accessory or accomplice to the offence of forgery or having
Article 9, on Liberty and Security
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of
the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any
charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to
exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a
reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that
persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may
be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the
judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the
judgement.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall
be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court
may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and
order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention
shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
CCPR General Comment No. 8
VAN ALPHEN V. THE NETHERLANDS, COMMUNICATION
NO. 305/1988
FACTS: Alphen was a solicitor and residing in Hague,
Netherlands. He claims to be a victim of a violation by the
Netherlands of Art 9 pars 1 to 5, Art14, par 3 and Art17 of the
ICCPR. Arrested on 5 December 1983 – suspicion of being an
HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEWER FOR MIDITERMS 2018 [ATTY. KIM DAYAG] 1 ST SEMESTER 2018 - 2019
procured the offence of forgery. Having the intentional filing of
false income tax returns for the years 1980 to 1981. He was
detained for 56 days.
ISSUE: Whether the detention of a person for 56 days for
questioning was arbitrary and in breach of Article 9(1) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), if
the person refused to answer questions due to his obligation as a
lawyer to maintain client confidentiality, even though that duty had
been waived by the relevant client.
RULING: The committee has examined the reasons for the nine
week prolonged detention of the author. The committee observes that
the privilege that protects a lawyer – client relationship belongs to
the tenets of most legal systems. (In this case the client withdraw the
duty of confidentiality freed from his duty and responsibility as a
lawyer)
Note: Law, Arbitrary, Necessary and Reasonable
The arbitrariness is not equated with against the law but broadly
includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of
predictability.
MONJA JAONA V. MADAGASCAR, COMMUNICATION NO.
132/1982
FACTS: Mr. Monja Jaona was arrested at his residence in
Antananarivo and that, although according to an official
announcement Mr. Jaona was subjected only to house arrest, he was
actually taken to the military camp of Kelivondrake, 600 km south of
Antananarivo, where he was detained until his release before the
elections to the National People's Assembly held on 28 August 1983.
Mr. Jaona was arrested under Government decree, without any
reasons being given for his arrest, for an unlimited period of time and
without the possibility of being brought before a judge.
ISSUE: W/ON detention, in the strictest solitary confinement, at a
military camp 600 km from Antananarivo constituted breaches of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
RULING: The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5,
paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that these facts disclose
violations of the Covenant, in particular of:
Article 9, paragraph 1, because Monja Jaona was arrested in
December 1982 and detained until August 1983 on account of his
political opinions;
Article 9, paragraph 2, because he was not informed of the
reasons for his arrest or of any charges against him;
NOTE: The State party is under an obligation to take effective
measures to remedy the violations which Monja Jaona has suffered,
to grant him compensation under article 9, paragraph 5, of the
Covenant, on account of his arbitrary arrest and detention, and to
take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.
DOMUKOVSKY V. GEORGIA, COMMUNICATION NO
623/1995
FACTS: Mr. Domukovsky and 18 others were brought to trial before
the Supreme Court of Georgia on charges of participating in terrorist
acts with the aim of weakening the Government's power and of
killing the Head of State, Mr. Shevardnadze. On 6 March 1995 Mr.
Domukovsky was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years'
imprisonment. The State party submits that Mr. Domukovsky and
Mr. Gelbakhiani were legally detained in Azerbaijan by virtue of an
agreement between the relevant Georgian and Azerbaijan ministries,
which provides for the tracing and detention of suspects who go into
hiding in either State.
ISSUE:W/ON THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ART 9 (1) OF ICCPR
RULING: violation of article 9, paragraph 1, in respect of Mr.
Domukovsky
HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEWER FOR MIDITERMS 2018 [ATTY. KIM DAYAG] 1 ST SEMESTER 2018 - 2019
NOTE: Mr. Domukovsky and Mr. Gelbakhiani were arrested on the
basis of a bilateral agreement between Azerbaijan and Georgia, it
would be logical that the Azerbaijan ministry would have records of
such an undertaking. In the absence of such record, counsel argues
that Mr. Domukovsky and Mr. Gelbakhiani were arrested in violation
of article 9 of the Covenant. THEIR ARREST IS UNLAWFUL –
VIOLATION OF ART 9 (1)
DELGADO PÁEZ V. COLUMBIA, COMMUNICATION NO
195/1985
FACTS: In Hay 1986 he left the country and sought political asylum
in France, where he was granted refugee status. He maintains that he
was subjected to persecution -ideologically, politically and in his
work -by the Colombian authorities, because of his "progressive
ideas in theological and social matters", that his honour and
reputation were attacked by the authorities who falsely accused him
of theft, whereas the reason behind the charge was to intimidate him
because of his religious and social opinions.
ISSUE: W/ON THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTI 9 (1) ICCPR
“RIGHT TO SECURITY OF A PERSON”
RULING: the Committee finds that the State party has not taken, or
has been unable to take, appropriate measures to ensure Mr.
Delgado's right to security of his person under article 9, paragraph
NOTE: the right to security arises only in the context of arrest and
detention
Kulomin V. Hungary, Communication No. 521/1992
FACTS: The author was detained at the police station for five
months. In this context he states: "The last two months they did not
lead me to interrogation and I even thought everybody had forgotten
about me. It was terrible. I did not understand one word of
Hungarian. In my baggage I had a Hungarian grammar book and
dictionaries but the police did not allow me to study Hungarian.
RULING: the Committee is precluded ratione temporis from
considering the author's complaints in so far as they relate to his
arrest and the first few months of his detention
Note: Although the author does not invoke any of the provisions
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it
appears from his submissions that he claims to be a victim of
violations by Hungary of articles 9

Vuolanne V. Finland, Supra

DOCTRINE: the non-applicability of article 9, paragraph 4, to Mr.
Vuolanne's case, the State party notes that preparations are under
way for amending the law on military disciplinary procedure so as to
allow recourse to a court for detention in such procedure.
Note: military confinement is a punishment that can be ordered
either by a court or in military disciplinary procedure. The duration
of the punishment is comparable to the shortest prison sentences
under normal criminal law (14 days is the Finnish minimum) and
exceeds the length of pre-trial detention acceptable in the light of the
Covenant.
The Committee considers that this question must be answered by
reference to the express terms of the Covenant as well as its
purpose. It observes that as a general proposition, the Covenant
does not contain any provision exempting from its application
certain categories of persons.

HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEWER FOR MIDITERMS 2018 [ATTY. KIM DAYAG] 1 ST SEMESTER 2018 - 2019