1 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the eight to one majority ruling of the House of Lords on the appeal of 11 detainees held at the high-security Belmarsh prison dubbed the “British Guantanamo”. A(FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), paragraph 74 of judgment of 16 December 2004. BBC News “Terror detainees win Lords appeal”; available at <http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4100> (last visited 17 January 2005). Glenn Frankel “British anti-terror law reined in”, Washington Post, 16 December 2004. In the same sense, Lord Leonard Hoffmann commented: “there are no adequate grounds for abolishing or suspending the right not to be imprisoned without trial, which all inhabitants of this country have enjoyed for more than three centuries”, cited in Amnesty International Press Release of 16 December 2004.

2 Article 15, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See also Article 4, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed…”

3 Ibid.

4 de Zayas, A. “La dérogation et le Comité des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies” in Prémont, Daniel et al. (eds.), Droits Intangibles et Etats d'Exception, Bruylant, Brussels, 1996, pp. 213–234Google Scholar.

5 In its General Comment No. 8 concerning Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee noted “that paragraph 1 is applicable to all deprivations of liberty, whether in criminal cases or in other cases such as, for example, mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, educational purposes, immigration control, etc.”; in “International human rights instruments: Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty bodies”, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (2004), p. 130, para. 1.

6 UNTS, Vol. 999, p. 171, 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976; 154 States Parties as of January 2005.

7 de Zayas, Alfred “The examination of individual complaints by the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, in Alfredsson, G. et al. (eds), International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms, Martinus Nijhof Publishers, The Hague, 2001, pp. 67–121Google Scholar. Also de Zayas, A., “Desarrollo jurisprudencial del Comité de Derechos Humanos”, in Piernas, Carlos Jiménez (ed.), Initiatión a la Práctica en Derecho International Marcial Pons, Madrid, 2003, pp. 215–277Google Scholar. See in particular case No.305/1988 (Van Alphen v. The Netherlands) UN Doc. A/45/40, Vol. 2, Annex IX, Sect. M, para. 5.8: “The drafting history of Article 9, paragraph 1, confirms that ‘arbitrariness’ is not to be equated with ‘against the law’, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of predictability. This means that remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances.” Nowak, Manfred, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Commentary, N.P. Engel, Kehl, Strasbourg, 1993, pp. 172 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 General Comment, No. 8, op. cit. (note 5), p. 131, para. 4.

9 Ibid. See also Bolaños v. Ecuador, case No. 238/1987, where the Committee found a violation of Article 9, paragraph 3, because Mr Bolaños was held in pre-trial detention for over five years. UN Doc. A/44/40, Annex X, Sec. I, para. 8.3.

10 See also General Comment No. 31, in “International human rights instruments: Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty bodies”, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (2004), p. 195, “The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States party to the Covenant”, adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 11. The International Court of Justice, too, has observed “that the protection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not cease in times of war, except by operation of Article 4 of the Covenant, whereby certain provisions may be derogated from in a time of national emergency”; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Reports, p. 226, para. 25Google Scholar.

11 de Zayas, Alfred, “The status of Guantánamo Bay and the status of the detainees”, 37 UBC Law Review, Vol. 37, 2004, pp. 288 ffGoogle Scholar.

12 An American citizen Ahmed Abu Ali is being detained in Saudi Arabia and reportedly tortured. US District Judge John Bates wrote in an opinion on the case that Mr. Abu Ali's lawyers “have not only alleged, but have presented some unrebutted evidence that [his] detention is at the behest and ongoing direction of United States officials.” “Saudi subcontractors”, Washington Post, 20 December 2004, page A22.

13 General Comment No. 8, op. cit. (note 5), General Comment No. 31, op. cit. (note 10), para. 10.

14 General Comment No. 15 on “The position of aliens under the Covenant”, adopted at the Committee's twenty-seventh session in 1986, in “International human rights instruments: Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty bodies”, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.7 (2004), pp. 140 ff.

15 In connection with the Belmarsh prison case, a report was published on 13 October 2004, prepared by 11 consultant psychiatrists and one consultant clinical psychologist concerning the serious damage to the health of eight of the detainees.

16 General Comment No. 29, “Derogation during a state of emergency”, in “International human rights instruments: Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty bodies”, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.7 (2004), pp. 184 ff.

17 Section 412 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (H.R. 3162, “USA PATRIOT ACT”) permits indefinite detention – also of immigrants and other non-citizens, with no requirement that those being detained indefinitely be removable as terrorists. See online archives of the American Civil Liberties Union. <http://archive.aclu.org/congress/1102301e.html> (last visited 17 January 2005).

18 UNTS, Vol. 660, p. 195, 21 December 1984, entered into force on 26 June 1987.

19 Neil A. Lewis, “Red Cross criticises indefinite detention in Guantánamo Bay”, New York Times, 10 October 2003, page 1. “Red Cross blasts Guantánamo” BBC News, 10 October 2003. The senior Red Cross official in Washington D.C. Christophe Girod, stated that it was intolerable that the complex was used as “an investigation centre, not a detention centre (…). The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the health of the population has become a major problem.”

20 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, UNTS, Vol. 75, p. 135, entered into force on 21 October 1950.

21 Pictet, Jean S. (ed.), Commentary: III Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1960, pp. 540 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Strebel, Helmut, “Martens Clause”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Vol. 3, 1997, p. 326Google Scholar.

23 Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Judgment IT-96–21-T, 16 November 1998, para. 271.

24 Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights/Convention curopéenne des Droits de l'homme, Collected Texts/Recueil de textes, Strasbourg, 1981Google Scholar.

25 OASTS, No. 36, UNTS, Vol. 1144, p. 123, of 22 November 1969, entered into force on 18 July 1978.

26 Adopted at Nairobi on 26 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986.

27 Human Rights Watch, “Malaysia's Internal Security Act and suppression of political dissent”, available at: <http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/malaysia-bck-0513.htm> (last visited 17 January 2005).

28 Malaysia, Internal Security Laws, Malaysian Law Publishers, Kuala Lumpur, 1982, p. 52 ffGoogle Scholar.

29 House of Lords, A(FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), Opinion of 16 December 2004, para. 231.

30 66 F.R. 57833(2001).

31 Alfred de Zayas, op. cit. (note 11), pp. 277–341. See e.g. Coalition of the Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2nd 1036 (CD. Cal. 2002).

32 Steyn, Lord Johan, “Guantánamo Bay: The legal black hole”,27th F. A. Mann Lecture to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 53 ICLQ 1–15 (2004)Google Scholar.

33 “U.S. to free 140 Guantánamo war detainees” Reuters, 30 November 2003; “Transfer of juvenile detainees completed” (concerning the release to their home countries of three juvenile detainees who had been detained in Guantánamo for two years), Department of Defence News Release No. 057–04, 29 January 2004; “Delight at release of Guantanamo men”, BBC News, 11 March 2004 (it is interesting to note that all Guantánamo detainees released to the United Kingdom were freed without charge by British authorities shortly after their arrival and interrogation); Alan Cowell, “4 Britons and an American to be freed at Guantánamo”, New York Times, 12 January 2005.

34 BBC News, 6 August 2004, <http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/world/americas/3541126.stm> (last visited 17 January 2005).

35 Al Odah et al v. United States (No. 03–343) 2004, Rasul v. Bush (No. 03–334) 2004. <http://127.0.0.1:8080/%2E%2E%2Flegal%2F41541db54%2Epdf> (last visited 17 January 2005).

36 BBC News, Nick Childs, BBC Pentagon Correspondent “US may hold cleared detainees”, 25 February 2004, <http://news.bbc.co.Uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/Americas/3487958.stm> (last visited 17 January 2005).

37 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Case No. 03–6696, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4761 at 51.

38 Markon, Jerry, “Hamdi returned to Saudi Arabia: U.S. Citizen's detention as enemy combatant sparked fierce debate”, Washington Post, 12 October 2004, p. A02Google Scholar.

39 Robert A. Levy, “Jose Padilla: No charges and no trial, just jail”, Cato Institute, 21 August 2003, <http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/08–21–03.html> (last visited 17 January 2005).

40 Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, Volume I, p. 42. UN Doc.CCPR/C/OP/1, New York, 1985.

41 Ibid., p. 49 para. 16. See also case No. 43/1979 Drescher v. Uruguay, Selected Decisions, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, Volume 2, pp. 80 ff., para. 14; case No. 84/1981, Dermit v. Uruguay, pp. 112 ff., para. 10; No. 107/1981, Almeida de Quinteros v. Uruguay, pp. 138 ff.; No. 139/1981 Conteris v. Uruguay, pp. 168 ff., para. 10.

42 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 44, para. 10.

43 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 91, para. 13.

44 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 104, para. 20.

45 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 107, paras. 9.2 and 15.

46 Swarns, Rachel L., “Illegal aliens can be held indefinitely, Ashcroft says”, New York Times, 26 April 2003Google Scholar

47 Benítez v. Rozos, No. 03–7434, and Clark v. Martínez, No. 03–8978, were argued before the Supreme Court on 13 October 2004. See Mailman, Stanley and Yale-Loehr, Stephen, New York Law Journal, 25 October 2004Google Scholar. See also Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman and Stephen yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure §62.01 (rev. ed. 2004); Henderson, Stephen, “Justices question indefinite detention of Cubans due deportation”, The Advocate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 14 October 2004, p. 10Google Scholar; Lash, Steve, “Court mulls Cubans' indefinite detention”, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 14 October 2004, p. 2Google Scholar. See also Amicus Brief of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Centre and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Mr Benítez: <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=16647> (last visited 17 January 2005).

48 Some 125,000 Cubans came to the United States in 1980 when Fidel Castro allowed them to leave. About 1,000 of them came into conflict with US law enforcement, served their sentences and have been! languishing in immigration custody pending deportation.

49 533 U.S. 678 (2001) at 701.

50 Ibid., at 699.

51 543 U.S. (2005).

52 See <http://www.twmlaw.com/resources/defalien.html> (last visited 17 January 2005). See also “Supreme Court agrees to consider immigrant detention case”, 16 January 2004, available at <http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/16/scotus.immigrants.ap/> (last visited 17 January 2005).

53 Case No 560/1993, Views adopted on 3 April 1997, UN Doc. A/52/40, Vol. II, Annex VI Sec. L.

54 Case No. 900/1999, C. v. Australia, Views adopted 28 October 2002. UN Doc. A/58/40, Vol., II, Annex VI R.

55 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights, including Questions of: Torture and Detention, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN4/2000/4, (1999) Annex 2. In its Deliberation No 5, the Working Group proposes a number of principles concerning the detention of asylum-seekers, including Principle 7, which requires that detention should be for a denned period “set by law” and “may in no case be unlimited or of excessive length”: Annex 2, p. 30.

56 Woolley (Manager of the Baxter Immigration Detention Centre); Ex parte, Applicants M276/2003 by their Next Friend GS, paras. 114–116.

57 On 29 October 2003 the Human Rights Committee adopted Views on communication No. 1069/2002, submitted by Mr Ali Acsar Bakhtiyari and Mrs Roquahia Bakhtiyari, UN Doc. A/59/40, Vol. II, Annex IX DD, para. 9.3.

58 C. v. Australia, op. cit. (note 54). UN Doc. A/58/40, op. cit. (note 54), para. 8.4.

59 UN Doc. A/58/40, Vol. II, Annex VI CC, para. 6.6.

60 A. v. Australia, Case No 560/1993, Views adopted on 3 April 1997, UN Doc. A/52/40, Annex VI Sec. L.

61 Ibid., para. 7.2.

62 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN ESC HCHROR, 59th Session, UN. Doc. E/CN.4/2003/8.

63 The impasse results from the fact that the United States wants to deport Mr Benítez and some 1,000 other “Marielitos” back to Cuba, but Cuba refuses to accept them. Thus, they remain in indefinite detention in the United States. As the lawyer of Mr Benitez, John Mills of Jacksonville, Florida, noted, they “face the very real possibility of spending the rest of their lives incarcerated, not because of any crimes they may have committed, but because their countries will not take them back.” See <http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=15151&c=261> (last visited 17 January 2005).

64 BBC News, 11 March 2004, <http://news.bbc.co.Uk/go/pr/fr/-/l/hi/uk/3500156.stm> (last visited 17 January 2005).

65 UN Doc. A/58/40, Vol. II, Annex VI R, para. 10.

66 UN Doc. A/59/40, Vol. II, Annex IX DD, para. 11.

67 UN Doc. A/58/40, Vol. I, para. 225. UN Doc A/59/40, Vol. 1, para. 230.

68 See text accompanying note 56 above.

69 Le Monde, 4 January 2005, concerning two ex-Guantánamo detainees, Mourad Benchellali and Nizar Sassi. The judge in Lyon had refused to take jurisdiction arguing that “aucune convention internationale ne donne compétence aux juridictions françaises pour connaître la situation dont les parties civiles se plaignent, laquelle est le résultat, sous l'égide des Nations Unies, de ripostes à des actes terroristes et qui ne saurait dès lors être régie par le seul droit français.”

70 Ibid. The lawyer of the two ex-Guantánamo detainees, Maître William Bourdon, commented: “C'est une décision de principe très importante parce que la Cour de cassation refuse l'idée que, s'agissant de la lutte contre le terrorisme, la fin justifie les moyens et que le droit international humanitaire et le droit français s'effacent devant les résolutions de l'ONU (…). Cela ouvre la voie à des poursuites pénales.”

71 Lord Leonard Hoffmann in the judgment of 16 December 2004, op. cit. (note 1), para. 97.x