Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention 6.1 The legal procedures complying with this requirement It is clear from the terms of the treaty provisions quoted above that the legality of the detention must be determined by a court. Consequently, an appeal against a detention order to the Minister of the Interior, for instance, does not comply with the requirements of article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although the Committee considers that an appeal provides “for some measure of protection and review of the legality of the detention”, it “does not satisfy the requirements of” article 9(4), “which envisages that the legality of detention will be determined by a court so as to ensure a higher degree of objectivity and independence in such control”.180 Thus, where the author had been detained under the Finnish Aliens Act under orders of the police, the lawfulness of the detention could not be reviewed by a court until, after seven days, the detention order had been confirmed by the Minister of the Interior. In the Committee’s view such delay violated article 9(4), according to which a detained person must be able “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”.181 The case of A. v. Australia Article 9(4) was violated in a case concerning a Cambodian citizen who had applied for refugee status in Australia, where “the courts’ control and power to order the release of an individual was limited to an assessment of whether this individual was a ‘designated person’ within the meaning of the Migration Amendment Act”; if “the criteria for such determination were met, the courts had no power to review the continued detention of an individual or to order his/her release”.182 However, in the opinion of the Committee: “Court review of the lawfulness of detention under article 9, paragraph 4, which must include the possibility of ordering release, is not limited to mere compliance of the detention with domestic law. While domestic legal systems may institute differing methods for ensuring court review of administrative detention, what is decisive for the purposes of article 9, paragraph 4, is that such review is, in its effects, real and not merely formal. 180 Communication No. 291/1988, M. I. Torres v. Finland (Views adopted on 2 April 1990), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (vol. II), pp. 99-100, para. 7.2. 181 Ibid., at p. 100. 182 Communication No. 560/1993, A. v. Australia (Views adopted on 3 April 1997), in UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), p. 143, para. 9.5. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 199