Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention The case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. In the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., the Inter-American Court expressed the view that laws that allow the authorities to hold a person suspected of the crime of treason in preventive custody for 15 days, with the possibility of a 15-day extension, without bringing that person before a judicial authority, are contrary to article 7 of the Convention.118 The detention in this case “occurred amid a terrible disruption of public law and order that escalated in 1992 and 1993 with acts of terrorism that left many victims in their wake”, and, “in response to these events, the State adopted emergency measures, one of which was to allow those suspected of treason to be detained without a lawful court order”.119 To Peru’s allegation that the declared state of emergency involved a suspension of article 7, the Court replied that it had “repeatedly held that the suspension of guarantees must not exceed the limits strictly required and that ‘any action on the part of the public authorities that goes beyond those limits, would ... be unlawful.’ The limits imposed upon the actions of a State come from ‘the general requirement that in any state of emergency there be appropriate means to control the measures taken, so that they are proportionate to the needs and do not exceed the strict limits imposed by the Convention or derived from it’.”120 In this case, “approximately 36 days ... elapsed between the time of detention and the date on which the alleged victims were brought before a judicial authority”, and this time was, in the view of the Court “excessive and contrary to the provisions of the Convention”.121 ***** As to article 5(3) of the European Convention, no violation of article 5(3) “can arise if the arrested person is released ‘promptly’ before any judicial control of his detention would have been feasible”; “if the arrested is not released promptly, he is entitled to a prompt appearance before a judge or judicial officer”.122 As to the assessment of the term “promptness”, it “has to be made in the light of the object and purpose of” article 5, which is to protect “the individual against arbitrary interferences by the State with his right to liberty”; “judicial control of interferences by the executive with the individual’s right to liberty is an essential feature of the guarantee embodied in [this article and] is intended to minimise the risk of arbitrariness”; moreover, “judicial control is implied by the rule of law, ‘one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society’ ... and ‘from which the whole Convention draws its inspiration’”.123 118 I-A Court HR, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999, in OAS doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47, doc. 5, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1999, p. 255, para. 110. 119 Ibid., para. 109. 120 Ibid., loc. cit.; footnote omitted. 121 Ibid., p. 256, para. 111. 122 Eur. Court HR, Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145, pp. 31-32, para. 58. 123 Ibid., para. 58 at p. 32. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 187