A/HRC/7/4 page 24 67. As regards those States which have not ratified the ICCPR, the Working Group concurs with the legal analysis by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 29.22 There it is rightfully stated that, in addition to those enumerated in article 4, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, certain other rights are non-derogable even during a state of emergency, such as the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention. In the view of the Working Group these guarantees represent peremptory norms of (customary) international law so that they are also binding on States which are not parties to the Covenant. 68. Likewise, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights23 concluded that the writ of habeas corpus is among those judicial remedies that are essential for the protection of various rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has held that proceedings to decide on the lawfulness of detention must be brought before a court that is independent of the executive authority that ordered the detention, in particular in emergency situations where administrative detention is practised. The European Court of Human Rights has similarly stressed the requirement that the review of the legality of detention be undertaken by a body which is independent of the executive. D. Detention registries and powers to release prisoners 69. During recent country missions to Latin America and Africa the Working Group was able to observe the absence of a functioning registry system in detention facilities. In some facilities different registries were used for different stages of detention. The Working Group was particularly disturbed by the fact that in exceptional cases names of detainees interviewed during visits to detention facilities did not appear in any record. It is obvious that a proper registration book is essential for preventing disappearances, abuse of power for corruption purposes and excessive detention beyond the authorized period of time, which amounts to arbitrary detention without any legal basis. 70. While visiting these Latin American, African and other countries the Working Group could observe that the law does not provide for a time limit for pretrial detention or that the maximum length of detention on remand appeared to have been exceeded for a number of pretrial detainees. Authorities in charge of detention centres took the stance that, even if it meant keeping a person in detention without a legal basis, they could not release anyone without an order from a judge, the Attorney-General, a prosecutor, or authorities other than correctional services personnel competent to formally order the release. In other words, while the law provides for a maximum length of detention, the prison authorities are not empowered to set the person concerned free unless they have received a document from the authority competent to formally 22 Human Rights Committee general comment No. 29 (2001) on article 4 (states of emergency), paragraph 16. 23 Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts. 27 (2), 25 (1) and 7 (6), American Convention on Human Rights); Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27 (2), 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights).