A/HRC/27/47 conflict.14 In Protocol II, it is emphasized in the preamble that “international instruments relating to human rights offer a basic protection to the human person”. ICRC notes that this provision establishes the link between Protocol II and the international instruments on human rights.15 24. In its advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice affirmed the applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights during armed conflicts, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of any kind to be found in article 4 of the Covenant. The Court confirmed its view in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (para. 106), and in its judgment of 19 December 2005 on the Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (para. 216). The complementary application of the Covenant and of international humanitarian law was addressed by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 11; A/HRC/16/47, paras. 39 and 40) and in the constant jurisprudence of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 2. Non-derogability in states of emergency 25. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention attaches particular importance to effective internal control mechanisms over the legality of detention. The remedy of habeas corpus is one of the most effective means of preventing and combating arbitrary detention. Procedural guarantee must not be suspended or rendered impracticable in states of emergency (A/HRC/7/4, para. 64; E/CN.4/1995/31, para. 25 (d)). The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture has recommended that “the effectiveness and absolute nonderogability of habeas corpus be guaranteed in states of emergency” (CAT/OP/HND/1, para. 137). In addition, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances has recommended the adoption of “the necessary measures to establish that the right to apply for habeas corpus may be neither suspended nor restricted under any circumstances, even when a state of emergency or siege has been declared, and to guarantee that any person with a legitimate interest may initiate the procedure” (CED/C/ESP/CO/1, para. 26). 26. The Working Group has, in its constant jurisprudence, adopted the legal analysis in the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 29 (2001) on states of emergency (article 4), paragraphs 11 and 16. In addition to those rights enumerated in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, certain other rights are non-derogable even during a state of emergency, including the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention. These non-derogable guarantees are customary international law binding on States that are not parties to the Covenant, and are also peremptory norms of international law. 27. In 2006, a report on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay was jointly issued by a group of special procedures mandate holders, including the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (E/CN.4/2006/120). The group examined, inter alia, whether the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention may be limited, 14 15 A/HRC/16/47, para. 48. ICRC commentaries to Protocol II, para. 4427. See also A/HRC/16/47, para. 49. 9