A/HRC/27/47 II. International legal framework 6. Although article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”, persons deprived of their liberty are frequently unable to benefit from legal resources and guarantees that they are entitled to for the conduct of their defence as required by law in any judicial system and by applicable international human rights instruments (A/HRC/10/21, para. 45). A defining element of the deprivation of liberty is the inability of those who are in detention to defend and protect themselves, as their daily life is largely dependent on the decisions taken by the staff at the detention facilities (ibid., para. 46). In such an environment, persons deprived of their liberty not only have difficulties in verifying the lawfulness of their detention, but also find themselves subjected to a lack of an effective control of their other rights (ibid., para. 47). Nonetheless, the right to bring such proceedings before court is well enshrined in treaty law and customary international law and constitutes jus cogens, as observed by the Working Group in its deliberation No. 9 (2013) concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law (A/HRC/22/44). A. Uniform adoption of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court 7. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention is set out in a number of the core international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (of 1951) and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (of 1967), the International Convention on the Protection the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 8. In addition, there are several non-binding international human rights instruments including the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), and the Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention. They provide valuable guidance in interpreting and implementing the requirements of the core human rights treaties and customary international law and are often relied upon by special procedures and treaty bodies in their work. 9. Other international human rights mechanisms than the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have clarified the scope and content of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court. Treaty bodies, in particular the Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have all addressed this right in their concluding observations, individual communications or general comments. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has addressed the right in its country visit reports, annual reports and statements. Observations on the exercise of the right have also featured in the annual, country visit or joint reports of several special procedures mandate holders, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 4