Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention In a case where the victims were arrested and kept in detention in Nigeria for a lengthy period of time under the State Security (Detention of Persons) Act of 1984 and the State Security (Detention of Persons) Amended Decree No. 14 (1994), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights concluded that the facts constituted a prima facie violation of the right not be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention as guaranteed by article 6 of the African Charter. Under the terms of that Decree, the Government could detain people without charge for a three-month period in the first instance; the Decree likewise allowed the Government arbitrarily to hold people critical of its policies for a period of three months without having to submit any explanations and without there being any possibility for the victims “to challenge the arrest and detention before a court of law”. Considering that the Government had submitted no arguments in defence of the Decree, either as to its justification in general or as applied in this particular case, the Commission held that it had violated article 6 of the African Charter.113 The African Commission has also importantly held that the “right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal” as guaranteed by article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter is reinforced by its Resolution on Fair Trial, according to which persons “arrested or detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within reasonable time or to be released”.114 In the case of Huri-Laws against Nigeria, the Commission therefore concluded that Nigeria had violated both articles 7(1)(d) and 26 by failing to bring the two alleged victims promptly before a judge or other judicial officer for trial; the victims had been detained for weeks and months respectively without any charges being brought against them.115 ***** In the case of Castillo-Páez, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded that article 7(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights had been violated since the victim “had not been brought before a competent court within 24 hours or otherwise if distance was a factor, nor within fifteen days on suspicion of terrorism, pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 5, of the Convention, and Article 2, paragraph 20(c) of the Constitution of Peru”; indeed, the police officers had denied his arrest and hidden the detainee so that he could not be located by the magistrate, whom they also provided with altered logs of entry of detainees.116 Article 7(5) was of course also violated in the case of Suárez-Rosero, where the victim never appeared before a competent judicial authority during the proceedings.117 113 ACHPR, International Pen and Others v. Nigeria, Communications Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, decision adopted on 31 October 1998, paras. 83-84 of the text as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/137-94_139-94_154-96_161-97.html. 114 ACHPR, Huri-Laws (on behalf of Civil Liberties Organisation) v. Nigeria, Communication No. 225/98, decision adopted during the 28th Ordinary session, 23 October – 6 November 2000, para. 45 of the text as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/225-98.html. 115 Ibid., para. 46. 116 I-A Court HR, Castillo Páez Case v. Peru, judgment of November 3, 1997, in OAS doc. OAS/Ser.L/V/III.39, doc. 5, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1997, p. 263, paras. 56-58. 117 I-A Court HR, Suárez Rosero Case, judgment of November 12, 1997, ibid. at pp. 296-297, paras. 53-56. 186 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers