Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention 6. The Right to Have the Lawfulness of the Detention Decided Speedily or Without Delay by a Court Article 9(4) of the Covenant reads as follows: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.” Article 7(6) of the American Convention reads: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person on his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” Article 5(4) of the European Convention provides that “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” ***** It is noteworthy that these important legal guarantees are applicable to all deprivations of liberty, whether in criminal or in administrative cases.171 The Human Rights Committee has also held that a disciplinary penalty imposed on a conscript “may fall within the scope of application of” article 9(4): “... if it takes the form of restrictions that are imposed over and above the exigencies of normal military service and deviate from the normal conditions of life within the armed forces of the State party concerned. In order to establish whether this is so, account should be taken of a whole range of factors such as the nature, duration, effects and manner of execution of the penalty or measure in question”.172 171 As to article 9(4) of the Covenant, see General Comment No. 8, in United Nations Compilation of General Comments, pp. 117-118. 172 Communication No. 265/1987, A. Vuolanne v. Finland (Views adopted on 7 April 1989), in UN doc. GAOR, A/44/40, pp. 256-257, para. 9.4. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 197