humanitarian law.467 This is even the case during situations of armed conflict468 and during states of emergency.469 The absolute nature of this provision applies also in the context of counter-terrorism measures.470 So, for example, several UN and regional human rights bodies have reiterated in the context of Guantanamo Bay, that ‘procedural safeguards may never be made subject to measures that would circumvent the protection of non-derogable rights’ and that ‘any person deprived of his or her liberty must enjoy continued and effective access to habeas corpus proceedings, and any limitations to this right should be viewed with the utmost concern’.471 44. The right applies to all forms of detention ranging from detention in connection with criminal proceedings to groundless arrests, including military detention,472 involuntary detention in a psychiatric institution473 or immigration facility.474 45. In the case of disciplinary detentions of soldiers, an impartial, independent review by a military court may satisfy the requirements of Article (4), if the detainee is afforded with adequate procedural safeguards.475 46. Where individuals cannot exercise the right, because for example, in the case of enforced disappearances, States are required under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances to ‘guarantee that…any persons with a legitimate interest, such as relatives of the person deprived of their liberty, their representatives or their counsel, shall, in all circumstances, be entitled to take proceedings before a court’.476 47. The right requires that:  The individual be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority. 477 This should be no more than a ‘few days’.478 467 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, A/HRC/27/47, para 22. A/HRC/16/47, para 51; See also UN GA Res.2675 (XXV). See also ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8th July 1996; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.31, CCPR/C/12/Rev.1/Add.13, para 11. 469 Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, CAT/OP/HND.1, para 137. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, CED/C/ESP/CO/1, para 26. 470 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN./4/2004/3, para 85. 471 E/CN.4/2006/120, para 124. 472 Communication 1051/2002 Ahani v. Canada, 29 March 2004, para. 10.2 and Concluding Observation, United Kingdom 2008, para. 17. Communication 962/2001, Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 8 July 2004, para. 5.2. 473 Communication 1062/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, 25 July 2006, para 8.4. 474 Communication 560/1993, A. v. Australia, 3 April 1997, para. 9.5. 475 Human Rights Committee, Communication 265/1987, Vuolanne v. Finland, 7 April 1989, para. 9.6. 476 ICCPED, Article 17(2)(f). 477 UN Body of Principles of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 11(1). 478 Communication 373/1989, L. Stephens v. Jamaica 18 October 1995, para. 9.6. Communication 155/83 Hammel v Madagascar; Concluding Observations on Spain (1996) CCPR/C/79/Add.61, para 12. 468 90