Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention The Vuolanne and Hammel cases Article 9(4) was applicable in the case of Vuolanne, where the author had been held in solitary confinement for ten days and nights, a fact that was “in itself outside the usual service and exceeds the normal restrictions that military life entails”.173 Although the disciplinary punishment had been imposed by an administrative authority, the State party was under an obligation “to make available to the person detained the right of recourse to a court of law”, although, in this particular case, it did not matter “whether the court would be civilian or military”.174 In the Hammel case, where the author had no possibility of taking proceedings before a court to determine the lawfulness of his detention for the purpose of expulsion, the Committee likewise concluded that article 9(4) had been violated.175 The right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s deprivation of liberty must be effectively available, and the Committee held that there had been a violation of article 9(4) where the person deprived of liberty had been held incommunicado and thereby been “effectively barred from challenging his arrest and detention”.176 Similarly, in a case where the author could, in principle, have applied to the courts for a writ of habeas corpus, but where it was uncontested that he had no access to legal representation throughout his detention, the Committee concluded that article 9(4) of the Covenant had been violated.177 On the other hand, where there was no evidence that either the author or his legal representative applied for such a writ, the Committee was unable to conclude that the former “was denied the opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed in court without delay”.178 Lastly, where the writ of habeas corpus has been inapplicable to persons deprived of their liberty, the Committee has found a violation of article 9(4) since they were denied an effective remedy to challenge their arrest and detention.179 173 Ibid., p. 257, para. 9.5. 174 Ibid., para. 9.6. 175 Communication No. 155/1983, E. Hammel v. Madagascar (Views adopted on 3 April 1987), in UN doc. GAOR, A/42/40, p. 138, para. 20. 176 Communication No. 84/1981, H. G. Dermit on behalf of G. I. and H. H. Dermit Barbato (Views adopted on 21 October 1982), in UN doc. GAOR, A/38/40, para. 10 at p. 133. 177 Communication No. 330/1988, A. Berry v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 7 April 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), pp. 26-27, para. 11.1. 178 Communication No. 373/1989, L. Stephens v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 18 October 1995), in UN doc. GAOR, A/51/40 (vol. II), p. 9, para. 9.7. 179 See, for example, Communication No.R.2/9, E. D. Santullo Valcada v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 26 October 1979), in UN doc. GAOR, A/35/40, p. 110, para. 12, and Communication No. R.1/4, W. T. Ramírez v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 23 July 1980), para. 18 at p. 126. 198 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers