Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter32_rule99_sectionc
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:23:49+00:00

Document:
In every camp the text of the present Convention and its Annexes and the contents of any special agreement provided for in Article 6, shall be posted, in the prisoners’ own language, at places where all may read them.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 41, first para.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 99, second para.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11, Strasbourg, 11 May 1994, Article 5(2).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Article 9(2).
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 7(4).
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 75(3). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 43/173, 9 December 1988, Principle 10.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.47.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-8, § 64.
Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language that person understands of the reasons why these measures have been taken.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.3.
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 92.
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states with regard to “arrested persons”: “At the moment of arrest, give prompt information about the reasons for the arrest [and] inform them without delay of any charges against them”.
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 45.
The manual further states that “[w]omen [who have been] the victims of crimes or abuse of power … have the right to … be informed of any charges against them and the course of the proceedings against them”.
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 23.
The manual also states with regard to “children in the justice system” that “minors must be informed of the reasons for their arrest or any charges against him or her”.
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, pp. 24–25.
India’s Police Manual (1986) states that the reasons for a detention order should be communicated as soon as possible, but ordinarily not later than five days after arrest, and in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days. For Punjab and Chandigarh, this period was extended to 15 days.
India, Police Manual for Handling Civil Disturbances, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1986, pp. 21, 27 and 29.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(3).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.m.
Any person arrested, detained or interned for acts relating to the armed conflict must be informed, without delay, of the reason for such a measure and released as soon as possible, unless they are charged with a criminal offence.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(m), p. 251.
Each person has the right to liberty … ; he or she may not be subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Deprivation of liberty is only allowed for reasons established by law and in accordance with the established procedures. Consequently, every detainee must be informed, at the moment of their detention, of the reasons of the detention and must be notified of the formal accusation against them.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 105(h), pp. 146–147.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he or she understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. The manual considers Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 175.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.5.
2. The right to be informed of the nature of charges and investigation.
Afghanistan, Criminal Procedure Code for Military Courts, 2006, Article 14.
(1) A person who arrests another person for an offence must inform the other person, at the time of the arrest, of the offence for which the other person is being arrested.
(2) It is sufficient if the other person is informed of the substance of the offence, and it is not necessary that this be done in language of a precise or technical nature.
(b) the other person’s actions make it impracticable for the person making the arrest to inform the other person of the offence for which he or she is being arrested.
Australia, Crimes Act, 1914, as amended to 2007, Part IAA, Division 4, s.3ZD, p. 48.
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Procedure Code (2003) states: “A person deprived of liberty must, in his native tongue or any other language that he understands, be immediately informed about reasons for his apprehension and instructed on the fact that he is not bound to make a statement”.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, Article 5(1); see also Article 78(2).
Any person apprehended with the aim of being handed over in response to an arrest warrant [from the International Criminal Court (ICC)] must be referred to the Public Prosecutor with jurisdiction [over the matter] within twenty four hours. Within this time limit, the provisions of the present code are applicable [to the individual]. After having verified the identity of this person, the magistrate must inform him or her, in a language he or she understands, that he or she is being arrested in order to be surrendered [to the ICC] and that he or she will appear before the public prosecutor of the Court of Appeal.
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Article 349.
Countless pieces of domestic legislation provide for prompt information of the reasons of detention. For instance, preventive detention is permitted by India’s Constitution (1950) subject to a number of safeguards, namely that detainees have a right to be informed of the reasons for the detention order.
India, Constitution, 1950, Article 22.
A person against whom an indictment has been issued shall be taken into custody, pursuant to an arrest order or warrant issued by the Tribunal Investigative Judge, and shall be immediately informed of the charges against him and transferred to the Tribunal.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 20(1).
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 75(3), is a punishable offence.
A subpoena or detention warrant shall contain the name and residence of the accused, the crime, a summary of the charged facts, the place where the accused is to be brought or the prison where he/she is to be detained, the valid period and a statement that after expiry of the valid period the subpoena or detention warrant shall not be executed but shall be returned, the date of issue, and other matters prescribed in the Court Rules; and the presiding judge or the commissioned judge shall affix his/her name and seal to it.
Japan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1948, as amended to 2006, Article 64(1).
2. This Act shall apply to security offences [defined in the Penal Code (1997) as including waging and abetting the waging of war against Malaysia’s Head of State].
4. (1) A police officer may, without warrant, arrest and detain any person whom he has reason to believe to be involved in security offences.
(2) A person arrested under subsection (1) shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest by the police officer making the arrest.
Malaysia, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, 2012, Articles 2 and 4.
2. [The right] … to choose a person, association or entity to be informed of his or her capture, and [the right] that this notification be carried out immediately. Should the accused exercise this right, a copy of the notification and the result obtained shall be kept.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 208(1)–(2).
1. To know the reason or motive for his or her detention and the public official who ordered the detention, by handing over the judicial order made with respect to the person in question.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 199(1).
(b) Inform the child of the reason for such custody and advise the child of his/her constitutional rights in a language or dialect understood by him/her.
Philippines, Republic Act No. 9344, 2006, Section 21(a)–(b).
(b) informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his legal counsel.
Philippines, Republic Act No. 9372, 2007, Section 21.
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of anyone who in the case of an armed conflict, fails to fulfil his or her obligation to inform protected persons clearly and without delay about their situation.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 612(3).
Any person in respect of whom any detention order or restriction order has been made shall be informed of the unlawful activity in connexion with which such order has been made and such person or any other person on his behalf may make representations to the Advisory Board.
Sri Lanka, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1979, as amended to 1988, Section 13(2).
C) It informs the detainee of the reasons for his or her detention and of the details of the request of surrender.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 48.3.C; see also Article 50.3.A.
Venezuela’s Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (2007) states: “An adolescent who is under investigation or detained must be informed of the reasons for such investigation and the authority responsible for it”.
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 541.
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2009), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “When the indicted or accused [person] is apprehended, he or she will be informed of the acts that are attributed to him or her and of the authority that has ordered the [detention] measure”.
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 255.
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2012), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “When the indicted or accused [person] is apprehended, he or she will be informed of the acts that are attributed to him or her and of the authority that has ordered the [detention] measure”.
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 241.
Viet Nam’s Criminal Procedure Code (2003) states that persons held in custody have certain rights, including: “To be informed of the reasons for their custody”.
Viet Nam, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, § 48.2(a).
(3) Any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed as soon as reasonably practicable, in the language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Chapter [III], an Act of Parliament may in accordance with Schedule 2 derogate from certain provisions of the Declaration of Rights in respect of a period of public emergency or a period when a resolution under section 31J(6) is in effect.
Provided that, if Parliament is dissolved during the period of fourteen days, the declaration, unless sooner revoked, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of a period of thirty days beginning with the day of publication of the proclamation in the Gazette unless, before the expiration of that period, the declaration is approved by resolution of the House of Assembly.
and the President shall forthwith, by proclamation in the Gazette, revoke the declaration or provide that the declaration shall relate to such lesser area, as the case may be.
(b) may require the preventive detention of persons in the interests of defence, public safety or public order.
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 1979, as amended to 2009, Sections 13(3), 25, 26(7), 31J(1)–(2) and (5)–(6).
(1) Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be in contravention of section 13, 17, 20, 21, 22 or 23 to the extent that the law in question provides for the taking, during a period of public emergency, of action for the purpose of dealing with any situation arising during that period, and nothing done by any person under the authority of any such law shall be held to be in contravention of any of the said provisions unless it is shown that the action taken exceeded anything which, having due regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time, could reasonably have been thought to be required for the purpose of dealing with the situation.
(2) Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be in contravention of section 13 to the extent that the law in question provides for preventive detention, during a period when a resolution under section 31J(6) is in effect, in the interests of defence, public safety or public order, and nothing done by any person under the authority of any such law shall be held to be in contravention of section 13 unless it is shown that the action taken exceeded anything which, having due regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time, could reasonably have been thought to be required for the purpose of dealing with the situation.
(3) Where a declaration under section 31J(1) or a resolution under section 31J(6) applies only in relation to a part of Zimbabwe, the law in question shall not provide for the taking of action or for preventive detention, as the case may be, in relation to any place outside that part.
(a) he shall be informed as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of the detention, and in any case not later than seven days thereafter, in a language that he understands of the reasons for his detention.
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 1979, as amended to 2009, Schedule 2, Articles 1 and 2(1)(a).
(a) any period when Zimbabwe is engaged in any war and the period immediately following thereon until such date as may be declared by the President, by proclamation in the Gazette, as the end of the period of public emergency caused by that war.
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 1979, as amended to 2009, Section 113(1).
(d) at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason why their detention should continue, or to be released.
and the High Court may make whatever order is appropriate in the circumstances.
(8) An arrest or detention which contravenes this section, or in which the conditions set out in this section are not met, is illegal.
(f) the right to obtain an order of habeas corpus as provided in section 50(7)(a).
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Sections 50(1)(a), 50(4)(d), 50(5)(a) and (7)–(8), 86(2)(b) and (3)(f) and 87(1) and (4).
2. (1) An emergency law may limit any of the fundamental human rights or freedoms, but only to the extent set out in section 87.
(b) if the detainee cannot read or write, any document embodying the information must be explained in such a way that he or she understands it.
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Second Schedule, §§ 1, 2(1), 4(1)(a) and 4(2).
Bangladesh, International Crimes Tribunal-2, Mujahid case, Judgment, 17 July 2013, § 36.
53… [A] fair hearing requires that the affected person be informed of the case against him or her, and be permitted to respond to that case.
Canada, Supreme Court, Charkaoui case, Judgment, 23 February 2007, §§ 28, 29 and 53.
In respect of an arrest under the [Internal Security Act], the legal and constitutional duty on the part of the arresting authority, as imposed by art 5(3) of the Federal Constitution, is to inform the person arrested of the grounds of his arrest. This duty must be discharged in a manner that makes the said constitutional protection meaningful. This means that the detainee must be told briefly and in clear and simple language that he is being arrested because there is reason to believe that his activities (the gist of which should be intimated to the detainee) have been such as to justify his detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country. In addition, … the detainee must also be told that there is reason to believe that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country. Here too, the detainee must be given, albeit, in a brief form, some idea in substance (that is to say, some essential particulars) in what way he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in the manner alleged to be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia. It is my view that, in order to satisfy these two limbs/grounds, it does not suffice to merely parrot the provisions of s 8 or s 73(1) (b) without some indication to the detainee of the substance of what he has done or of what he is about to do or of what he is likely to do. At this point, no detailed particulars need to be informed to the detainee but at least he will know in essence the reason he is being arrested.
Malaysia, High Court (Kuala Lumpur), Malek case, Judgment, 18 October 2007, § 11.
In 2003, in the Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Peru’s Constitutional Court found that the “constitutionally protected right of defence guarantees that every person in police or judicial detention shall be comprehensively informed of the reasons for such detention”.
Peru, Constitutional Court, Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Case No. 010-2002-AI/TC, Judgment of 3 January 2003, § 141.
(a) Recognition of various rights of the accused as from the first act in the procedure against him: the right of the detainee to be informed of the reason for his detention and of his other rights.
Chile, Third periodic report of Chile to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 32(a); see also § 34.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “Accused persons who have been deprived of their liberty also have the following rights: to be notified of the ground for their detention”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 155.
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Croatia stated that its Constitution provides that “[an] arrested person shall be promptly informed, in understandable terms, of the reasons for the arrest and of his or her rights determined by law”.
Croatia, Second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 2 December 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/HRV/2, submitted 28 November 2007, § 205.
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Article 75 the 1977 Additional Protocol I embodies customary law.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 5.
Nepal, Declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, 26 March 2004, § 4.
In 2006, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Serbia stated that “a person deprived of liberty must be informed immediately in his/her own language or in a language he/she understands of the reasons of the deprivation of liberty”.
Serbia, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 8 February 2007, UN Doc. CAT/C/SRB/1, submitted 3 May 2006, as amended by CAT/C/SRB/2/Corr.1, 23 September 2008, § 275; see also § 284.
(ii) every person arrested or detained shall be informed of the reason for the arrest.
Sri Lanka, Statement by the President of Sri Lanka, Directions Issued by Her Excellency the President, Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defence, Colombo, 31 July 1997, § 3(ii).
(a) … [They require] the person making the arrest to … inform the reason for the arrest.
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, Annex, § 33(a); see also § 29 of the report.
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, with reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Uganda stated that “where a person is restricted or detained under a law made for the purpose of a state of emergency”, that person “shall within twenty four hours after the commencement of the restriction or detention, be furnished with a statement in writing specifying the grounds upon which he or she is restricted or detained”.
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, § 109; see also § 218.
It is a pre-condition of lawful arrest that the person arrested should know the nature of the charge or suspicion for which he is arrested. And it is the duty of the person arresting to inform the arrested person the reasons for the arrest unless, of course, the arrested person creates a Situation whereby it would be impossible to inform him, say, by a counter-attack or by running away.
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, § 226.
72. In article 64, paragraph 2, the Constitution lists those rights and freedoms which may not be restricted under martial law or a state of emergency.
- No one may be arrested or remanded in custody other than pursuant to a court decision with grounds stated.
Ukraine, Sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 11 April 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UKR/6, submitted 3 November 1999, §§ 72–73.
United Kingdom, Letter to the Clerk from the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 24 June 2004, published in House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism: Seventh Report of the Session 2003–04, Vol. II: Oral and Written Evidence, HC 441-II.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly called upon all States to “provide adequate and prompt information in the event of the arrest or detention of humanitarian personnel or United Nations and its associated personnel”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, § 12, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly called upon all States to “provide adequate and prompt information in the event of the arrest or detention of humanitarian personnel or United Nations and its associated personnel”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/211, 20 December 2004, § 11, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly called upon all States to “provide adequate and prompt information in the event of the arrest or detention of humanitarian personnel or United Nations and its associated personnel”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/123, 15 December 2005, § 10, adopted without a vote.
347. Imprisonment refers to the arbitrary deprivation of an individual’s liberty without due process of law. The customary status of the prohibition of arbitrary imprisonment under international law initially developed from the laws of war and is supported by human rights instruments.
349. Not every minor infringement of liberty forms the material element of imprisonment as a crime against humanity; the deprivation of liberty must be of similar gravity and seriousness as the other crimes enumerated as crimes against humanity in Article 5 of the ECCC Law [Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended in 2004].
350. It must be shown that the perpetrator intended to arbitrarily deprive the individual of liberty, or that he [or she] acted in the reasonable knowledge that his or her actions were likely to cause the arbitrary deprivation of physical liberty.
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 347 and 349–350.
464. The elements of the offence of unlawful confinement under Article 6 of the ECCC Law are in substance the same as those of imprisonment under Article 5 of the ECCC Law (crimes against humanity).
465. Unlawful confinement of a civilian is expressly prohibited as a grave breach in [the 1949] Geneva Convention IV. … Further, an initially lawful internment becomes unlawful if the detaining party fails to respect the detainee’s basic procedural rights … .
466. The jurisprudence of the ICTY has established that the requisite mental element for this offence, in common with all grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, includes both culpable intent and recklessness.
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 464–466.
In the Kajelijeli case before the ICTR in 2001, the accused, Juvénal Kajelijeli, who was bourgmestre (mayor) of the Mukingo commune, Rwanda, from 1988 to 1993 and was re-appointed bourgmestre in June 1994 until mid-July 1994, was charged for his alleged involvement with various crimes committed against the Tutsi population in Rwanda in 1994. The Trial Chamber subsequently found the accused guilty of both genocide and of extermination, for which he received two sentences of imprisonment for the remainder of his life. He was also found guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, for which he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
ICTR, Kajelijeli case, Judgment, 1 December 2003, §§ 942 and 968.
224. Under international human rights law, Article 9 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] establishes that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person and no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest and deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Article 5(1) (c) of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] specifies that “the lawful arrest … of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so,” is permissible, but only where it is effected according to due process of law. With regard to being informed of the reasons for the arrest, Article 9(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly in a language he or she understands of the reason for the arrest and shall also be informed promptly of any charge against him or her.
226. … Although the Appellant was lawfully apprehended pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules [of Procedure and Evidence], the manner in which the arrest was carried out was not according to due process of law because the Appellant was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest. As held by the Appeals Chamber in Semanza, a suspect arrested at the behest of the Tribunal has a right to be promptly informed of the reasons for his or her arrest, and this right comes into effect from the moment of arrest and detention.
ICTR, Kajelijeli case, Judgment on Appeal, 23 May 2005, §§ 224 and 226.
The Appeals Chamber subsequently found that the appellant had been impermissibly detained for a total of 306 days in Benin and the UN Detention Facility (UNDF), Arusha, because 1) he was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest or of the provisional charges against him, and 2) he was not promptly granted an initial appearance before a judge or an official acting in a judicial capacity without undue delay. It therefore set aside the sentences imposed by the Trial Chamber and converted them into a single sentence consisting of a fixed term of imprisonment of 45 years.
ICTR, Kajelijeli case, Judgment on Appeal, 23 May 2005, §§ 251–253 and 323.
In its General Comment on Article 9 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982, the Human Rights Committee held: “If so-called preventive detention is used, for reasons of public security, it must be controlled by these same provisions, i.e. … information of the reasons must be given (para. 2)”.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 (Article 9 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 30 July 1982, § 4.
The Committee is concerned that the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) remains in force and that several of its provisions are incompatible with the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] (arts. 4, 9 and 14). The Committee welcomes the decision of the Government, consistent with the Ceasefire Agreement of February 2002, not to apply the provisions of the PTA and to ensure that normal procedures for arrest, detention and investigation prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code are followed … [Under the PTA, t]here is no legal obligation on the State to inform the detainee of the reasons for the arrest; … The Committee is concerned that such provisions, incompatible with the Covenant, still remain legally enforceable, and that it is envisaged that they might also be incorporated into the Prevention of Organized Crimes Bill 2003.
The State party is urged to ensure that all legislation and other measure enacted taken to fight terrorism are compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act designed to fight terrorism should not be incorporated into the draft Prevention of Organized Crime Bill to the extent that they are incompatible with the Covenant.
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA, 1 December 2003, § 13.
The Committee notes with concern that criminal suspects have been arrested solely under a detention directive of the Commander of KFOR [NATO Kosovo Force] and under executive orders of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General without being brought before a judge promptly and without access to an independent judicial body to determine the lawfulness of their detention (arts. 9 and 14 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
UNMIK should revoke the Regulation conferring power on the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to detain and expel individuals, seek the cessation of detentions under Commander of KFOR Detention Directive 42, and ensure that all persons arrested under the discretionary powers of UNMIK police or under a court order are informed of the reasons for their arrest and of any charges against them, brought promptly before a judicial authority, granted access to a lawyer and to proceedings before a court to determine the lawfulness of their detention, and are tried without undue delay.
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the report submitted by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo on the human rights situation in Kosovo since June 1999, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UNK/CO/1, 14 August 2006, § 17.
In numerous cases, the Human Rights Committee has found a violation of Article 9(2) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because no or insufficient information was given on the reasons of detention, or the information was not given promptly.
See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Hernández Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, Views, 15 August 1979, § 10; see also Buffo Carballal v. Uruguay, Views, 27 March 1981, § 13; Pietraroia v. Uruguay, Views, 27 March 1981, § 14; Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay, Views, 21 July 1983, §§ 13.2 and 14; Luyeye Magana ex-Philibert v. Zaire, Views, 21 July 1983, § 8; Hiber Conteris v. Uruguay, Views, 17 July 1985, § 10; Kelly v. Jamaica, Views, 8 April 1991, § 5(8); Harward v. Norway, Views, 15 July 1994, § 9(4)–(5).
As to the author’s claims under article 9 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], in light of the State party’s failure to contest the factual submissions of the author, the Committee concludes that, upon arrest in September 1996, the author was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and was not promptly informed of the charges against him … Consequently, there has been a violation of article 9, paragraph[…] … 2 … of the Covenant.
Human Rights Committee, Pagdayawon v. Philippines, Views, 8 December 2004, § 5.5.
The Committee notes the author’s uncontested claim that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and that he was charged only on 25 November 1999, 40 days after his arrest on 16 October 1999. It considers that the chief investigator’s statement, on 16 October 1999, that the author was held as a UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] prisoner, did not meet the requirements of article 9, paragraph 2 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 9, paragraph 2.
Human Rights Committee, Marques de Morais v. Angola, Views, 18 April 2005, § 6.2.
With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 2 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that they were not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for their arrest. It observes that it was not sufficient simply to inform the authors that they were being arrested for breach of State security, without any indication of the substance of the complaint against them. In the absence of any pertinent information from the State party which would contradict the authors’ allegations, the Committee considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
Human Rights Committee, Ilombe and Shandwe v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views, 16 May 2006, § 6.2.
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Eleventh Session, Tunis, 2–9 March 1992, Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial, § 2(b).
In its admissibility decision in X v. Austria in 1975, the European Commission of Human Rights held that all persons arrested shall be informed of the reasons for the arrest and notified of the charges against them in a language they understand.
European Commission of Human Rights, X v. Austria, Admissibility Decision, 29 May 1975, p. 70.
In Fox, Campbell and Hartley in 1990, the European Court of Human Rights decided that an applicant must be told in “simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness”.
European Court of Human Rights, Fox, Campbell and Hartley, Judgment, 30 August 1990, § 40.
In Van der Leer v. Netherlands in 1990, dealing with a case in which a court authorized the applicant’s confinement for six months without holding any hearings and in which the applicant was not informed for ten days of the confinement order and the reasons for it, the European Court of Human Rights held the delay to be unacceptable and in breach of Article 5 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
European Court of Human Rights, Van der Leer v. Netherlands, Judgment, 21 February 1990, § 31.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 201.
Legal practice in most countries recognises preventive custody, i.e., a period during which the police or the public prosecutor can detain a person in custody without having to charge him with a specific accusation; in peacetime this period is no more than two or three days, but sometimes it is longer for particular offences (acts of terrorism) and in time of armed conflict it is often prolonged. Useful indications can be found in national legislation. In any case, even in time of armed conflict, detaining a person for longer than, say, ten days without informing the detainee of the reasons for his detention would be contrary to [Article 75(3) the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 3073.

References: § 9
 § 64
 § 1135
 § 1137
 § 32
 § 33
 § 105
 § 9
 § 48
 § 36
 art 5
 § 11
 § 141
 § 32
 § 34
 § 155
 § 205
 § 4
 § 275
 § 284
 § 3
 § 33
 § 29
 § 109
 § 218
 § 226
 § 12
 § 11
 § 10
 § 4
 § 13
 § 17
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 § 6
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 § 40
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 § 201
 § 3073