A/HRC/45/16/Add.2 Community Law allows the detention of a defendant for vaguely worded crimes involving “State security, honour, decency or public morals”. This sets out a parallel process to that stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and it is unclear why that would be required. The Working Group was informed that, in practice, resorting to the provisions of this law is exceptional, as it is used to calm disturbances between families, so as to avoid further escalation of an argument or to save embarrassment, and is not aimed at circumventing the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, this is not what the Working Group observed in practice. 70. The Working Group came across cases in which an individual would be released from detention by the Public Prosecution, when the criminal proceedings had been discontinued or the defendant had been acquitted by the court, only for him or her to be detained immediately afterwards under the Protection of the Community Law, for the same alleged conduct, in violation of the provisions of article 14 (7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting double jeopardy. 71. The Working Group also noted instances of this law being used by parents who would bring their “unruly” children to be detained, as a form of managing challenging behaviour, in violation of articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 72. The Working Group was also informed of transgender persons being detained “until they changed their behaviour”. Equally, this law was reportedly used as a tool of those with power or resources to detain others for purely personal reasons of revenge. There were even cases of persons with psychosocial disability being detained under the provisions of this law, as the person’s health condition deteriorated and the family struggled to manage the person. 73. The Working Group spoke with numerous detainees held under the provisions of this law, none of whom knew how long they would be detained and none of whom were able to challenge their detention. The Working Group came across instances where such detention had lasted for over a year, clearly longer than the authorities had explained and than the law permitted. The Working Group was informed that the time frame could even be unlimited, as it was possible that such detention would be prescribed “until further notice”. The individuals detained under the provisions of this law did not, for example, have the right to legal assistance, and did not appear before a court or other judicial authority that would independently review the legality or the duration of their detention. They also did not benefit from monitoring visits conducted by the Public Prosecution under article 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 74. Furthermore, although the law provides for the possibility to appeal to the Prime Minister the decision to detain taken by the Minister of Interior, the law does not set out any procedure as to how this might take place in practice. Moreover, such appeal does not satisfy the criteria for an independent review of the legality and proportionality of the decision to detain, enshrined in articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as both the Minister of Interior and the Prime Minister are part of the executive power of the State. At the time of the Working Group’s visit, the same person held both posts. 75. The Working Group therefore concludes that the provisions of this law are, in practice, being used to circumvent the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, to avoid the safeguards that the Criminal Procedure Code puts in place to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. State Security Service Law and Law on Combating Terrorism 76. Article 7 of the State Security Service Law (Law No. 5 of 2003, amended by Law No. 10 of 2008) allows detention for a maximum period of 30 days for vague offences, such as those stipulated under article 2 as “activities which are harmful to the security and stability of the State and its relationships with other countries”, before the person is to be brought before the Public Prosecutor. This period can be extended up to six months. A travel ban on individuals can be imposed as an exception to the process provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code. The law does not provide for any judicial oversight over such detention, and the Working Group was informed that in practice, such detention leads to very long periods of deprivation of liberty, in violation of international human rights norms. 13