automatic review of a detainee’s detention.92 The Law also does not provide for a maximum time period that a detainee may be held under administrative detention.93 284. Furthermore, the Commission has held that detention must always be an exceptional measure of last resort.94 While the Respondent State submits that the state of emergency applies in instances which do not qualify as regular situations, the Special Rapporteur on Terrorism, in his report 2009 noted that “Egypt has been almost continuously governed by emergency law, which includes farreaching restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, for more than 50 years.”95 The Commission agrees with the Special Rapporteur’s opinion that “[a] state of emergency almost continuously in force for more than 50 years in Egypt is not a state of exceptionality; it has become the norm, which must never be the purpose of a state of emergency.”96 The Commission reiterates its holding that a State has the right and duty to guarantee its security, but that the State remains subject to the provisions of the Charter.97 The exigencies of fighting terrorism cannot invalidate the protection afforded under Article 6 of the Charter.98 285. The Commission observes that short-comings in the Emergency Law as well as the conditions created by the Emergency Law have allowed derogations from the ordinary procedures of the Criminal Procedure Code, resulting in Article 6 violations. The Commission finds that the Emergency Law does not conform to the African Charter, and fails to fully respect the rights of arrested and detained persons. 286. The Commission further finds that Article 6 violations that took place in the application of the Emergency Law have been substantiated by the Complainant’s submissions, and documented by various human rights bodies.99 To conclude, the Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 6 of the African Charter, due to its failure to comply with court release orders making the Victim’s detention unlawful; the Victim’s detention was not under the effective control of a judicial authority; and short-comings in the Emergency Law which adversely affect the rights of arrested and detained persons. Alleged violation of Article 7 Review of detention shall be automatic, not requiring any action by the detainee and occur at regular interval. See UN Commission on Human Rights, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1984), Article 70(b). 93 The length of an administrative detention is to be limited in time: indefinite detention even in emergencies is prohibited. See, Siracusa Principles, Article 70(b). 94 Luanda Guidelines, (n 78 above), 1 (b). 95 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Countering Terrorism (n 55 above), para 5. 96 As above. 97 Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samson v. Uganda (n 80 above), para 109. 98 As above. See also, ACHPR, Principles and Guidelines on Human and Peoples’ Rights while Countering Terrorism in Africa, (2015), Part 1(I). 99 See Complainants’ submissions and the Victim’s affidavit, Reports of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2007), Amnesty International (2008), UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Countering Terrorism (2009), and FIDH (2010). 92 46