A/HRC/16/47 who had been held in secret detention, family members of those held captive and legal representatives of detainees. Flight data was also used to corroborate information. 54. The legal assessment concluded that secret detention is irreconcilably in violation of international human rights law, including during states of emergency and armed conflict. Likewise, it is in violation of international humanitarian law during any form of armed conflict. Secret detention violates the right to personal liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention. No jurisdiction should allow for individuals to be deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods, held outside the reach of the law, without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus. Secret detainees are typically deprived of their right to a fair trial when State authorities do not intend to charge or try them. Even if detainees are criminally charged, the secrecy and insecurity caused by the denial of contact to the outside world and the fact that family members have no knowledge of their whereabouts and fate violate the presumption of innocence and are conducive to confessions obtained under torture or other forms of illtreatment. At the same time, secret detention amounts to an enforced disappearance. If resorted to in a widespread or systematic manner, secret detention may even reach the threshold of a crime against humanity. Every instance of secret detention is by definition incommunicado detention. Prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and may in itself constitute such treatment. Despite these unequivocal norms, secret detention continues to be used in the name of countering terrorism around the world and has been reinvigorated by the so-called global war on terror. 55. The study is a valuable contribution in the field as it is not only a legal but factual analysis on secret detention and makes concrete recommendations regarding this practice, aimed at curbing the resort to secret detention and unlawful treatment or punishment of detainees in the context of counter-terrorism. The full implementation of all these measures is the only way to put an end to the unacceptable practice of secret detention and the range of human rights violations that accompany it. The evidence gathered for this study demonstrates that the time has come for States to unambiguously reaffirm, in law and in practice, that secret detention will no longer be acceptable and neither will impunity for such acts be acceptable. 56. Most Member States were appreciative of the study presented at the Human Rights Council’s fourteenth session and raised pertinent and incisive points for debate and also sought ideas for further action and the way forward. The mandate holders made a number of concrete recommendations, in particular requesting States to undertake rigorous enquiry on secret detention within their jurisdictions. IV. Conclusions 57. 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 with regard to cases brought to their attention. During 2010, the Working Group adopted 33 Opinions concerning 98 persons in 23 countries. 58. The Working Group welcomes the invitations extended to it as well as the cooperation on the part of the respective Governments. The Working Group conducted two official visits in 2010, to Malaysia and the Republic of Armenia. Among all the requested country visits, the Working Group has received invitations by the Governments of Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Georgia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America. The Working Group reiterates its belief that its country visits are essential in fulfilling its mandate. For Governments, these 18