Deprivation of liberty must be prescribed by law and in accordance with the law 6. Any deprivation of liberty must be prescribed by law. 411 The grounds must be ‘clearly established in domestic legislation’.412 So where the law provides for an arrest only if a warrant has been issued, and a person is arrested without such warrant, this will violate this provision.413 7. The principle of legality has been held by the Human Rights Committee to include ‘elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law’.414 8. National law must be precise, accessible and foreseeable. There must also be a continued legal basis for the detention. For example, where national law only permits detention under a particular circumstance for 12 hours and an individual is detained for 12 hours and 40 minutes the detention for 40 minutes will be unlawful.415 Derogation from the right to liberty 9. The right to liberty is not an absolute right and it can be derogated from during times of war or other emergency subject to the requirements noted above.416 When Detention is Lawful 10. Deprivation of liberty should always be the exception and not the rule.417 11. ‘Unlawful detention’ will be where detention violates the domestic law, and that which does not comply with the requirements of the treaty, for example, Article 9(1) ICCPR.418 12. Detention can start out lawful and then become unlawful. This may occur, for example, if the sentence has been completed but the individual is still detained, or because the circumstances which warranted the detention have changed.419 411 Communication 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, 30 March 2006, para. 9.5; Communication 1460/2006, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan, 20 July 2009, para. 7.2. 412 Communication 702/1996, C. McLawrence v Jamaica, 11 July 1997.. 413 Communication 770/1997, Gridin v Russian Federation, 18 July 2000. 414 Communication 458/1991, A.W. Mukong v Cameroon, 21 July 1994. 415 European Court, K-F v Germany, 27 November 1997. 416 See section V.B. above. 417 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.8, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 130 (2003), para. 3; Communication 526/1993, Hill v Spain, 2 April 1997, para. 12.3; Communication 432/1990, W.B.E. v The Netherlands, 23 October 1992, para. 6.3; Concluding observations on El Salvador, CCPR/C/SLV/CO/6, para. 15 418 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, A/HRC/27/47, para 14. See Communications 1255/2004 et al., Shams et al. v. Australia, 20 July 2007, para. 7.3; Communication 1460/2006, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan, 20 July 2009, para. 7.4 and 1751/2008, Aboussedra v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 14 March 2012, para. 7.6. 419 Communication 1090/2002, Rameka v. New Zealand, 6 November 2003, paras. 7.3 and 7.4. 84