Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention Other legal instruments that will be referred to in this chapter are: v The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in 1988; v The Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly in 1992; v The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65. 4.2 The notions of lawfulness and arbitrariness: their meaning The four major human rights treaties referred to above all stipulate, albeit in somewhat differing terms, that a deprivation of liberty must in all cases be carried out in accordance with the law (the principle of legality), and, as regards article 5 of the European Convention, for the exclusive purposes enumerated therein. Furthermore, deprivations of liberty must not be arbitrary, a wider notion which, as will be seen below, makes it possible for the international monitoring organs to consider factors that make the domestic laws or their application unreasonable in the circumstances. ***** As to the principle of legality, the Human Rights Committee has held that “it is violated if an individual is arrested or detained on grounds which are not clearly established in domestic legislation”; in other words, the grounds for arrest and detention must be “established by law”.10 In a case where a person was arrested without a warrant, which was issued more than three days later, contrary to the domestic law that lays down that a warrant must be issued within 72 hours after arrest, the Committee concluded that article 9(1) had been violated because the author had been “deprived of his liberty in violation of a procedure as established by law”.11 With regard to the meaning of the words “arbitrary arrest” in article 9(1), the Committee has explained that “‘arbitrariness’ is not to be equated with ‘against the law’, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. ... [T]his means that remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in the circumstances. Remand in custody must further be necessary in all the circumstances, for example, to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime”.12 10 Communicaton No. 702/1996, C. McLawrence v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 18 July 1997), in UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), pp. 230-231, para. 5.5. 11 Communication No. 770/1997, Gridin v. Russian Federation (Views adopted on 20 July 2000), in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II), p. 175, para. 8.1. 12 Communication No. 458/1991, A. W. Mukong v. Cameroon (Views adopted on 21 July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 181, para. 9.8; footnote omitted from the quotation; emphasis added. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 165