without delay.109 Article 9(4) of the ICCPR provides that any person deprived of liberty “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”. This corresponds to the procedure known in many countries, including the United States, as habeas corpus. This right is applicable to all persons detained “by official action or pursuant to official authorization”, including all persons detained “in connection with criminal proceedings, military detention, security detention [and] counter-terrorism detention”.110 The Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have said that this right is non-derogable.111 136. The determination of a “delay” in relation to challenging the right to habeas corpus is dependent upon the type of deprivation of liberty and the circumstances of a particular case. The right attaches from the moment of detention, and, no matter the circumstances, any “substantial delay” to a detainee’s “first challenge to his detention is impermissible”.112 To ensure the effectiveness of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention, courts hearing habeas corpus cases are to make a decision without delay, usually within several weeks,113 and are to be empowered to order a detainee’s immediate release in the case of unlawful detention. Continued detention following a judicial order of release would defeat the purpose of the right to habeas corpus and violate the prohibition of arbitrary detention.114 Detainees are also entitled to challenge the lawfulness of their detention on multiple occasions, including on similar grounds, so long as “an appropriate period of time” has passed after the last court decision.115 Laws and practices effectively depriving a specific category of detainees of the ability to exercise their right to habeas corpus, 109 ICCPR, Art. 9(4); ADRDM, Art. XXV; UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, op. cit., note 92, para. 39; “Body of Principles”, op. cit., note 89, Principles 11, 32; Nowak, CCPR Commentary, op. cit., note 93, pp. 235-237; UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Interim report to the General Assembly, A/63/271, op. cit., note 99, para. 28; UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, Working Group on arbitrary detention represented by its Vice-Chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, “Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism”, A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010, para. 46, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf>. 110 UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, op. cit., note 92, para. 40. 111 UN HRC, General Comment No. 29, Article 4: States of emergency, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para. 16, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.11&La ng=en>; UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, ibid., para. 67; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Habeas corpus in emergency situations, Advisory Opinion No. OC-8/87, 30 January 1987, pp. 3, 12, <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_08_ing.pdf>; IACHR, Coard et al. v. United States, Case No. 10.951, 29 September 1999, para. 55, <https://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/UnitedStates10.951.htm>. 112 UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, ibid., paras. 42-43; “Body of Principles”, op. cit., note 89, Principle 32; Nowak, CCPR Commentary, op. cit., note 93, p. 236. 113 The general rule is that a decision without delay typically means within several weeks, but the time limit depends on the types of deprivation of liberty and on the circumstances of the case in question. ICCPR, Art. 9(4); UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, ibid., para. 47; Nowak, CCPR Commentary, ibid., p. 236. 114 For instance, the HRC found that the continued detention for two months after a court determined the detention was unlawful constituted arbitrary detention. See UN HRC, Alex Soteli Chambala v. Zambia, Communication No. 856/1999, 30 July 2003, para. 7.3, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f78%2fD%2f856%2f1999&L ang=en>; UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, op. cit., note 92, paras. 36, 41; Nowak, CCPR Commentary, op. cit., note 93, p. 236. 115 UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, ibid., para. 43. 53