Assessing Damage, Urging Action under the security certificates), East Africa (Tanzania),256 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan), North Africa (Algeria), South Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka), South East Asia (Thailand, Malaysia), the United Kingdom and the United States. The Australian Terrorism (Preventive Detention) Act 2006 introduced a system of administrative detention (Preventative Detention Orders, PDOs) allowing administrative detention on the federal level of up to forty-eight hours, and up to fourteen days on the State level. Participants at the Australia Hearing raised a series of concerns – for example, the limited possibility for judicial review while the detention order is in force, the limited amount of information available to detainees and their counsel to effectively challenge detention, and serious restrictions in any communication with the outside world. The fact that all contacts between the person subject to the Order and his or her lawyer is subject to monitoring by the police, was of particular concern.257 The Panel also heard that the changed international context since 2001 has given legitimacy for some States to maintain or revive pre-existing practices of administrative detention, despite the absence of a genuine state of emergency. For example, in Malaysia, where the Internal Security Act (ISA) has been a permanent feature since the 1960’s, the Panel was told that the practice of administrative detention had effectively sidelined the criminal justice system in cases involving national security. The ISA allows any police officer to detain an individual for an initial period of up to sixty days, if the officer has reason to believe that the individual is “acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia … or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof.” At the end of this sixty-day period, the Home Minister may order an individual to be detained for a period of two years, renewable, for an indefinite number of times. Detention under the Act is subject to review by an Advisory Board, but Board members are appointed by the executive, and the Board’s recommendations are non-binding.258 Whilst ISA detainees may file petitions of habeas corpus, the courts are limited to reviewing procedural irregularities, rather than the substantive grounds for detention.259 Participants from Malaysia highlighted several problems, not least the tendency of the courts to be overly deferential to the executive. In most cases, the courts have not been willing to challenge the executive’s assessment of the need for detention, and even in one case explicitly declared that “the executive, by virtue of its 256 In relation to the 1962 Preventive Detention Act, colonial legislation still in force in Tanzania. 257 See in particular Section 105.34 and 35 of the Criminal Code Act. See also the summary of the EJP Australia Hearing and written submissions by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. 258 Oral testimony by Edmund Bon, Lawyer, Malaysia Bar Council, Malaysia at the EJP South East Asia Hearing. 259 Section 8B of the 1960 Internal Security Act (ISA) of Malaysia. 107