Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention As to the possibility of justifying, under article 5(3) of the European Convention, pre-trial detention on the ground that there is a risk of prejudice to public order, see further below under section 5.1. The basic legal rules regulating arrest and detention are also applicable to administrative detention, i.e. detention by the Executive for reasons unrelated to criminal activities, such as, for instance, detention for educational supervision, reasons of mental health, for the purpose of deportation and extradition, and in order to protect ordre public. International human rights law also provides important judicial guarantees with respect to administrative detention. Domestic law must provide for the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of such detentions before an ordinary court of law applying due process guarantees. 4.8 The right to be promptly informed of reasons for arrest and detention and of any charges against oneself Article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “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”. Article 7(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that “anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him”, while, according to article 5(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, “everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him”. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights contains no specific provision in this respect, but the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has held that the right to a fair trial includes, inter alia, the requirement that persons arrested “shall be informed at the time of arrest, in a language which they understand of the reason for their arrest and shall be informed promptly of any charges against them”.88 ***** The Human Rights Committee has explained that “one of the most important reasons for the requirement of ‘prompt’ information on a criminal charge is to enable a detained individual to request a prompt decision on the lawfulness of his or her detention by a competent judicial authority”.89 It concluded that article 9(2) of the Covenant had been violated in a case where the complainant had not been informed upon arrest of the charges against him and was only informed seven days after he had 88 See e.g. ACHPR, Media Rights Agenda (on behalf of Niran Malaolu) v. Nigeria, Communication No. 224/98, decision adopted during the 28th session, 23 October – 6 November 2000; para. 43 of the text published at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/224-98.html. 89 Communication No. 248/1987, G. Campbell v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1992), p. 246, para. 6.3; emphasis added. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 181