A/HRC/30/19 detention. Consequently, failure to fulfil this duty may entail State responsibility, 28 including international responsibility. 29 Except for those lawful limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, State authorities should ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are able to enjoy all human rights. A. Right to liberty and security 9. As stressed by the Human Rights Committee, the right to liberty and security of person applies to everyone, including those convicted of crime. 30 While States enjoy a wide margin of discretion in their choice of penal policy, the right to liberty of person articulated in article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that, as a basic principle, States resort to the deprivation of liberty only insofar as it is necessary to meet a pressing societal need and in a manner proportionate to that need.31 Moreover, any deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary and must be carried out with respect for the rule of law.32 10. One of the fundamental safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty is the right to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of detention, which is a self-standing33 and non-derogable right.34 In order to render this right effective, such principles as impartiality of the court reviewing the detention, assistance by a legal counsel, access to legal aid and authorities bearing the burden of proof must be observed. 35 Yet, numerous human rights bodies have reported serious infringements upon the right to liberty as individuals are detained without any justification,36 those arrested are not promptly brought before a judge,37 and a judicial decision regarding continued detention is not rendered swiftly.38 Moreover, the ability of detainees to challenge their continued detention is frequently hindered owing to a lack of access to legal representation and legal aid and even the unavailability of judges.39 11. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that the principle that deprivation of liberty shall be imposed proportionately to meet a pressing public need is most relevant to detention pending trial. 40 This implies that pretrial detention should be a measure of last 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 See A/HRC/27/55, para. 51; Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Judgement (2005), para. 97; and communication Nos. 105/93–128/94–130/94–152/96, Media Rights Agenda & Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998), para. 91. See CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 8. See CAT/OP/MEX/1, para. 177. See CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 3. See E/CN.4/2006/7, para. 63. See CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 10. See A/HRC/30/37, para. 2. See A/HRC/30/37, paras. 22-25. See also CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, paras. 11 and 16, and CCPR/C/GC/35, paras. 6-67. See A/HRC/30/37, guidelines 4, 8 and 14. See CAT/C/TGO/CO/2, para. 13. See www.achpr.org/files/sessions/37th/missionreports/ethiopia/misrep_specmec_priso_ethopia_2004_eng.pdf, pp. 24 and 25. See A/HRC/19/57, para. 53, and www.achpr.org/files/sessions/52nd/inter-actreps/185/activty_report_prisons_eng.pdf, pp. 21 and 22. See CCPR/C/TUR/CO/1, para. 17; A/HRC/19/57, para. 63; A/HRC/10/21, para. 45; CAT/C/54/2 para. 91; and www.achpr.org/files/sessions/52nd/inter-act-reps/185/activty_report_prisons_eng.pdf, p. 10. See E/CN.4/2006/7, para. 64. 5