Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention Article 5(5) of the European Convention “is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivaton of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. It does not prohibit the Contracting States from making the award of compensation dependent upon the ability of the person concerned to show damage resulting from the breach. In the context of Article 5 § 5, ... the status of ‘victim’ may exist even where there is no damage, but there can be no question of ‘compensation’ where there is no pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage to compensate.”231 However, where the applicants have been arrested and detained lawfully under domestic law but in violation of article 5 of the Convention, there has been a violation of article 5(5) if they had no enforceable claim for compensation before the domestic courts.232 Everyone has the right to compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty by reason of violations of international and/or national law. Such compensation may depend on the demonstration of damage. 9. Incommunicado detention The treatment of persons deprived of their liberty will be covered in Chapter 8, including such issues as the right of access to family and questions of solitary confinement. However, in the present context, one particular issue deserves highlighting, namely that of incommunicado detention. The practice of holding detainees incommunicado, that is to say, keeping them totally isolated from the outside world without even allowing them access to their family and lawyer, does not per se appear to be outlawed by international human rights law, although the Human Rights Committee has stated in its General Comment No. 20, on article 7 of the Covenant, that “provisions should ... be made against incommunicado detention”.233 What is clear from the jurisprudence, however, is that incommunicado detention is not allowed to interfere with the effective enforcement of the legal guarantees of people deprived of their liberty. In a case where the authors had been held incommunicado during the first 44 days of detention, the Committee concluded that both articles 9(3) and 10(1) of the Covenant had been violated because they had not been brought promptly before a judge and because of the incommunicado detention.234 231 Eur. Court HR, Wassink Case v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A, No. 185-A, p. 14, para.38. 232 Eur. Court HR, Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145-B, p. 35, paras. 66-67. 233 See United Nations Compilation of General Comments, p. 139 at p. 140, para. 11. 234 Communication No. 176/1984, L. Peñarrieta et al. v. Bolivia (Views adopted on 2 November 1987), in UN doc. GAOR, A/43/40, p. 207, para. 16. 210 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers