OSCE participating States have committed themselves to: (13.9) – ensure that effective remedies as well as full information about them are available to those who claim that their human rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated; they will, inter alia, effectively apply the following remedies: • the right of the individual to appeal to executive, legislative, judicial or administrative organs; • the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal, including the right to present legal arguments and to be represented by legal counsel of one’s choice; • the right to be promptly and officially informed of the decision taken on any appeal, including the legal grounds on which this decision was based. This information will be provided as a rule in writing and, in any event, in a way that will enable the individual to make effective use of further available remedies […] (1989 Vienna Document) In addition: […] (5.21) - in order to supplement domestic remedies and better to ensure that the participating States respect the international obligations they have undertaken, the participating States will consider acceding to a regional or global international convention concerning the protection of human rights, such as the European Convention on Human Rights or the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide for procedures of individual recourse to international bodies. (1990 Copenhagen Document) Where a human right has been violated, or an aggrieved individual considers that a right has been violated, that person must be able to challenge the alleged violation. If it is established that there has been a breach, that person must be granted an appropriate resolution. This remedy may or may not involve compensation. The right to claim an effective remedy is not dependent upon there having been a proven violation of a right. The right of challenge is autonomous. At the very least, this process must be before an independent and impartial body, whose decision can be reviewed by a fully functioning court, whose procedures satisfy the right to a fair trial. In sum, the right to an effective remedy requires the provision of a domestic process to deal with the substance of a complaint and to grant appropriate relief. For example, in a case concerning the solitary confinement of a terrorist leader for over eight years, the right to an effective remedy was denied because he was not able to challenge the ongoing nature of his detention.134 The European Court of Human Rights found, under the circumstances in that particular case, that the nature of the solitary confinement did not violate the applicant’s substantive human rights; however, they went on to hold that having regard to the serious repercussions that solitary confinement has on the conditions of detention, an effective remedy before a judicial body is essential. Under the domestic law at the time it was not possible for the applicant to complain about the decisions to prolong his solitary confinement. Neither could the applicant challenge any procedural irregularities in relation to that detention. At the time of the applicant’s detention, decisions to place a prisoner in solitary confinement were internal administrative measures in respect of which no appeal lay to the administrative courts. The European Court of Human Rights accordingly considered that there was a viola134 ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v. France, Application no. 59450/00, 4 July 2006, paras. 157-166. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 63