A/HRC/27/47 51. The Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted by the African Commission in 2003, closely follows article 9, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in section M. It details the components necessary in order to ensure exercise of the procedural guarantee, including the necessity for States to enact legislation to ensure the right. It stipulates that “anyone concerned or interested in the well-being, safety or security of a person deprived of his or her liberty has the right to a prompt and effective judicial remedy as a means of determining the whereabouts or state of health of such a person and/or identifying the authority ordering or carrying out the deprivation of liberty”. It entrusts judicial bodies to, at all times, hear and act upon petitions for habeas corpus, amparo or similar procedures, and states that no circumstances whatever must be invoked as a justification for denying the right to habeas corpus, amparo or similar procedures. These are defined as “a legal procedure brought before a judicial body to compel the detaining authorities to provide accurate and detailed information regarding the whereabouts and conditions of detention of a person or to produce a detainee before the judicial body” (section S (m)). B. Americas 52. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) establishes that “every individual who has been deprived of his liberty has the right to have the legality of his detention ascertained without delay by a court, and the right to be tried without undue delay or, otherwise, to be released” (article XXV). Article 7, paragraph 6, of the American Convention on Human Rights provides: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” 53. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in advisory opinion OC-8/87 (30 January 1987) on habeas corpus in emergency situations, stated that the protection is among “those judicial remedies that are essential for the protection of various rights whose derogation is prohibited by article 27 (2) and that serve, moreover, to preserve legality in a democratic society”. It is “a judicial remedy designed to protect personal freedom or physical integrity against arbitrary detentions by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the lawfulness of the detention may be determined and, if appropriate, the release of the detainee be ordered.” 54. In its jurisprudence, to which the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention gives great weight in its own jurisprudence, the Inter-American Court has affirmed “that the authority which decides on the legality of an arrest or detention must be a judge or court; article 7, paragraph 6 of the Convention is therefore ensuring judicial control over the deprivation of liberty”.18 “The review by a judge or a court is a fundamental requirement to guarantee adequate control and scrutiny of the administrative acts which affect fundamental rights”. Remedies under article 7, paragraph 6, of the Convention “must not only exist formally in law but must be effective; in other words, they must comply with the objective of obtaining, without delay, a decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.”19 “Migratory 18 19 16 Vélez Loor v. Ecuador, para. 126. Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, case No. 1351-05, para. 141.