48 A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 102. The Government published their response to the CPT’s 2004 report on 9 June 2005. The Government strongly disputed the allegations of illtreatment by prison staff and pointed out that the detained applicants had at their disposal the remedies provided by administrative and civil law to all prisoners to complain of ill-treatment. The Government’s response continued: “Although the Government respects the conclusions reached by the delegates of the [CPT] based on the observations on the day of visit, it categorically rejects the suggestion that at any point during their detention the [2001 Act] detainees were treated in an ‘inhuman or degrading’ manner that may have amounted to a breach in the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations. The Government firmly believes that at all times the detainees received appropriate care and treatment in Belmarsh and had access to all necessary medical support, both physical and psychological, from medical support staff and doctors. The Government accepts that the individuals had difficult backgrounds prior to detention, but does not accept that ‘detention had caused mental disorders’. Some of the detainees had mental health issues prior to detention, but that did not stop them engaging in the activities that led to their certification and detention. Mental health issues do not prevent an individual from posing a risk to national security. ... The Government does not accept that those certified under [the 2001 Act] were detained without any prospect of their release. ... ... On no occasion did SIAC, or any other court, find that the conditions of detention breached the absolute obligation imposed upon the Government by Article 3 of [the Convention]. It is the Government’s view that, given the extensive judicial safeguards available to the detainees, the Government would not have been able to maintain the detention of these individuals had the powers breached the detainees’ Article 3 rights in any way. To suggest otherwise would be to ignore the extensive contact the detainees had with the British judicial system and the absolute obligation upon the judiciary to protect against any such breach.” D. The European Commissioner for Human Rights 103. In August 2002 the European Commissioner for Human Rights to the Council of Europe published his opinion on certain aspects of the United Kingdom’s derogation from Article 5 of the Convention and Part 4 of the 2001 Act. In that opinion he expressly criticised the lack of sufficient scrutiny by Parliament of the derogation provisions and questioned whether the nature of the al-Qaeda threat was a justifiable basis for recognising a public emergency threatening the life of the nation: “Whilst acknowledging the obligations of the governments to protect their citizens against the threat of terrorism, the Commissioner is of the opinion that general appeals to an increased risk of terrorist activity post September 11 2001 cannot, on their own