A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 59 account in forming a global assessment of the applicants’ treatment for the purposes of Article 3. 134. In all the above circumstances, the Court does not find that the detention of the applicants reached the high threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment. 135. The applicants also complained that they did not have effective domestic remedies for their Article 3 complaints, in breach of Article 13. In this connection, the Court repeats its above finding that civil and administrative law remedies were available to the applicants had they wished to complain about their conditions of detention. As for the more fundamental aspect of the complaints, that the very nature of the detention scheme in Part 4 of the 2001 Act gave rise to a breach of Article 3, the Court reiterates that Article 13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a challenge to primary legislation before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X). 136. In conclusion, therefore, the Court does not find a violation of Article 3, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 137. The applicants contended that their detention was unlawful and incompatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 138. In their first set of written observations, following the communication of the application by the Chamber, the Government indicated that they would not seek to raise the question of derogation under Article 15 of the Convention as a defence to the claim based on Article 5 § 1, but would leave that point as determined against them by the House of Lords. Instead, they intended to focus their argument on the defence that the applicants were lawfully detained with a view to deportation, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, in their written observations to the Grand Chamber, dated 11 February 2008, the Government indicated for the first time that they wished to argue that the applicants’ detention did not in any event give rise to a violation of Article 5 § 1 because the United Kingdom’s derogation under Article 15 was valid. 139. Article 5 § 1 of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...