Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention been detained.90 A fortiori, a delay of 45 days or more does not meet the requirements of article 9(2).91 Furthermore, it is not sufficient for the purposes of the Covenant, including article 9(2) thereof, to arrest and detain a person on grounds of a presumed connection with subversive activities; the arrested and detained person must be given explanations as to “the scope and meaning of ‘subversive activities’, which constitute a criminal offence under the relevant legislation”.92 According to the Human Rights Committee, such explanations are particularly important where the authors allege that they have been prosecuted solely for their opinions contrary to article 19 of the Covenant, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.93 The Committee found no violation of article 9(2) of the Covenant where the authors allegedly had to wait for seven and eight hours respectively before being informed of the reasons for arrest, also complaining that they had not understood the charges for lack of a competent interpreter. The Committee concluded that the police formalities had been suspended for three hours until “the interpreter arrived, so that the accused could be duly informed in the presence of legal counsel”; furthermore, the interpreter was fully competent and appointed according to the rules.94 Consequently, there was no violation of article 9(2) in this case.95 Similarly, where the author alleged that he was not promptly informed of the charges against him but where there was evidence that he had seen a lawyer during the first week of his detention, the Committee concluded that it was “highly unlikely that neither the author nor his ... counsel were aware of the reasons for his arrest”.96 Where the author complained that he was not informed about the charges against him until three to four weeks after his arrest, the Committee held that a “general refutation by the State party is not sufficient to disprove the author’s claim”, and, consequently, the delay violated both article 9(2) and 9 (3) of the Covenant.97 It is not sufficient under article 9(2) simply to inform the person arrested and detained that the deprivation of liberty has been carried out on the orders of the President of the country concerned.98 ***** 90 Communication No. 597/1994, P. Grant v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 22 March 1996), in UN doc. GAOR, A/51/40 (vol. II), p. 212, para. 8.1. 91 Communication No. 248/1987, G. Campbell v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1992), p. 246, para. 6.3. 92 Communication No. R.8/33, L. B. Carballal v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 27 March 1981), in UN doc. GAOR, A/36/40, pp. 128-129, paras. 12-13. 93 Ibid., loc. cit. 94 Communication No. 526/1993, M. and B. Hill v. Spain (Views adopted on 2 April 1997), in UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), p. 17, para. 12.2. 95 Ibid., loc. cit. 96 Communication No. 749/1997, D. McTaggart v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 31 March 1998), in UN doc. GAOR, A/53/40 (vol. II), p. 227, para. 8.1. 97 Communication No. 635/1995, E. Morrison v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 27 July 1998), in UN doc. GAOR, A/53/40 (vol. II), pp. 123-124, para. 21.2. 98 Communication No. 414/1990, P. J. Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea (Views adopted on 8 July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 99, para. 6.5. 182 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers