A/HRC/45/CRP.9 These practices are contrary to requirements for administrative detention laid out in international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in particular in relation to independent and impartial review, and amounts to a violation of the rights to liberty and a fair trial. 108. International human rights law and international humanitarian law do not prohibit administrative detention for imperative reasons of security. 138 However, this type of deprivation of liberty must remain exceptional and comply with a number of requirements. In particular, it must not be used in contemplation of a criminal charge and prosecution, it must be shown that the threat cannot be addressed by other measures, it must be subject to prompt and regular review by a court or other tribunal possessing the same guarantees of independence and impartiality as the judiciary and the detainee must have access to independent legal advice.139 As an important safeguard to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture and ill-treatment, judicial control of detention constitutes an important component of the protection of human rights in the administration of justice. 109. In territory controlled by both self-proclaimed ‘republics’, administrative detention can be unilaterally ordered by an ‘investigator’ or ‘prosecutor’. It provides for the arrest of individuals for up to 30 days, during which, the detainee does not see a ‘judge’, and ‘courts’ exercise no judicial control over the detention.140 Moreover, OHCHR findings suggest that in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people���s republic, ‘administrative arrest’ was often, sometimes repeatedly, reapplied on new grounds after the expiration of the initial 30 days. OHCHR notes that the lack of independent and impartial review of administrative detention by itself amounts to a violation.141 110. Moreover, according to ‘legislation’ of the self-proclaimed ‘republics’, individuals can be held under administrative detention to verify their involvement in ‘crimes against national security’.142 OHCHR monitoring has found that administrative detention is widely used as a replacement for pre-trial detention in «criminal proceedings». During administrative detention, ‘investigative bodies’ conduct investigations against detainees without formally launching them. They collect evidence and testimony, including from detainees, which eventually are used to indict those detained. International human rights standards prohibit the application of administrative detention to replace pre-trial detention within the criminal justice system, as it is considered a violation of the fair trial rights of detainees.143 111. Information gathered through interviews with victims and their relatives established that those under administrative detention in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’ are held incommunicado. Furthermore, OHCHR found that in most cases, relatives were not provided with information about the detention during the initial period, 138 139 140 141 142 143 24 A/HRC/43/35, paras. 19 and 20. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.35, CCPR/C/GC/35. OHCHR findings suggest that people detained in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’ are rarely informed promptly and in an appropriate manner about the ‘legal’ basis for their detention, namely that they are being placed under administrative detention. In 70 cases, individuals told OHCHR they were forced to sign notes describing the reasons and ‘legal basis’ for their detention without being allowed to read them. According to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, “the use of ‘administrative detention’ under public security legislation [or] migration laws or other related administrative law, resulting in a deprivation of liberty for unlimited time or for very long periods without effective judicial oversight, as a means to detain persons suspected of involvement in terrorism or other crimes, is not compatible with international human rights law.” Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 77. In ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, this includes brigandage, participating in other organised criminal groups or committing grave crimes. Administrative detention would normally amount to arbitrary detention as other effective measures addressing the threat, including the criminal justice system, would be available (HRC General Comment No. 35, para. 15). OHCHR notes that within the framework of criminal justice, bail and pre-trial detention are effective measure addressing risks which might emerge due to the launch of the investigation against an individual.