A/HRC/27/47 punishment, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. 10. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court and to a remedy follow from the combined reading of articles 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law” and “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. A comprehensive articulation of that right is found in article 9, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “anyone who is deprived of his 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 his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful”. Where persons deprived of liberty are not able to exercise this right, such as in cases of suspected enforced disappearance, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in article 17, paragraph 2 (f), obligates State parties to “guarantee that … any persons with a legitimate interest, such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representatives or their counsel, shall, in all circumstances, be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and order the person’s release if such deprivation of liberty is not lawful”. 11. Principles 4, 11 and 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment make a significant contribution. Principle 4 states that “any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority”. In respect to the prescribed mechanism for such proceedings, principle 11 states: “1. A person shall not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority. A detained person shall have the right to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed by law. 2. […] 3. A judicial or other authority shall be empowered to review as appropriate the continuance of detention.” The accessibility of such proceedings is set out in principle 32: “1. A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful. 2. The proceedings … shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained persons without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.” 12. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Human Rights Committee have delivered extensive guidance on the scope and content of this right. The Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances have highlighted the importance of the procedural guarantee in their general comments, public statements, and country visit or annual reports. 13. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has consistently maintained that the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court is a self-standing human right, the absence of which constitutes a human rights violation per se (A/HRC/19/57, para. 61). The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention is frequently denied in circumstances where a detainee has never been formally charged or brought before a judge, has been held incommunicado or in solitary confinement, or has been denied an effective possibility or remedy to challenge his or her detention (Working Group opinions 33/2012 and 38/2012). The obstacles observed by the Working Group in mounting such a challenge include the 5