A/HRC/13/30 because a formal declaration must be made to the population of the country and to all States parties through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as required by article 40 of the Covenant); non-derogability of certain rights; non-discriminatory application; and compatibility with all the State party’s other international obligations, especially if acting to the contrary violates a norm of jus cogens. 74. The Working Group points out that when States claim powers under a state of emergency as justification of a deprivation of liberty, they appear to be arbitrarily denying the right to judicial remedies set out in article 2, paragraph 3, and article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. Although the right to judicial remedies is not formally mentioned in article 4 as non-derogable, it must be considered to be “inherent in the Covenant as a whole”, as the Human Rights Committee maintains in general comment No. 29. 75. Based on the Working Group’s 17 years of practice, it can be concluded that there is a need for the Human Rights Council to monitor closely, through an early-warning system, the legality and above all the implementation of declarations of states of emergency, with regard to which recommendations will be formulated. D. Administrative detention and habeas corpus 76. Habeas corpus is a legal procedure which is an undeniable right of all individuals and one of the most effective remedies against challenging arbitrary detention. Article 9 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right, namely the possibility to institute habeas corpus or similar proceedings, personally or on behalf of detained persons, challenging the lawfulness of detention before a court of law that is competent to order their release in the event that the detention is unlawful. 77. Administrative detention may be defined as arrest and detention of individuals by State authorities outside the criminal law context, for example for reasons of security, including terrorism, as a form of preventive detention, as well as to restrain irregular migrants. As is evident from communications sent to the Working Group and the missions conducted, a large number of States resort to administrative detention as a means to counter terrorism, control irregular migration or protect the ruling regime. The practice of administrative detention is informed by the belief that by detaining a person, a preventive action has been carried out thus securing society, community and State. 78. Since the inception of the Working Group it has recommended strengthening the institution of habeas corpus as a protective mechanism against arbitrary detention.32 The “Group regret[ted] that in many countries habeas corpus actions do not exist or have been suspended or are not readily available or relied on very little, since the sources very rarely indicate that this remedy has been applied for, although this step is required in the Working Group’s principles for the submission of cases.”33 It considered “… after three years’ experience, that habeas corpus is one of the most effective means to combat the practice of arbitrary detention. As such, it should not be regarded as a mere element in the right to a fair trial but, in a country governed by the rule of law, as a personal right which cannot be derogated from even in a state of emergency.”34 79. Despite these exhortations regarding habeas corpus, the jurisprudence of the Working Group is full of Opinions where States have denied the right of habeas corpus, the 32 33 34 GE.10-10294 E/CN.4/1993/24, para. 43 (c), endorsed by Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/36, para. 16. E/CN.4/1994/27, para. 36. Ibid., para. 74. 21