A/HRC/19/57 case in which an individual claims to be deprived of his or her liberty in violation of the Covenant, as stated in the paragraph 1 of general comment No. 8. The former Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1994/32, also encourages States to establish habeas corpus as “a personal right” not subject to derogation, including during states of emergency. 61. In the light of the above, the absence of a remedy of habeas corpus constitutes, per se, a human rights violation by depriving the individual – in effect, all individuals – of the human right to protection from arbitrary detention. For that reason, the Working Group recommended, for example, in its report on its mission to Senegal in 2009, that the Government should “consider the possibility of establishing habeas corpus as a means of combating arbitrary detentions” (A/HRC/13/30/Add.3, para. 82 (a)). As the Working Group has already stated, that habeas corpus is “indispensable in a State governed by the rule of law as a safeguard against arbitrary detention” (E/CN.4/1994/27, para. 36). 62. The Human Rights Committee points out that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant is applicable to all forms of deprivation of liberty, whether in criminal cases or in other cases such as, for example, mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, educational purposes, immigration control, reasons of public security, accusations of terrorism, prolonged pretrial detention, secret prisons or incommunicado detention. The Working Group had done the same, noting that, as part of the so-called “war against terrorism”, instances of arbitrariness and unacceptable limitations on the exercise of the human right of habeas corpus have been committed against political opponents, religious dissenters, and other persons exercising their freedoms of opinion, expression, conscience and religion (E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 63). In the course of its country visits, the Working Group pays particular attention to constitutional and legal provisions relating to personal freedom, and remedies for contesting arbitrary detention. 63. The Working Group is of the view that, in their domestic legislation, States should ensure that the remedy of habeas corpus meets the following minimum requirements in order to comply with international human rights law: (a) Informality: in other words, there may be no requirement of legal formalities that, if not complied with, might lead to the inadmissibility of the remedy. Any individual should therefore be able to apply for it in writing, orally, by telephone, fax, e-mail or any other means, without the need for prior authorization; (b) Judicial level: it must be adjudicated by a judicial authority superior in rank to that of the public servant or judge who ordered the arrest; (c) Effectiveness and accessibility: the decision to grant habeas corpus must be implemented immediately, either through the release of the person deprived of liberty or by unobstructed rectification of any flaws discovered, as recommended by the Committee against Torture (see CAT/C/CR/34/UGA, paras. 6 (b) and para. 10 (f)); (d) Cost-free access: the detained person or his or her family should not be required to post bail or incur any cost whatsoever; (e) Urgency of habeas corpus proceedings and judgement: (“without delay”, as indicated in article 9, para. 4, of the Covenant) meaning that the court must request the case file with a view to reaching a decision within a matter of hours; (f) the appeal; Prohibition of the intervention of a lawyer as a criterion for admissibility of (g) Universality: not only may it be sought regardless of the offence with which the detainee is charged, including treason and terrorism, but any person deprived of liberty, irrespective of his or her nationality, may exercise the right; 19