CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011 7.3 The Committee recalls that commitment to and treatment in a psychiatric institution against the will of a patient constitutes a form of deprivation of liberty that falls under the terms of article 9 of the Covenant.5 It further recalls that article 9 (1) requires that deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary and must be carried out with respect for the rule of law. The second sentence of paragraph 1 prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, while the third sentence prohibits unlawful deprivation of liberty, i.e., deprivation of liberty that is not imposed on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The two prohibitions overlap, in that arrests and detentions may be both arbitrary and unlawful.6 Furthermore, it recalls that the notion of arbitrariness is not to be equated with “against the law” but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law.7 7.4 While acknowledging that an individual’s mental health may be impaired to such an extent that, in order to avoid harm, the issuance of a committal order may be unavoidable,8 the Committee considers that involuntary hospitalization must be applied only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, and must be accompanied by adequate procedural and substantive safeguards established by law. 9 The procedures should ensure respect for the views of the individual and should ensure that any representative genuinely represents and defends the wishes and interests of the individual. 10 7.5 In the light of the above, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that they were apprehended and involuntarily hospitalized for nine days, in violation of the national legislation and without the order of the court, that there was no immediate medical examination carried out, which would then decide whether the hospitalization had been justified, and that neither was a representation assigned to them nor were they allowed to contact relatives. The Committee also notes that, following the authors’ complaints, the Ombudsman conducted an investigation and, on 25 April 2007, forwarded the authors’ complaints to the Samarkand City Court, stating that his investigation had confirmed that illegal actions had taken place in the authors’ case. In particular, the Ombudsman qualified the authors’ involuntary hospitalization as abuse of authority and violations of the Law on Psychiatric Help. 7.6 The Committee further observes the authors’ submissions that, on 14 October 2006, the Chief Medical Doctor of the psychiatric hospital ordered the creation of a psychiatric commission to evaluate the authors’ mental health and that this decision was taken four days after the authors’ involuntary hospitalization. The Committee also observes that, according to the order of Chief Medical Doctor of the psychiatric hospital, the decision was made because the authors had been constantly complaining to different institutions since 2002. Furthermore, the Committee observes that, on 17 May 2007, the Samarkand City Court established that the spouses “disturbed the work” of the President of the Quarter’s Committee, Sh., by their numerous complaints and that the latter was forced to request that 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 See, for example, communications No. 754/1997, A. v. New Zealand, Views adopted on 15 July 1999, para. 7.2; and No. 1061/2002, Fijalkowska v. Poland, Views adopted on 26 July 2005, para. 8.2. See general comment No. 35 (2014) on article 9 (Liberty and security of person), CCPR/C/GC/35, paras. 10 and 11. Ibid., para 12; see also, for example, communication No. 1875/2009, M.G.C. v. Australia, Views adopted on 26 March 2015, para. 11.5. See Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.3. See general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 19; see also Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.3. See general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 19. See also CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2, para. 14; see also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 9 (2006) on the rights of children with disabilities, CRC/C/GC/9, para. 48.