A/HRC/27/48 gender-based violence, such as honour crimes, and their release may be conditional upon the consent of a male relative and/or a guarantor (see A/HRC/20/16/Add.1). 79. There will typically be no legal basis for the detention, procedural guarantees will not be observed, and the detention will constitute discrimination. The Working Group recalls the views of the United Nations treaty bodies and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, that the practice of protective custody should be eliminated and replaced with alternative measures ensuring the protection of women without jeopardizing their liberty.3 IV. Conclusions 80. The Working Group, in the fulfilment of its mandate, welcomes the cooperation it has received from States with regard to the responses by the Governments concerned concerning cases brought to their attention under its regular procedure. In 2013, the Working Group adopted 60 opinions concerning 431 persons in 39 countries. It also sent 110 urgent appeals to 37 countries concerning 680 persons. 81. The Working Group welcomes the invitations extended to it to pay official visits to countries. The Working Group conducted official visits in 2013 to Brazil, Greece, Hungary and Morocco. In response to its requests to visit countries, the Working Group has received invitations from the Governments of Argentina (for a follow-up visit), Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Libya, Malta, Nauru, Spain and the United States of America. It has also requested to be invited to an additional 16 countries. The Working Group reiterates its belief that its country visits are essential for the fulfilment of its mandate. For Governments, the visits provide an excellent opportunity to show developments and progress in ensuring respect for human rights, including the crucial right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty. 82. The Working Group reiterates that timely responses to its letters of allegations under its regular procedure with full disclosure from Member States furthers the cause of objectivity in the rendering of the Working Group’s opinions. The Working Group regrets that, in some cases, Governments do not provide responses, or limit their replies to general information or merely affirm the non-existence of arbitrary detention in the country or refer to the constitutional norms preventing arbitrary detention from occurring, without making direct reference to the specific allegations transmitted. 83. In its deliberation No. 9 concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law (A/HRC/22/44, sect. III), the Working Group restated its constant jurisprudence on the prohibition of all forms of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and demonstrated that it is general practice accepted as law, constituting customary international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens). The prohibition of arbitrariness in the deprivation of liberty requires a strict review of the lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of any measure depriving anyone of their liberty, which can arise at any stage of legal proceedings. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty applies without territorial limitations, both with 3 See, e.g., concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Jordan, CAT/C/JOR/CO/2; concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Jordan, CEDAW/C/JOR/CO/4; concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Jordan, CRC/C/15/Add.125; report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, mission to Jordan, A/HRC/20/16/Add.1. 23