A/HRC/19/57 (s) Failure to inform the detainee of his or her rights, especially the right to appoint an attorney and to communicate freely and confidentially with same; the lack of effective remedies for challenging the legality of the detention order or the manner in which the detention is carried out; (t) Failure to inform the detainee of his or her right to free legal assistance if he or she is unable to pay for such assistance; (u) Lack of access to all the evidence on which the detention order was based; (v) Lack of proportion between the act with which the detainee is accused and the extreme measure of deprivation of liberty; (w) lawyers; Denial of the right to receive visits from his or her close family members and (x) The failure to treat the detainee humanely and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human being, subjecting him or her to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (y) The application of measures to the detainee that amount to some form of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, economic position, birth or any other condition; C. (z) Placement of the detainee with convicted prisoners; and (aa) Failure to provide the detainee with the necessary medical care. Cases, compliance and remedies 65. The Working Group has from its inception been concerned with fact-finding and the clarification and development of international law on arbitrary detention. It has developed extensive jurisprudence, in particular in its Opinions on individual cases, but also in its deliberations, legal opinions, country visit reports, urgent appeals and joint reports with other mandates of the special procedures on legality and arbitrariness in human rights treaties and customary international law. 66. The Working Group makes reference to its own jurisprudence and to that of other United Nations human rights bodies. For instance, the communications, general comments and reports of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture are sources of authority on the interpretation of their respective treaties and on available remedies. The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, regional human rights courts and national courts is constantly present in the Working Group’s deliberations even when express reference is not made thereto. The Working Group’s approach reflects a wider practice of cross-fertilization between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies at the national, regional and international level. For instance, the Human Rights Committee, in Yevdokimov and Rezanov v. Russian Federation (communication No. 1410/2005, Views adopted on 20 March 2004), made reference to the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), the International Court of Justice made reference to the jurisprudence developed under the European, African and Inter-American systems for the promotion and protection of human rights. 67. The Working Group welcomes the fact that the findings and recommendations in its reports and Opinions are increasingly made use of by other United Nations human rights bodies and regional human rights courts, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Also, when national courts are 21