Search the Immigration Detention Standards Navigator

Migrant workers and members of their families who are deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of their detention and order their release if the detention is not lawful. When they attend such proceedings, they shall have the assistance, if necessary without cost to them, of an interpreter, if they cannot understand or speak the language used.

Migrant workers and members of their families shall have the right to equality with nationals of the State concerned before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against them or of their rights and obligations in a suit of law, they shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.

Non-nationals, including immigrants regardless of their status, asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons, in any situation of deprivation of liberty, shall be guaranteed access to a court of law empowered to order immediate release or able to vary the conditions of release.

Recognizing that everyone has the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty, everyone is guaranteed the right to take proceedings before a court in order that that court may decide on the arbitrariness or lawfulness of the detention, and to obtain without delay appropriate and accessible remedies.

Procedures shall allow anyone to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the arbitrariness and lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and to obtain without delay appropriate and accessible remedies, including the detainee, his or her legal representative, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee.

The court should guarantee the physical presence of the detainee before it, especially for the first hearing of the challenge to the arbitrariness and lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and every time that the person deprived of liberty requests to appear physically before the court.

Irrespective of the body responsible for their detention order, administrative or other, such non-nationals shall be guaranteed access to a court of law empowered to order immediate release or able to vary the conditions of release. They shall promptly be brought before a judicial authority before which they should have access to automatic, regular periodic reviews of their detention to ensure that it remains necessary, proportional, lawful and non-arbitrary. This does not exclude their right to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness or arbitrariness of their detention.

Given that circumstances can change and lead to the possibility that a previous legal justification for a detention is no longer applicable, detainees should have the right to challenge their detention periodically.

The initiation of the challenge multiple times does not relieve authorities of the obligation to ensure the regular, periodic judicial or other review of the necessity and proportionality of continuing detention, nor exclude the possibility of periodic review by the court proprio motu.

A wider group of individuals with a legitimate interest in the case may bring proceedings before a court, including family members, caregivers or legal guardian of the detainee, State authorities independent of the detaining authority, the ombudsman or national human rights institution, non-governmental organizations, the employer or co-workers.

When proceedings are initiated by a person other than the detainee, the court shall make every effort to discover the detained person’s will and preferences, and accommodate and support the detained person in participating effectively on his or her own behalf.

An informal, cost-free and simplified process to bring such proceedings before a court shall be ensured.

To ensure the effectiveness and fairness of proceedings and to strengthen the protection of detainees from other violations, such as torture or other ill-treatment, a court should guarantee the physical presence of the detainee before it, in particular for the first hearing of the challenge to the arbitrariness and lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and every time that the person deprived of liberty requests to appear physically before the court. This shall be ensured through implementation of the following measures:

(a) Any person deprived of his or her liberty, and not only persons charged with a criminal offence, shall enjoy the right to appear promptly before a court in order to challenge the deprivation of liberty and the conditions of detention, including acts of torture and ill treatment;

(b) The court shall ensure that the detainee may communicate with the judge without the presence of any official involved in his or her deprivation of liberty;

(c) State authorities having control over the detainee who fail in their obligation to produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the court, on demand of that person or by court order, should be sanctioned as a matter of criminal and administrative law.

All individuals who find themselves in the territory or subject to the State’s jurisdiction shall be guaranteed effective and free access to the courts of law. This includes the right:

(c) To contact, and be contacted by, any interested parties that might be able to address their needs and to provide them with relevant information or legal assistance, including providing facilities to meet with such persons. This is particularly important where migrant detention facilities are located in remote locations far from population centres. In such situations, mobile courts and video conferencing may be used to gain accessibility to a court of law but do not preclude the right of a detained person to appear in person before a judge.

We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality, and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

(e) Ensure that all migrants in detention are informed about the reasons for their detention, in a language they understand, and facilitate the exercise of their rights, including to communicate with the respective consular or diplomatic missions without delay, legal representatives and family members, in accordance with international law and due process guarantees.

We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality, and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

(f) Reduce the negative and potentially lasting effects of detention on migrants by guaranteeing due process and proportionality, that it is for the shortest period of time, that it safeguards physical and mental integrity, and that, at a minimum, access to food, basic health care, legal orientation and assistance, information and communication as well as adequate accommodation is granted, in accordance with international human rights law.

Reaffirming that all individuals who have crossed or are seeking to cross international borders are entitled to due process in the assessment of their legal status, entry and stay, we will consider reviewing policies that criminalize cross border movements. We will also pursue alternatives to detention while these assessments are under way. Furthermore, recognizing that detention for the purposes of determining migration status is seldom, if ever, in the best interest of the child, we will use it only as a measure of last resort, in the least restrictive setting, for the shortest possible period of time, under conditions that respect their human rights and in a manner that takes into account, as a primary consideration, the best interest of the child, and we will work towards the ending of this practice.

Paragraph 4 of article 9 entitles anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the detention and order release if the detention is not lawful. It enshrines the principle of habeas corpus. Review of the factual basis of the detention may, in appropriate circumstances, be limited to review of the reasonableness of a prior determination.

The right applies to all detention by official action or pursuant to official authorization, including detention in connection with criminal proceedings, military detention, security detention, counter-terrorism detention, involuntary hospitalization, immigration detention, detention for extradition and wholly groundless arrests. It also applies to detention for vagrancy or drug addiction, detention for educational purposes of children in conflict with the law and other forms of administrative detention. Detention within the meaning of paragraph 4 also includes house arrest and solitary confinement. When a prisoner is serving the minimum duration of a prison sentence as decided by a court of law after a conviction, either as a sentence for a fixed period of time or as the fixed portion of a potentially longer sentence, paragraph 4 does not require subsequent review of the detention.

The object of the right is release (either unconditional or conditional) from ongoing unlawful detention; compensation for unlawful detention that has already ended is addressed in paragraph 5. Paragraph 4 requires that the reviewing court must have the power to order release from the unlawful detention. When a judicial order of release under paragraph 4 becomes operative (exécutoire), it must be complied with immediately, and continued detention would be arbitrary in violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

The right to bring proceedings applies in principle from the moment of arrest and any substantial waiting period before a detainee can bring a first challenge to detention is impermissible. In general, the detainee has the right to appear in person before the court, especially where such presence would serve the inquiry into the lawfulness of detention or where questions regarding ill-treatment of the detainee arise. The court must have the power to order the detainee brought before it, regardless of whether the detainee has asked to appear.

Unlawful detention includes detention that was lawful at its inception but has become unlawful because the individual has completed serving a sentence of imprisonment or the circumstances that justify the detention have changed. After a court has held that the circumstances justify the detention, an appropriate period of time may pass, depending on the nature of the relevant circumstances, before the individual is entitled to take proceedings again on similar grounds.

'Unlawful' detention includes both detention that violates domestic law and detention that is incompatible with the requirements of article 9, paragraph 1, or with any other relevant provision of the Covenant. While domestic legal systems may establish differing methods for ensuring court review of detention, paragraph 4 requires that there be a judicial remedy for any detention that is unlawful on one of those grounds. For example, the power of a family court to order release of a child from detention that is not in the child’s best interests may satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 in relevant cases.

Paragraph 4 entitles the individual to take proceedings before 'a court,' which should ordinarily be a court within the judiciary. Exceptionally, for some forms of detention, legislation may provide for proceedings before a specialized tribunal, which must be established by law and must either be independent of the executive and legislative branches or enjoy judicial independence in deciding legal matters in proceedings that are judicial in nature.

Paragraph 4 leaves the option of taking proceedings to the persons being detained or those acting on their behalf; unlike paragraph 3, it does not require automatic initiation of review by the authorities detaining an individual. Laws that exclude a particular category of detainees from the review required by paragraph 4 violate the Covenant. Practices that render such review effectively unavailable to an individual, including incommunicado detention, also amount to a violation. To facilitate effective review, detainees should be afforded prompt and regular access to counsel. Detainees should be informed, in a language they understand, of their right to take proceedings for a decision on the lawfulness of their detention.

Persons deprived of liberty are entitled not merely to take proceedings, but to receive a decision, and without delay. The refusal by a competent court to take a decision on a petition for the release of a detained person violates paragraph 4. The adjudication of the case should take place as expeditiously as possible. Delays attributable to the petitioner do not count as judicial delay.

The Covenant does not require that a court decision upholding the lawfulness of detention be subject to appeal. If a State party does provide for appeal or further instances, the delay may reflect the changing nature of the proceeding and in any event must not be excessive.