A/HRC/27/47 framework being in full conformity with international standards in order to protect against secret detention or disappearance (A/HRC/22/45/Add.2, para. 91). B. Non-derogability of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court 21. In its deliberation No. 9, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty to bring proceedings before court in order to challenge the lawfulness of the detention, are non-derogable, under both treaty law and customary international law (A/HRC/22/44, para. 47). That view is consistent with the conclusions of a number of human rights mechanisms, as illustrated in the following section which deals with nonderogability of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention in the contexts of an armed conflict, states of emergency, and counter-terrorism measures. 1. Non-derogability in armed conflict 22. International human rights law, and the rights related to liberty and security of the person in particular, apply everywhere and at all times, both in peace and in armed conflict, at home and abroad. There is agreement that the norms of international human rights instruments and customary international law protecting individuals against arbitrary detention shall be complied with by Governments in situations of armed conflict (A/HRC/16/47, para. 51).11 International human rights law against arbitrary detention applies in parallel with the rules of international humanitarian law. International human rights law and the law of international armed conflict provide protection for individuals, and are complementary in nature. Neither provides authority for detention, and legality requires that the grounds (and procedure) be established by national law, in compliance with the further requirements of international law. That legal basis must satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness, and be proportionate, predictable and fair. These human rights law channels are not offered by the law of international armed conflict. This is particularly manifest given that human rights instruments set up supervisory organs with jurisdiction to provide adequate remedies to victims of breaches. When the laws of armed conflict were codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the most common type of conflict was international armed conflict between States. Non-international armed conflicts between a State and non-State armed group, or between two or more non-State armed groups, are now the most common form of conflict. The treaty provisions relating to armed conflict that are applicable in such conflicts are minimal, and international human rights law provides important additional protections, as is clarified in the constant jurisprudence of the Working Group. 23. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as one of three instruments binding the States that are Parties to them.12 Article 75, paragraph 4, of Protocol I reproduces most of the fair trial guarantees provided for in international human rights instruments. As noted in ICRC’s commentaries, in each of these treaties there is a clause permitting derogations from the articles in question in times of war.13 Article 75 is not subject to any possibility of derogation or suspension and these provisions will play an important role in armed 11 12 13 8 Also the ICRC commentaries to Protocol II, para. 4429, referring to United Nations General Assembly resolution 2675 (XXV), and resolution 2675 (XXV) as cited in A/HRC/16/47, para. 45. ICRC commentaries to Protocol I, para. 2928. See also A/HRC/16/47, para. 46. Ibid., para. 3092.