Detention not under the control of effective judicial authority 100. The Complainants allege that at least from November 1996, when the detention of the Victim was ordered under the Emergency Law, the Victim’s detention was never authorised by, reviewed, or under the control of any effective judicial authority. The Complainants submit that the Victim was detained solely on the orders of the Minister of Interior. 101. The Complainants submit that although the detention was based on an administrative rather than judicial decision, the review was not automatic but had to be initiated by the Victim or his lawyer. The Complainants further submit that even this nominal review of the Victim’s detention was wholly ineffective as the Victim was never physically brought before a judge. 102. The Complainants submit that the repeated disregard of court release orders demonstrates that the judiciary was not competent and did not have effective control over the detention of the Victim. The Complainants submit that the lack of judicial control renders the detention arbitrary. Detention was unjust and not based on any predictable legal regime 103. The Complainants submit that the detention of the Victim was not based on any legitimate purpose set out in law, but was unpredictable and lacked any due process. The Complainants submit that the Victim was never informed of the reasons behind his detention, neither charged with any offence, nor provided with the opportunity to answer the claims against him. 104. The Complainants highlight the vague and overbroad definition of persons who may be detained under the jurisdiction of the Emergency Law as the core problem. The Complainants point to Article 3(1) of the Emergency Law which provides for the arrest and detention of criminal suspects, but also of “persons who are dangerous to security and order”. The Complainants point out that such detention does not require law enforcement officials to identify specific reasons that lead them to believe that a person is dangerous. The Complainants submit that detention under the emergency law is rather often used as a “preventative measure”. 105. The Complainants allege that the vague definitions under the Emergency Law have allowed the State to repeatedly use the law as a weapon to silence or punish political dissidents or citizens who expressed views diverging from the mainstream. 106. The Complainants allege that the Emergency Law, not requiring a detainee to be officially charged or brought to trial, is an administrative detention system which is not tied to judicial holding or procedure. 107. The Complainants aver that the Emergency Law does not define a maximum limit for administrative detention of an individual considered to be a national security threat, and that in practice an individual may be detained indefinitely. 16