Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention The same argument was invoked, among others, in a case where approximately two months elapsed between the institution of proceedings and the delivery of the judgement. Part of this delay was caused by administrative problems due to the vacation period. However, in addition to the above-mentioned reasoning, the Court also emphasized that “it is incumbent on the judicial authorities to make the necessary administrative arrangements, even during a vacation period, to ensure that urgent matters are dealt with speedily and this is particularly necessary when the individual’s personal liberty is at stake. Appropriate provisions for this purpose do not appear to have been made in the circumstances of the present case.”223 The five weeks that elapsed between the filing of the application for judicial review and the additional three weeks that were required to write the judgement did not comply with the notion of “speedily” in article 5(4) which, consequently, had been violated.224 Everyone deprived of his or her liberty has the right to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention before a court so that the court may decide without delay/speedily on the lawfulness of the detention or order the person’s release if the detention is not lawful. This right applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty, including administrative detention. This judicial remedy must be effectively available to the detainee. Incommunicado detention is not a valid ground for refusing a detainee the right to challenge the lawfulness of his or her detention before a court of law. The legality of the detention must be determined by a court which is independent and impartial. Appeals to government ministers do not constitute a sufficient remedy for the purposes of challenging the lawfulness of deprivations of liberty. The court must have the power to review both the procedural and substantive grounds for the deprivation of liberty and be empowered to make a binding order for release of the detained person in the event that his or her deprivation of liberty is unlawful. Every person deprived of his or her liberty is entitled to have the lawfulness of the continued detention subjected to periodic reviews for the purpose of testing whether the reasons for the deprivation of liberty remain valid; the exception to this rule is detention pursuant to a criminal conviction by a competent court. 223 Eur. Court HR, Case of E. v. Norway, judgment of 29 August 1990, Series A, No. 181, p. 28, para. 66. 224 Ibid., p. 28, paras. 65-67. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 207