66 A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT Lords led neither to their immediate release nor to the payment of compensation for unlawful detention and it was therefore necessary for them to lodge the present application. The Court does not consider that there is any reason of principle why, since the applicants have requested it to examine the lawfulness of their detention, the Government should not now have the chance to raise all the arguments open to them to defend the proceedings, even if this involves calling into question the conclusion of their own Supreme Court. 159. The Court therefore dismisses the applicants’ two preliminary objections. 2. Admissibility 160. The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention raise complex issues of law and fact, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. It concludes, therefore, that this part of the application is not manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground of inadmissibility has been raised and it must be declared admissible. 3. The merits 161. The Court must first ascertain whether the applicants’ detention was permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f), because if that sub-paragraph does provide a defence to the complaints under Article 5 § 1, it will not be necessary to determine whether or not the derogation was valid (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 191, Series A no. 25). (a) Whether the applicants were lawfully detained in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention 162. Article 5 enshrines a fundamental human right, namely the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 76, Reports 1996-VI). The text of Article 5 makes it clear that the guarantees it contains apply to “everyone”. 163. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which persons may be deprived of their liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008). One of the exceptions, contained in sub-paragraph (f), permits the State to control the liberty of aliens in an immigration context (ibid., § 64). The Government contend that the applicants’ detention was justified under the second limb of that sub-paragraph and that they were lawfully