262. The Commission notes the importance of maintaining an up-to-date official register on all persons deprived of their liberty, including information on any transfers, as well as information on release orders.76 The Commission further notes that maintaining an official register with the above-stated information is one of the safeguards against torture during the pre-trial process as stipulated under Guideline 30 of the Robben Island Guidelines. 263. The Respondent State provides no evidence to support its contention that the Victim was actually released and subsequently re-arrested, nor does it present any evidence to show that the Victim continually engaged in acts that endangered the peace and security of the state. 264. The Commission observes that in addition to the testimony of the Victim, the Complainants have provided documentation to support their allegations that court release orders were never implemented. Failing the submission of contrary evidence to rebut the Complainants’ submissions, the Commission finds that the court release orders were never implemented, and the Victim’s detention was therefore unlawful and arbitrary.77 ii. Whether the detention was arbitrary a. Detention not under the control of effective judicial authority 265. The Complainants submit that the detention of the Victim was arbitrary as it was not under the control of an effective judicial authority. The Complainants argue that a judicial authority did not determine the lawfulness and necessity of his detention, and that the Victim was detained solely on the order of the Minister of Interior. 266. The Respondent State argues that the arrest was permitted by the Emergency Law, and that since the detention was not related to criminal offences, it did not require the transfer of the case to a criminal court. 267. The Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (the Luanda Guidelines),78 provide that “[a]ll persons in police custody and pre-trial detention shall have the right, either personally or through their representative, to take proceedings before a judicial authority, without delay, in order to have the legality of their detention reviewed. If the The official register should also include information on the detainees’ identity; the arrest or detention; notification of rights upon arrest or detention; place of detention; observations on the detainees mental or physical health; any complaints raised by an arrested or detained person; name of authority supervising the pre-trial detention; and time of the detainee’s first appearance before a judicial authority, amongst others. See Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial, M (6) and the Luanda Guidelines, Guidelines 16 – 19. 77 Communication 856/1999 – Alex Soteli Chambala v. Zambia (2003) Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/78/D/856/1999), para. 7.3. 78 The Luanda Guidelines were adopted by the Commission in 2014, to supplement Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 26 of the African Charter. 76 42