exercise their right to habeas corpus”.270 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, later determined that prison officials could implement this procedure due to security concerns.271 180. While lawful restrictions on access to counsel are permissible, they should not effectively result in the denial of access to legal assistance. In detention facilities, search procedures may be justified and necessary for security and safety reasons.272 However, restrictions on access to counsel should be decided on a case-by-case basis, remain extraordinary and temporary, should be conducted in a manner consistent with the human dignity of each detainee and should not result in the full denial of the right of access to counsel.273 In ODIHR’s view, the search procedure applied to the detainees appears to be excessively invasive. In some cases, it even results in denial of access to counsel, as preparing a “habeas case for trial or appeal where counsel could only contact [detainees] by legal mail” is “untenable”.274 d. Recommendations • • • • • • • To promptly end the ongoing arbitrary detention of detainees; To promptly release any detainee who has not been charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence; To promptly charge those detainees against whom there is credible and lawfully obtained evidence of criminal conduct in a court or tribunal which meets international fair trial standards; To ensure that federal courts decide on habeas corpus petitions without delay, acting as an independent fact finder in habeas corpus cases; To ensure that any detainee is immediately released following a successful habeas corpus petition without the need for further approvals, including for any internal administrative procedures; To ensure that detainees have regular access to counsel and that any obstacles to access to counsel are strictly necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim; in particular to ensure that search procedures do not have the effect of significantly disrupting the attorney-client relationship; To provide prompt and effective redress to victims of arbitrary detention, particularly in cases of prolonged arbitrary detention, on account of the physical and mental suffering, stress, fear, depression, anxiety and physical symptoms suffered by them. 270 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Hatim v. Obama, op. cit., note 265. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Hatim v. Obama, Case No. 13-5218, 1 August 2014, <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1674437.html>. 272 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Hatim v. Obama, op cit., note 265. 273 “Body of Principles”, op. cit., note 89, Principle 18; Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism Investigations, op. cit., note 120, p. 90. 274 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Hatim v. Obama, op. cit., note 265. 271 75