A/HRC/13/30 detaining authorities have refused to obey a judicial release order, the proceedings are unduly delayed, the review is limited to mere technicalities, or States have suspended habeas corpus during periods of emergency.35 80. The Working Group notes that based on the communications received over the years as well as its missions, a weakened habeas corpus institution has led to a weaker challenge to the practice of arbitrary detention. Furthermore, administrative detention and a weak or non-existent habeas corpus facility appear to be correlated. States find it convenient to employ administrative detention as a means to control or manage migration within their territories. A robust challenge to this practice would be an increased use of the right of habeas corpus as required by article 9 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. E. Compliance and remedies 81. The Working Group promotes compliance with international human rights law and standards prohibiting and preventing arbitrary detention. It also promotes adequate redress when arbitrary detention has occurred, in terms of articles 2 (3) and 9 (4) and (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 82. Having established the arbitrariness of detention in its Opinion, the Working Group requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When a case falls within category I and/or II of the categories applicable to the consideration of cases submitted to it, the necessary steps to be taken to remedy the situation is typically the immediate release of the detained person, and the Working Group in that case states this explicitly. Such remedy follows from the generally recognized principle of restitution ad integrum, requiring the immediate restoration of the physical liberty of the arbitrarily detained person. It is also reflected in article 9 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that a court must be empowered to order the release of an unlawfully detained person. 83. For such remedy to be effective, as required by article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, detaining States are under an obligation to release the arbitrarily detained (foreign) detainee into their own territory even if they wish to deport the (foreign) detainee, but where deportation of the detainee otherwise liable for removal to the country of origin or to a third country accepting the detainee is not promptly possible. This could occur, e.g., if a removal would violate the principle of non-refoulement or if it is not possible for any other legal or factual reasons. Otherwise the international human rights obligation for immediate restoration of the liberty of the arbitrarily detained person would be undermined. 84. When the Working Group finds in its Opinion that the detention of the concerned individual exclusively falls within category III as gravely violating the right to fair trial, the appropriate remedy might take different forms to that of the immediate release of the arbitrarily detained person. For example, affording the detainee a retrial that meets all fair 35 22 Decisions Nos. 3/1993, 8/1993, 22/1993, 33/1993, and 49/1993 (E/CN.4/1994/27); 55/1993 (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.1); 16/1994 (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.2); 2/1996, 32/1996 (E/CN.4/1997/4/Add.1); Opinions Nos. 12/1997 (E/CN.4/1998/44/Add.1); 29/2000 (E/CN.4/2002/77/Add.1); 3/2002 (E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.1); 16/2005 (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.1); 43/2006 (A/HRC/7/4/Add.1); 23/2007 (A/HRC/10/21/Add.1); 32/2008, 45/2008, 2/2009, and 3/2009 (addendum 1 to this report). GE.10-10294