Chapter 3 Conditions of Detention | 47 88. 89. 90. 91. 69 70 71 reasons and whether there is a legal basis). According to the discussions, “necessity” gives expression to the fact that internment must be seen as an exceptional measure. It must “be necessary for security reasons, and not just convenient or useful for the interning power” and therefore “internment for the sole purpose of obtaining intelligence is impermissible.” Given that it is a preventive measure, security detention cannot, for instance, be used as a “(disguised) alternative to criminal proceedings.” In this regard, the following two-tiered test can assess whether an individual presents a sufficient threat: (i) whether, on the basis of his or her activity (which as such is not necessarily subject to criminal prosecution), it is “highly likely” or “certain” that he or she will commit further acts that are harmful to the interning Power and/or those it is mandated to assist or protect; and (ii) whether it is necessary to neutralize the threat posed. 69 Finally, the experts stressed the importance of the continuous updating and verification of the information used in the threat assessment leading to internment. Accordingly, what must be avoided is that initial information on the existence of a threat continues to serve as the basis for detention without being corroborated or further updated. 70 It should be noted that several experts argued that an explicit treaty basis for security detentions in IHL would be the most adequate response to the realities on the ground. There are many points of convergence between international humanitarian law and the guarantees afforded by international human rights law with regard to the right to personal liberty in the context of armed conflict. The fundamental human rights protections for individuals apply at all times, in peace, during emergency situations, and in war. Nevertheless, in analyzing the duty of States to protect the security of their citizens, the Inter-American Commission has recognized that reasons of public security may justify restrictions on liberty or the extension of normal periods of preventive or administrative detention. 71 The right to personal liberty and security may potentially be limited, subject to the rules and principles governing derogation as provided in Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights. While the American Declaration does not explicitly contemplate the possibility of restricting or suspending the rights prescribed thereunder, the Commission has considered that the derogation criteria derived from the American Convention and general principles of law are properly considered and applied in the context of the Declaration. In addition, the ability of States to take measures derogating from protections under the human rights International Review of the Red Cross, Reports and Documents, Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, Chatham House and International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 22-23 September 2008, Volume 91 Number 876, December 2009, p. 865. International Review of the Red Cross, Reports and Documents, Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, Chatham House and International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 22-23 September 2008, Volume 91 Number 876, December 2009, p. 866. IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 25. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR