A/HRC/30/36 country or refer to the constitutional norms preventing arbitrary detention from occurring, without making direct references to the specific allegations transmitted. 71. In its deliberation No. 9 concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law (see A/HRC/22/44, sect. III), the Working Group restated its constant jurisprudence on the prohibition of all forms of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and demonstrated that it is general practice accepted as law, constituting customary international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens). 72. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty applies without territorial limitations, and to the duties of States where they have effective control and for acts by their agents abroad. International law does not accept Act of State limitations on human rights obligations. In the interactive dialogue at the twenty-second session of the Human Rights Council, States gave general support for the conclusions in the deliberation. 73. In its resolution 20/16, the Human Rights Council encouraged all States to respect and promote the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty by arrest or detention to bring proceedings before court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his or her detention and order his or her release if the detention was not lawful, in accordance with their international obligations. In a separate report (A/HRC/30/37), the Working Group is submitting to the Human Rights Council the draft basic principles and guidelines on remedies and procedures relating to that right, adopted by the Working Group at its seventy-second session. 74. In the light of communications received and findings resulting from country visits, the Working Group notes with concern the increasing instances of arbitrary detention as a consequence of drug control laws and policies. Compulsory detention regimes for the purposes of drug “rehabilitation” through confinement or forced labour are contrary to scientific evidence and inherently arbitrary. 75. Criminal laws and penal measures pursued under the existing punitive system of international drug control raise important questions of legality, proportionality, necessity and appropriateness. 76. The Working Group has received relevant information and communications on an increase of detentions in the context of peaceful protests. It intends to consider this matter as a topic in its work for the year 2017. 77. States are under a positive obligation to provide an effective remedy for violations of international human rights law. In most cases, the individual has a right to compensation. That right constitutes a general principle of international law. 78. The international law obligation to provide remedies is fulfilled primarily through domestic law. Domestic courts have a particular role in granting tort remedies, and domestic law cannot erect barriers that would limit the effectiveness of international law. V. Recommendations 79. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommends that States: (a) Enforce and protect the right to liberty of every person under customary international law; 21