4. Procedural guarantees 14 days in Ireland199 or 15 days in Slovakia.200 Taking into account existing language barriers, possible obstacles to obtain legal assistance as well as the inherent restrictions connected with detention, it can be questioned whether these deadlines can reasonably be met. In this context, the deadline of 24 hours to request judicial review of a detention decision was considered too short by the former European Commission on Human Rights.201 Applicants must be provided with a realistic possibility of using the remedy.202 The closed nature of a detention setting poses additional hurdles to file an appeal. Not only is access to information, to interpretation services203 and to legal assistance more complicated, but also practical obstacles may interfere in the preparation or submission of an appeal. Not in all countries can appeals be handed in to the prison administration.204 In Latvia, for instance, difficulties to obtain envelopes and stamps to submit the appeal to the Regional Court have been reported.205 Contacts and correspondence with the outside world can also be severely constrained, thus preventing detainees to obtain information as well as evidence needed to substantiate their appeal submissions.206 For example, in some countries mobile phones (where persons have stored important contact numbers) are prohibited or can only be used in the presence of authorities.207 More generally, the research recently undertaken by the Jesuit Refugee Service who interviewed almost 700 persons in immigration detention showed that only 2% of those interviewed, had access to the Internet and 199 Section 5(2)(a), Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. 200 See Article 62 Aliens Act. 201 See ECtHR, Farmakopoulos v. Belgium, No 11683/85, report by the European Commission on Human Rights to the Court, paragraphs 53-54. The case was subsequently struck from the list and the Court did not pronounce itself, there are obstacles to access the case. 202 See ECtHR, Conka v. Belgium, No. 51564/99, 5 February 2002, paragraphs 46 and 55. 203 Lack of access to translators was raised by detainees interviewed by the Jesuit Refugee Service, see Jesuit Refugee Service – Europe, Becoming vulnerable in detention, 2010, p. 45. 204 This is, for instance, the case in Austria, where the administration has to forward the appeal within two days to the court (Austrian Aliens Police Act, at 83.2 and 83). 205 Information obtained from the Latvian Centre for Human Rights. 206 The research by the Jesuit Refugee Service indicates that the environment of detention is a serious obstacle for the obtainment of good information: Detainees must rely on what detention centre staff provides to them; otherwise, they have limited means to independently access information. Only two percent of those interviewed, had access to the Internet (p.72). 80% said they don’t receive visits from the ‘outside world’ (p.73). 207 Regulations were introduced in Latvia in 2008, following which mobile phones can only be used in the presence of officials, see Latvia, Izmitināšanas centra iekšējās kārtības noteikumi No. 742 of 15 September 2008, 5.pielikums. available online at http://www.likumi.lv/ doc.php?id=181286&version_date=01.07.2009. Mobile phones are also not allowed in the Czech Republic (FORA, Section 136/3) and Slovenia, Poročilo Evropskega odbora za preprečevanje mučenja in nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja Vladi Republike Slovenije o obisku v Republiki Sloveniji med 31. januarjem in 8. februarjem 2006, at paragraph 42, available at: http://www.mp.gov.si/fileadmin/mp.gov.si/ pageuploads/2005/slike/novice/2008_02_15_cpt_porocilo.pdf. that 80% do not receive visits from the outside world. 208 Thus, detainees must often rely on the information that detention staff provides to them. In other cases, detention conditions can adversely affect health, including mental health of detainees.209 Situations of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma may make it difficult for detainees, even if informed, to understand their rights, thus in fact preventing them to make effective use of existing review mechanisms. Equality of arms The review procedure must be adversarial and must always ensure “equality of arms” between the parties, the Attorney General or other entity competent to represent the State and the detained person.210 This includes normally the possibility for the detainee and/or his/her legal representative to be heard by a judge. The right to judicial review of a court decision originates from the habeas corpus writ, which implies that the person be brought before the court.211 Legislation in a few countries suggests that a hearing is normally required,212 whereas in others it can be omitted if the situation is clear from the acts.213 The research did not collect comprehensive information on whether hearings actually take place in practice, although evidence indicates that obstacles do exist. In Poland, for instance, it was noted that practical obstacles may not allow for transporting a person to the court.214 The circumstances under which a hearing is carried out can also have an impact on the quality of the review. In Hungary and Italy, for instance, the judge can travel to the detention facility to hear the person.215 In France, the hearing can take place in the waiting zone at the 208 Jesuit Refugee Service – Europe, Becoming vulnerable in detention, 2010, pp. 72-73. 209 See, for example, UN DOC A/HRC/13/30/Add.2; Human Rights Council, 13th session, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Mission to Malta 19 to 23 January 2009 at paragraph 53. 210 ECtHR (Grand Chamber) Nikolova v. Bulgaria, No. 31195/96, 25 March 1999, paragraph 58. 211 In ECtHR, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, No. 9862/82, 21 October 1986 (paragraph 51); however, the ECtHR indicated that the requirements of an adversarial procedure could also be met by giving the opportunity to the detainee to submit written comments on the authorities’ opinions. 212 This is for instance the case in Belgium, Law on Foreigners at 72; Denmark, Aliens Act at 37.2 and 3 (court review is usually automatic and not dependent on the submission of an appeal); Finland Aliens Act at 125.2 (as regards the first court review). 213 This is, for example, the case in Austria, where Aliens Police Act at 83.2(1) requires a hearing unless the situation is clear from the acts; in Hungary TCN Act, Section 59.7-8. For the practice prior to 2007, see J. Mink, Detention of asylum seekers in Hungary, Legal framework and practice, Budapest: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2007, p. 41. 214 Information provided by Centrum Pomocy Prawnej im. H. Nieć [H. Nieć Centre for Legal Aid]. The centre implements a support programme in detention facilities in cooperation with UNHCR. 215 See Hungary, TCN Act at 59.6 and Italy, LD 1998/286 Article 13.5-ter. 43