A/HRC/45/16 provided for in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules)18 and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). Noting the obligation arising from the Convention on the Rights of the Child of not detaining children, particular consideration should be given to releasing children and women with children, and also those serving sentences for non-violent crimes. 17. All States must comply with their obligations under international human rights law, including customary international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international instruments to which they are party, which are interpreted and applied in opinions adopted by the Working Group. When detention has been determined by the Working Group to be arbitrary, the detainee should be released immediately in every case, and as a matter of urgency during public health emergencies. V. Right to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty 18. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, a peremptory norm of international law that cannot be derogated from 19 that applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty and to all situations of deprivation of liberty. 20 The right applies irrespective of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in relevant legislation; consequently, any form of deprivation of liberty on any ground must be subject to effective oversight and control by the judiciary. 21 19. The Working Group wishes to emphasize that the right to challenge the legality of deprivation of liberty applies also to those in mandatory quarantine or otherwise detained in the context of public health emergency measures that are introduced to combat a pandemic. Such individuals must also be ensured that they are able to exercise this right effectively by, inter alia, having access to legal assistance. VI. Right to a fair trial 20. The Working Group is mindful of the fact that the public health emergency measures introduced to combat the pandemic may limit access to detention facilities, which in turn may effectively prevent persons held in places of deprivation of liberty from attending their court and other judicial hearings, meetings with parole boards or other entities empowered to consider their continued deprivation of liberty, or from holding meetings with their legal counsel and family. 22 This may have an adverse effect particularly on those in pretrial detention, and on detainees seeking a review of a decision to detain them, as well as those seeking to appeal against a conviction or sentence. 21. If the exigencies of the prevailing public health emergency require restrictions on physical contact, States must ensure the availability of other ways for legal counsel to communicate with their clients, including secured online communication or communication over the telephone, free of charge and in circumstances in which privileged and confidential discussions can take place. 23 Similar measures can be taken for judicial hearings. The introduction of blanket measures restricting access to courts and legal counsel cannot be justified and could render the deprivation of liberty arbitrary. 18 19 20 21 22 23 See advice of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to States parties and national preventive mechanisms relating to the coronavirus pandemic, para. 9 (2). A/HRC/22/44, para. 49. A/HRC/30/37, paras. 11 and 47 (a)–(b). Ibid., para. 47 (b). Ibid., principle 10. Ibid., paras. 15 and 69. 37