the State party, considers that this aspect of the request does not constitute a claim that any of the rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated, within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee notes the representative’s request to restate his case, and his argument that his initial submission was made at a time when the author’s father was under house arrest and before the order for house arrest had been lifted and that, although the request became moot as soon as the order for house arrest was lifted, this does not in any way affect the violation of the Covenant on the grounds of arbitrary detention. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s request to deem the communication moot in the light of the representative’s own admission that the author was no longer subject to any restriction order, and its call for the communication to be considered unfounded and inadmissible. The Committee considers that the lifting of the house arrest order does not necessarily mean that the consideration of the question of arbitrary detention automatically becomes moot, and therefore declares the complaint admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required by article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that Abbassi Madani was arrested in 1991 and tried by a military tribunal in 1992, for jeopardizing State security and the smooth operation of the national economy. He was released from Blida military prison on 15 July 1997. According to the author, on 1 September 1997, he was then placed under house arrest, without receiving written notification of the reasons for such arrest. 8.3 The Committee recalls that under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant everyone has the right to liberty and security of person, and no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. It further recalls that house arrest may give rise to violations of article 9, 10 which guarantees everyone the right to liberty and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention. The State party did not respond to the author’s allegations, except to point out that Abbassi Madani is no longer being held in detention and is not under house arrest. Since the State party did not cite any particular provisions for the enforcement of prison sentences or 10 legal ground for ordering house arrest, the Committee concludes that a deprivation of liberty took place between 1 September 1997 and 1 July 2003. The detention is thus arbitrary in nature and therefore constitutes a violation of article 9, paragraph 1. 8.4 According to article 9, paragraph 3, anyone detained must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, in order to avoid a characterization of arbitrariness, detention should not continue beyond the period for which the State party can provide appropriate justification. 11 In the present case, the author’s father was released from house arrest on 2 July 2003, in other words after almost six years. The State party has not given any justification for the length of the detention. The Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that for the duration of his house arrest the author’s father was denied access to a defence lawyer, and that he had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The State party did not respond to those allegations. The Committee recalls that in accordance with article 9, paragraph 4, judicial review of the lawfulness of detention must provide for the possibility of ordering the release of the detainee if his or her detention is declared incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, in particular those of article 9, paragraph 1. In the case in question, the author’s father was under house arrest for almost six years without any specific grounds relating to the case file, and without the possibility of judicial review concerning the substantive issue of whether his detention was compatible with the Covenant. Accordingly, and in the absence of sufficient explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that there is a violation of article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. 8.6 In the light of the above findings, the Committee does not consider it necessary to deal with the complaint in respect of article 12 of the Covenant. 8.7 As far as the alleged violation of article 14 of the Covenant is concerned, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 13, in which it states that, while the Covenant does not prohibit the trial of civilians in military courts, nevertheless such trials should be very exceptional and take place under 11 Communication No. 132/1982, Monja Jaona v. Madagascar, Views adopted on 1 April 1985, paras. 1314; and communication No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 15 March 2005, para. 5.4. Communication No. 900/1999, C. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 October 2002, para. 8.2; and communication No. 1014/2001, Baban v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 August 2003, para. 7.2. 139 139