A/HRC/19/57 The necessary step to be taken to remedy the situation when the detention falls within one of the categories applicable to the cases submitted to the Working Group is typically the immediate release of the detained person, and the Working Group in such cases states this explicitly. Such remedy follows from the generally recognized principle of restitution ad integrum, requiring the immediate restoration of the physical liberty of the arbitrarily detained person. It is also reflected in article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, which requires that a court must be empowered to order the release of an unlawfully detained person. For such remedy to be effective, as required by article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, detaining States are under an obligation to release the arbitrarily detained (foreign) detainee into their own territory, even if they wish to deport the (foreign) detainee, but where deportation of the detainee otherwise liable for removal to the country of origin or to a third country accepting the detainee is not promptly possible. This could occur if a removal would violate the principle of non-refoulement or if it is not possible for any other legal or factual reasons. Otherwise, the international human rights obligation for immediate restoration of the liberty of the arbitrarily detained person would be undermined. 71. When the Working Group finds in its Opinions that the detention of the concerned individual exclusively falls within category III as gravely violating the right to fair trial, the appropriate remedy might take forms different to that of the immediate release of the arbitrarily detained person. An example could be that of affording the detainee a retrial that meets all fair trial guarantees as contained in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, given the gravity of the violation of fair trial guarantees, which is a condition for the Working Group to declare the detention to be arbitrary, immediate release would typically be the appropriate remedy here. Considering the time that the individual concerned has already spent in pretrial detention, conditional release, release on bail or other forms of release pending trial would typically be required. 72. In its reports and Opinions, the Working Group encourages States that have not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so. When it wishes to restate or develop its jurisprudence on a matter of importance or on a point of law, or call on States to amend their national legislation or to change their practices so as to bring them into conformity with its international human rights obligations, it may, render an Opinion even though the person has been released. In any given case, the Working Group may remind States of their obligation under article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant to provide compensation to a released person. IV. Conclusions 73. The Working Group welcomes the cooperation it has received from States with regard to cases that it has considered. During 2011, the Working Group adopted 68 Opinions concerning 105 persons in 31 countries. 74. The Working Group welcomes the invitations extended to it as well as the cooperation on the part of the respective Governments. The Working Group conducted two official visits in 2011, to Georgia and Germany. Among all the requested country visits, the Working Group has received invitations from the Governments of Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, India, Japan, Spain, the former Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America. The Working Group reiterates its belief that its country visits are essential in fulfilling its mandate. For Governments, these visits provide an excellent opportunity to show developments and progress in detainees’ rights and the respect for human rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty. 23