A/HRC/27/47 inability to access legal counsel or any source of information on commencing the procedure, the high cost of filing an application, lengthy court reviews, the inability to access evidence, the inability to appear before the court, and prolonged custody (A/HRC/19/57, para. 63). Violation of procedural guarantees often occurs in administrative detention and in rehabilitation centres (Working Group opinions 19/2012 and 22/2012). The detainee may have been ordered to be released following a successful challenge, yet remains in detention (see, for example, Working Group opinions 08/2011 and 14/2011). Where due process rights are denied, a State cannot rely on the excuse of lack of administrative capacity (Working Group opinions 21/2004 and 46/2006). 14. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the content and scope of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention in its general comment no. 8 (1982) on article 9 (right to liberty and security of persons) and in its jurisprudence. The objective of the procedural right is release from ongoing unlawful detention. “Unlawful detention” includes both detention that violates domestic law and detention that is incompatible with the requirements of article 9, paragraph 1, or with any other relevant provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.2 Unlawful detention may have been lawful at its inception but has become unlawful, because the individual has completed a sentence of imprisonment, or because the circumstances that justify the detention have changed.3 15. The Human Rights Committee has clarified the universal application of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court, which extends to all situations of deprivation of liberty, including detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings, military detention, security detention, counter-terrorism detention, involuntary hospitalization, immigration detention, detention for extradition, wholly groundless arrests, house arrest, solitary confinement, administrative detention, detention for vagrancy or drug addiction, detention of children for educational purposes, and other forms of administrative detention.4 No category of detainees may be denied taking such proceedings.5 16. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before court applies from the moment of arrest, and there should be no substantial waiting before bringing a first challenge.6 Proceedings may be commenced by either the detainee or his or her representative, and do not require an automatic initiation of review by the authorities 2 3 4 5 6 6 Communications Nos. 1255/2004 et al., Shams et al. v. Australia, para. 7.3; 1460/2006, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.4 and 1751/2008, Aboussedra v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.6. Communication No. 1090/2002, Rameka v. New Zealand, paras. 7.3 and 7.4. Communications Nos. 248/1987, Campbell v. Jamaica, para. 6.4 (criminal proceeding); 962/2001, Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, para. 5.2 (military detention); 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, para. 10.2 (counter-terrorism); 1061/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, para 8.4 (involuntary committal to psychiatric institution); 560/1993, A. v. Australia, para. 9.5 (immigration detention); 291/1988, Torres v. Finland, para. 7.4 (extradition); 414/1990, Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea, para. 6.5 (presidential fiat) and 265/1987, Vuolanne v. Finland, para. 9.5 (solitary confinement). Concluding observations: India (1997), para. 438; Israel (1998), para. 317 (security detention); United Kingdom (2008), para. 17 (counter-terrorism); Rwanda (2009), para. 16 (recommending abolition of detention for vagrancy); Cameroon (1994), para. 204; Republic of Moldova (2002), para. 11; and Lithuania (2004), para. 13. Communications Nos. 1460/2006, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.2–7.4 (house arrest) and 1172/2003, Madani v. Algeria, para. 8.5 (house arrest). Communications Nos. R.1/4, Torres Ramírez v. Uruguay, para. 18; and 1449/2006, Umarov v. Uzbekistan, para. 8.6. Communication No. 291/1988, Torres v. Finland, para. 7.2 (seven days). Concluding observations: Sri Lanka (1995) (one year).