A/HRC/45/16 6. Faced with numerous violations of the absolute prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty around the world, the Working Group reiterates the obligation of States to provide effective judicial, administrative and other remedies for victims of violations of international human rights law.5 Moreover, in instances where it has been established that an individual has been arbitrarily deprived of liberty, States have an obligation to provide adequate, effective and prompt reparations.6 Such reparations must cover all aspects of the deprivation of liberty by a State, including acts or omissions by its public officers or by individuals acting on its behalf or with its authorization, support or acquiescence in any territory under a State’s jurisdiction or wherever the State exercises effective control.7 7. The Working Group recalls that all victims of arbitrary deprivation of liberty are entitled to an enforceable right before the competent national authority to prompt and adequate reparations.8 Reparations should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered.9 III. Forms of reparations for arbitrary deprivation of liberty 8. States should promote comprehensive reparations, which may include material and symbolic reparations on an individual and collective basis, as well as priority access to services. Given the serious types of harm inflicted on victims of arbitrary detention, a combination of different forms of reparation is necessary. Consultations with victims are important to ensure that their views on the specific nature of reparation are taken into account. 9. Some of the forms of reparations for arbitrary deprivation of liberty are described below. A. Restitution 10. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the violations of international human rights law. 10 In the case of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, restitution must be in its most direct form, which is the restoration of the liberty of the individual, including in the context of health detention policies.11 In addition to releasing the individual, competent authorities should review the reasons for the deprivation of liberty or retry the case.12 Human rights protection bodies request that a final decision be taken as soon as possible in proceedings instituted against a detained person, 13 and that records, including those linking the person subjected to arbitrary deprivation of liberty to the commission of the crime, be eliminated. 14 A person subject to prolonged pretrial detention 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 30 See Universal Declaration on Human Rights, art. 8 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2 (3). See Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, para. 11. See A/HRC/30/37, annex, para. 25. See also opinion Nos. 50/2014, 52/2014 and 70/2019. A/HRC/30/37, para. 92. See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, para. 17. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, para. 15. Ibid., para. 19. See for example opinions Nos. 68/2017, 8/2018 and 70/2018. CCPR/C/158, para. 7. See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Wong Ho Wing v. Peru (2015); European Court of Human Rights, N. v. Romania (Application no. 59152/08); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, cases No. 275/03, Article 19 v. Eritrea and No. 204/97, Mouvement burkinabé des droits de l’homme et des peuples v. Burkina Faso; and Human Rights Committee, Achille Benoit Zogo Andela v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Norín and others v. Chile (2014) and Ruano Torres and others v. El Salvador (2015). See also opinions No. 69/2018, para. 29 and No. 40/2018, para. 53.