism.
51. However, as the number of allegations concerning this aspect of the problem is
skyrocketing and it is expected that this tendency will regrettably remain in future, the Working
Group considers it justified to reiterate some key elements from the previous reports on the issue
under examination and incorporate them in the present report.
52. The Working Group considers it necessary to reiterate that some States continue to use
deprivation of liberty without charges or trial or other applicable procedural guarantees against
persons accused of terrorist acts in the context of the implementation of criminal policies against
terrorism, a practice which is contrary to international human rights instruments. The Working
Group has noticed such practices in numerous cases presented before it in recent years, as well as
from information received, notably from non-governmental organizations working in the field.
53. Therefore, for the time being and notwithstanding further additions, the Working Group
considers it advisable to set up a list of principles in conformity with articles 9 and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which may be used in relation to deprivation of liberty of persons
accused of acts of terrorism.
A/HRC/1O/21
page 21
54. The principles are the following:
(a) Terrorist activities carried out by individuals shall be considered as punishable
criminal offences, which shall be sanctioned by applying current and relevant penal and criminal
procedure laws according to the different legal systems;
(b) Resort to administrative detention against suspects of such criminal activities is
inadmissible;
(c) The detention of persons who are suspected of terrorist activities shall be
accompanied by concrete charges;
(d) The persons detained under charges of terrorist acts shall be immediately informed of
them, and shall be brought before a competent judicial authority, as soon as possible, and no later
than within a reasonable time period;
(e) The persons detained under charges of terrorist activities shall enjoy the effective
right to habeas corpus following their detention;
(f) The exercise of the right to habeas corpus does not impede on the obligation of the
law enforcement authority responsible for the decision for detention or maintaining the
detention, to present the detained person before a competent and independent judicial authority
within a reasonable time period. Such person shall be brought before a competent and
independent judicial authority, which then evaluates the accusations, the basis of the deprivation
of liberty, and the continuation of the judicial process;
(g) In the development ofjudgements against them, the persons accused of having
engaged in terrorist activities shall have a right to enjoy the necessary guarantees of a fair trial,
access to legal counsel and representation, as well as the ability to present exculpatory evidence
and arguments under the same conditions as the prosecution, all of which should take place in an
adversarial process;
(h) The persons convicted by a court of having carried out terrorist activities shall have
the right to appeal against their sentences.
55. The Working Group acknowledges the significant progress made in the promotion and
protection of human rights in the counter-terrorism context; however, there remains a fragmented
approach by international bodies to this issue. The Working Group therefore proposes that the
Human Rights Council consider organizing a special forum, to deliberate and work on common
positions necessary to guarantee the respect for the right to be free from arbitrary detention in the
counter-terrorism context. This special forum should give special consideration to the methods
and framework applied by States, particularly in perceived emergency situations, and will call
for the participation of representatives of all relevant special procedures and treaty bodies.
C. Arbitrary detention and corruption
56. The Working Group has observed, during the various visits conducted, the devastating
effects caused by corruption on the effective fulfilment of human rights, including the right to be
free from arbitrary detention.
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 22
57. As referred to in previous reports, the Working Group could observe throughout the years
that there has been a notable increase in the number of States that have ratified international
human rights instruments. These States consequently have introduced in their constitutions and
national legislation provisions to guarantee the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for persons
deprived of their liberty.
58. Nevertheless, in spite of the increase in formal recognition of human rights instruments,
implementation of these instruments has not yet reached the desirable level.
59. The Working Group has identified, as one main cause for this discrepancy between theory
and practice, the issue of corruption, which it observed to continue to exist among some officials
in the police, the judicial, legislative and other State institutions.
60. When police officers, prison administration staff, judicial civil servants, judges, public
prosecutors and lawyers approach individuals deprived of their liberty varyingly, depending on
whether or not bribes or other irregular payments or favours have been received, then the whole
system of guarantees becomes devoid of any content, empty and meaningless; it renders
defenceless all those who cannot or refuse to pay the amounts that are asked from them and in
turn further reduces the credibility of the entire system of administration ofjustice.
61. The Working Group shares the opinion of those who believe in the necessity of linking the
fight against corruption with the enjoyment of human rights. The United Nations Convention
against Corruption, adopted by General Assembly resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003 and which
entered into force on 14 December 2005, reflects in its preamble, inter alia, the concerns of State
parties about “the seriousness of problems and threats posed by corruption to the stability and
security of societies, undermining the institutions and values of democracy, ethical values and
justice and jeopardizing sustainable development and the rule of law”.
62. From the viewpoint of the mandate of the Working Group, it is considered that corruption
can have an enormous consequence on any legal system in that corruption prevents such legal
systems from being effective instruments for its eradication.
63. if there is a legal system perceived to be generally corrupt, it is essential to analyse in the
first place the underlying root causes facilitating corrupt conduct. They are, without a doubt,
usually manifold and concurrent. However, the Working Group considers it important, among
other things, to highlight the following: the absence of a system of information for citizens with
respect to their rights and a lack of awareness resulting from it; the lack of transparency in
judicial proceedings due to their obscurity and complexity; and the absence of effective
instruments to investigate into and redress allegations of corruption which can be approached
anonymously.
64. With a view to the United Nations Convention against Corruption recently entered into
force, which establishes a comprehensive set of extraordinarily ample measures for the
prevention and prosecution of corrupt practices, the Working Group calls on States affected by
this phenomenon to study these measures and seek the implementation of those measures most
A/HRC/1O/21
page 23
suitable and adequate for them, in order to eradicate corruption from its system of administration
ofjustice. The Working Group calls on those States which have not yet become a party to this
Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.
D. Detention of immigrants in irregular situations
65. The Working Group has noted with concern, during the period reported upon, a
development yet again towards tightening restrictions, including deprivation of liberty, applied to
asylum-seekers, refugees and immigrants in an irregular situation even to the extent of making
the irregular entry into a State a criminal offence or qualifying the irregular stay in the country as
an aggravating circumstance for any criminal offence.
66. The Working Group has also publicly expressed, together with other mandate holders of
special procedures, its concern regarding a law-making initiative of a regional organization
comprising mainly receiving countries which would allow concerned States to detain immigrants
who are in an irregular situation for a period of time of up to 18 months, pending removal. It
would also be permitted to detain unaccompanied children, victims of human trafficking, and
other vulnerable groups.
67. It was felt that States should be reminded that detention shall be the last resort and
permissible only for the shortest period of time and that alternatives to detention should be
sought whenever possible. Grounds for detention must be clearly and exhaustively defined and
the legality of detention must be open for challenge before a court and regular review within
fixed time limits. Established time limits for judicial review must even stand in “emergency
situations” when an exceptionally large number of undocumented immigrants enter the territory
of a State. Provisions should always be made to render detention unlawful if the obstacle for
identifying immigrants in an irregular situation or carrying out removal from the territory does
not lie within their sphere, for example, when the consular representation of the country of origin
does not cooperate or legal considerations - such as the principle of non-refoulement barring
removal if there is a risk of torture or arbitrary detention in the country of destination - or factual
obstacles - such as the unavailability of means of transportation - render expulsion impossible.
68. In conclusion, the Working Group feels duty bound to reiterate that immigrants in irregular
situations should not be qualified or treated as criminals and be viewed only from the perspective
of national security.
E. Video and audio recording of criminal interrogations
69. The Working Group is aware of a seemingly recent tendency of various international and
regional human rights bodies recommending to Governments the installation of video and/or
audio (recording) equipment in rooms where interrogations related to criminal investigations are
undertaken. Such recommendations vary with respect to their scope. At times it is advised that
such equipment be installed in police stations only. In other instances it is proposed to extend the
measure to investigators' or prosecutors' offices, or all rooms where law enforcement authorities
have relevant competencies. Such recommendations are made to Governments of States
regarding which there are concerns about confessions obtained under torture or other forms of
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 24
ill-treatment. The purpose of such recommendations is to effectively prevent instances of
coerced confessions from occurring and to ensure that they will not be admitted as evidence in
courts during criminal trials.
70. Such measures have far-reaching implications, for example, with respect to the right to
privacy of the suspect, to the possibility of abuses when used during confidential meetings
between defence counsel and clients, or to costs in relation to effectiveness, also with a view to
different designs such measures may take. The Working Group feels that the issue warrants
further study and calls upon Governments and other stakeholders to provide the Working Group
with relevant information and share experiences made.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
71. The Working Group, in the fulfilment of its mandate, welcomes the cooperation it has
received from States, with regard to the responses by the Governments concerned
concerning cases brought to their attention. During 2008, the Working Group
adopted 46 Opinions concerning 183 persons in 22 countries.
72. The Working Group welcomes the invitations extended to it as well as the
cooperation on the part of Governments. The Working Group conducted four official visits
in 2008, to Colombia, Italy, Mauritania and Ukraine. Among all the requested country
visits, the Working Group has received invitations by the Governments of Malta, Senegal
and the United States of America. The Working Group reiterates its belief that its country
visits are essential in fulfilling its mandate. For Governments, these visits provide an
excellent opportunity to show developments and progress in detainees' rights and the
respect for human rights, including the crucial right not to be arbitrarily deprived of
liberty. Further to this, the Working Group considers that future visits and follow-up visits
are of utmost importance.
73. The Working Group considers the question of detention in the context of
counter-terrorism. As such, the Working Group considers it necessary to reiterate the
prominent concern that, in the counter-terrorism context, some States continue to use
deprivation of liberty without charges or trial or other applicable procedural guarantees
against persons accused of terrorist acts; a practice the Group considers as contrary to
international human rights instruments. Specifically, the Working Group considers that
detained persons suspected of terrorist activities and/or acts shall be immediately informed
of such charges in line with relevant national legislation; they shall be brought before a
competent judicial authority; and they shall enjoy the effective right to habeas corpus. The
Working Group deems it appropriate to put forward a list of principles in conformity with
articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which may be used in the context of
measures countering terrorism.
74. The Working Group considers that, among other factors, corruption is detrimental to
the rule of law and on the effective fulfilment of human rights, including the right to be free
from arbitrary detention.
A/HRC/10/21
page 25
75. The Working Group feels bound to reiterate that detention shall be the last resort
and permissible only for the shortest period of time, and that alternatives to detention shall
be sought whenever possible, all of which particularly concern the deprivation of liberty
applied to asylum-seekers, refugees and irregular migrants. Furthermore, the Working
Group feels that immigrants in irregular situations should not be qualified or treated as
criminals and viewed only from the perspective of national security.
76. Finally, the Working Group considers it most useful to reiterate its concern over the
deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily, and that a still important number of persons are
frequently unable to benefit from legal resources and guarantees to which they are entitled
for the conduct of their defence by law and by applicable human rights instruments.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
77. The Working Group requests the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution or
decision to provide additional funds for the Working Group to enable it to conduct at least
five country visits per year and relevant follow-up visits. This would put the Working
Group in a position to best use its potential as a group of five members and to discharge its
mandate more effectively.
78. The Working Group proposes to the Human Rights Council to expand the mandate
of the Working Group so as to include the monitoring of State compliance with their
obligations concerning all human rights of detained and imprisoned persons. The mandates
of the Special Rapporteur on prisons and conditions of detention in Africa of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights as well as of the Rapporteurship on the rights
of persons deprived of liberty of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights might
provide some guidance as to the scope of such extended mandate.
79. The Working Group proposes that the Human Rights Council consider organizing a
special forum, to deliberate and work on common positions necessary to guarantee the
respect for the right to be free from arbitrary detention in the counter-terrorism context.
This special forum should give special consideration to the methods and framework
applied by States, particularly in perceived emergency situations and wifi call for the
participation of representatives of all relevant special procedures and treaty bodies.
80. The Working Group recommends to States to take duly into account the principles
contained in the present report with respect to deprivation of liberty in the context of
measures countering terrorism and review their legislation and practice in the light of these
principles.
81. The Working Group calls on those States which have not yet become a party to the
United Nations Convention against Corruption to ratify, accept, approve or accede to it. It
further calls on all States to study the set of measures contained in this Convention for the
prevention and prosecution of corrupt practices and to seek the implementation of those
measures most suitable and adequate for their efforts in combating arbitrary detention.
82. With regard to detention of immigrants in an irregular situation the Working Group
reminds States that detention should be the last resort, and is permissible only for the
AIHRC/1 0/21
page 26
shortest period of time. Alternatives to detention must be sought whenever possible.
Grounds for detention must be clearly and exhaustively defmed and the legality of
detention must be open for challenge before a court and regular review within fixed time
limits. Provisions should always be made to render detention unlawful if the obstacle for
identifying immigrants in an irregular situation or carrying out removal from the territory
does not lie within their sphere, for example, when the consular representation of the
country of origin does not cooperate or legal considerations - such as the principle of
non-refoulement barring removal if there is a risk of torture or arbitrary detention in the
country of destination - or factual obstacles, such as the unavailability of means of
transportation - render expulsion impossible.
83. Finally, the Working Group requests States and other stakeholders to provide the
Group with information and share their experiences regarding the installation of video
and/or audio (recording) equipment in rooms where interrogations related to criminal
investigations are conducted. The Working Group has taken note of a seemingly recent
tendency of international and regional human rights bodies recommending to States the
implementation of such measures to prevent the extraction of confessions under torture or
other forms of ill-treatment and their admission as evidence in criminal trials. It considers
that the issue warrants further study.
