A/57/173 international human rights law in order to prevent human rights violations, in particular those safeguards preventing and prohibiting torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In his first report to the Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur reviewed the non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the context of renewed preoccupations with respect to human security in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States of America. He concluded that the legal and moral basis for the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was absolute and imperative and must under no circumstances yield or be subordinated to other interests, policies and practices. 3 6. The Special Rapporteur hereby wishes briefly to review information he has received on measures designed or taken to counter national and international terrorism in the light of relevant standards of international human rights law, in particular those relating to arrest and pre-trial detention and due process of law, which must be respected in envisaging, enacting and implementing such measures. A. Arrest, pre-trial detention, access to a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus 7. Extensive periods of detention in custody without charge or trial are said to have been contemplated or enacted in order to provide security and other forces with sufficient time to collect evidence leading to charges under anti-terrorist legislation. It has also been reported that by enacting laws providing for indefinite administrative detention as an alternative to prosecution, States have created informal criminal justice systems in which detainees are denied rights that they would normally have in the ordinary judicial systems. It has been implied that such lengthy periods of detention without judicial review might lead to their misuse by security and other forces for the aims of preventive detention and may thus facilitate the use of illegal methods to obtain confessions and other evidence. Furthermore, according to information that has been received, measures to permit the indefinite detention of foreign nationals alleged to pose a threat to national security are envisaged or have already been taken. It is believed that such administrative detention would allow the relevant authorities to detain foreigners believed to pose a security threat but who cannot be deported to their country of origin without violating the principle of non-refoulement (see below, paras. 27 ff.). 8. The Special Rapporteur would like to recall article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”. Paragraph 4 of the same article provides that “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful” (right to habeas corpus). He also notes that the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide for all persons arrested or detained to be informed of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice or a State-appointed lawyer (principles 5 and 6); to have prompt access to this lawyer, and “in any case not later than forty-eight hours from the time of arrest or detention” (principle 7); and to be “provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship, and in full confidentiality” (principle 8). 9. In its general comment No. 8 of 30 June 1982, the Human Rights Committee stated that in the view of the Committee, delays in bringing anyone arrested or detained in a criminal case before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power must not exceed a few days. In its concluding observations of the periodic report on Zimbabwe, the Human Rights Committee indicated for example, that the law relating to arrest and detention should ensure that individuals are not held in pre-trial custody for longer than 48 hours without court order. 4 10. With respect to persons arrested under suspicion of terrorist activities, attention is drawn to the findings of the Human Rights Committee regarding the fifth periodic report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “The Committee notes with concern that, under the general Terrorism Act 2000, suspects may be detained for 48 hours without access to a lawyer if the police suspect that such access would lead, for example, to 5