A/HRC/22/44 III. Deliberation No. 9 concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law A. Introduction and methodology 37. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is the only body in the international human rights system entrusted by the former Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council with a specific mandate to receive and examine cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. In this capacity, the Working Group has interpreted and enforced the international legal rules on deprivation of liberty as they have developed in domestic, regional and international jurisdictions since 1991.4 In order to determine the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law, the Working Group has reviewed international treaty law and its own jurisprudence and that of international and regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights. 38. The Working Group regards cases of deprivation of liberty as arbitrary under customary international law in cases where: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty; (b) The deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) The total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character; (d) Asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review of remedy; (e) The deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of the international law for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; disability or other status, and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights. 39. On 31 October 2011, the Working Group consulted States and civil society and sent a note verbale inviting all to reply to two questions concerning the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in national legislation.5 4 5 16 Commission on Human Rights resolution 1991/42, establishing the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4 and 15/18. See also Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, annual reports to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, report 2011 (all reports available on the Internet at www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Annual.aspx). See further Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/50. These questions were: (1) is the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty expressly contained in your country’s legislation? If so, please refer to the specific legislation; and (2) what elements are taken into account by national judges to qualify the deprivation of liberty as arbitrary? If possible, please provide concrete examples of the judgments. GE.12-18935