A/HRC/22/44 40. The Working Group received written submissions from Afghanistan, Australia, Azerbaijan, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Oman, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland and Turkey. The Working Group also received written submissions from the International Commission of Jurists and the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law. It further notes with appreciation the constructive engagement and cooperation of Governments and civil society attending the Working Group’s public consultation of 22 November 2011. 41. Based on the findings of the review of its own jurisprudence, international and regional mechanisms, consultations and the submissions to the note verbale, the Working Group adopts the following deliberation on the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law. B. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in international law 42. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty is recognized in all major international and regional instruments for the promotion and protection of human rights. These include articles 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 6 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), article 7, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention), article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (Arab Charter), and article 5, paragraph 1, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 43. Currently, 167 States have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty is widely enshrined in national constitutions and legislation and follows closely the international norms and standards on the subject.6 This widespread ratification of international treaty law on arbitrary deprivation of liberty, as well as the widespread translation of the prohibition into national laws, constitute a near universal State practice evidencing the customary nature of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty prohibition. Moreover, many United Nations resolutions confirm the opinio iuris supporting the customary nature of these rules: first, resolutions speaking of the arbitrary detention prohibition with regard to a specific State that at the time was not bound by any treaty prohibition of arbitrary detention;7 second, resolutions of a very general nature on the rules relating to arbitrary detention for all States, without distinction 6 7 GE.12-18935 According to replies received to the questionnaire mentioned in paragraph 38 of the present document, see: sections 18 of the Human Rights Act and 21 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act in Australia and article 75 (v) of the Constitution of Australia; articles 28 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan and 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code; section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; article 66 of the Constitution of France and articles 432 (4) and following of the Criminal Code of France; article 17 (4) of the Constitution of Spain; article 71 (2) of the Constitutional Act of Denmark; article 19 (7) of the Constitution of Chile; article 23 of the Constitution of Morocco; articles 31, 33 and 34 of the Constitution of Japan; articles 414–417 of the Penal Code of Afghanistan; articles 11, 12 and 133 of the Constitution of Paraguay; Habeas Corpus Law of Paraguay No. 1500/99; articles 18, 40 and 42 of the Constitution of Georgia; articles 143, 176 and 205 of the Criminal Code of Georgia; article 6 of the Constitution of Greece and articles 325–326 of the Penal Code of Greece; articles 174–177 of the Penal Code of Colombia; article 146 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania; article 31 of the Constitution of Switzerland; articles 90–108 of the Penal Code of Turkey; article 16 of the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan and articles 125 and 324 of the Penal Code of Kyrgyzstan; section 136 of the Penal Code of Estonia; articles 27–31 of the Constitution of Serbia; article 27 of the Constitution of Portugal; and section 5 of the Constitution of Mauritius. For example, Security Council resolutions 392 (1976), 417 (1977) and 473 (1980) on South Africa. 17