A/HRC/42/39/Add.1 8. Deprivation of liberty due to debt 62. During its visit, the Working Group met with numerous detainees in police stations in so-called civil cases, involving individuals who were unable to repay their loans. The Working Group had voiced its concern about that practice in its conclusions issued after its follow-up visit in 1996. In such cases, after a judgment confirming the debt, the debtor is required to repay the amount owing. If the court order is not complied with, the courts normally issue a summons to comply. Such summons are issued repeatedly, but if not complied with, an arrest warrant on the basis of contempt of court is issued and the police arrest the debtor. The debtor is brought to a police station where he or she is detained until the debt is repaid. The time such individuals spend in detention ranges from a few days up to several years, with the maximum term that the Working Group came across being three years. The time spent in police detention was significantly longer in Thimphu and Paro than in other locations. While in Thimphu and Paro it was usual to find individuals spending more than a year in police detention in civil cases, the detention time for such matters in other locations was measured in days and weeks. In fact, some police stations engaged directly with the courts by, for example, producing a weekly report indicating the number of persons held in civil cases in the police station along with the length of time they had spent there. In the view of the officers, that assisted in reducing the time spent in detention. The Working Group commends those initiatives. 63. In general, those held in police stations in civil cases were subjected to the same regime and rations as those detained on suspicion of having committed a crime, and at times they were also kept together, which the Working Group considers to be unacceptable and incompatible with international human rights law. 64. Moreover, such individuals had no possibility to work during their detention so as to enable them to repay their debt and, in the vast majority of cases, debts were reportedly subject to interest, which accrued during the detention. Consequently, individuals detained in civil cases were caught in a vicious cycle, as they were deprived of their liberty and unable to work, which in turn meant that they were unable to earn a wage so that they could repay the debt. Most of the individuals in such situations had no real understanding of when they might be released as their only prospect for freedom rested on family members raising the requisite sum of money. The Working Group observed the profound impact that such detention had not only on the individuals but also on their families, who experienced relationship breakdown due to the pressures brought about by the de facto indefinite detention. The Working Group regrets that its observations are similar to those it made following its 1994 visit and the follow-up visit in 1996. At the conclusion of both the 1994 and 1996 visits, the Working Group recommended that such individuals should be released. 65. International human rights law prohibits deprivation of liberty due to debt. That prohibition is non-derogable and in fact constitutes part of customary international law. Indeed, as the Working Group has expressed previously, detention due to inability to pay back a debt is in itself arbitrary deprivation of liberty (E/CN.4/2002/77, para. 60 (a)).4 It is also arbitrary as it discriminates against individuals on the basis of their economic condition. 66. The Working Group urges the Government to cease the practice immediately and resort to alternative measures of debt recovery through, for example, the deduction of debt payments from salaries and flexible repayment schedules. 9. Detention of guarantors 67. According to section 100 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code, when a person has agreed to assume personal liability in acting as a guarantor, he or she is responsible for the performance of any decree or order. The Working Group was informed that detainees in certain criminal matters and persons detained in civil cases must provide a guarantor as a condition of release. For example, a guarantor is required before a detainee can be transferred to an open-air prison or to a drug rehabilitation centre. In some cases, detainees have not been 4 12 See also opinions No. 31/2001 and No. 38/2013; and Revised Fact Sheet No. 26 (www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/FactSheet26.pdf).