Assessing Damage, Urging Action In Thailand, witnesses indicated that the scope of detention powers in the southern provinces is limited in time. Individuals are held under administrative detention powers for no more than thirty days, although it is notable that the police and military routinely make full use of the thirty day limit. Although the permitted grounds for detention are mainly preventive, in reality detention powers are used for investigative purposes. Detainees are denied access to lawyers as a matter of policy – on the basis that since they are not accused of anything, they do not enjoy the constitutional right to consult a lawyer. Yet, many detainees are subsequently charged with criminal offences. Forms of administrative detention are also used as part of Thailand’s strategy on rehabilitation, in so-called vocational training.267 An example from a very different legal context shows, however, that even where there are a variety of supposed safeguards, they often seem to be inadequate. For example, the Panel was told of the practical and damaging impact of administrative detention laws in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Detainees have lawyers, but almost all relevant material is classified and denied to the detainee and his/ her lawyer; detainees can appeal to military courts, but the courts are not considered independent and are said to accept unquestioningly allegations made by the General Security Services; and serious movement and other restrictions makes access to legal counsel, and family, difficult. Particular difficulties for lawyers in accessing detainees held within Israel were reported to the Panel also. There are no maximum time-limits to administrative detention orders and they can be renewed indefinitely; information provided to the Panel suggested that the six-month orders are frequently extended for lengthy periods.268 The Panel was particularly disturbed to hear, often, about the practice of detention without charge or trial outside any legal framework. This concern was raised with the Panel in its Hearings in Colombia, East Africa (in relation to incommunicado detention in Kenya and “safe houses” in Uganda), the Middle East, North Africa, the Russian Federation, and South Asia. As discussed in Chapter Four, participants at the Maghreb Hearing noted the current practice in Algeria of detaining suspects without charge (often in undisclosed locations under the responsibility of the intelligence services) and the holding of persons in administrative detention in army barracks (nominally under a form of house arrest). At the Middle East Hearing, serious concerns were raised about administrative detention undertaken by the security services, often without a clear legal basis. In many cases, such accounts were accompanied by allegations of torture and other serious human rights violations. 267 Persons are held in detention for re-education supposedly as a voluntary measure and as an incentive to be released afterwards. See ICJ, Thailand, Legal Memorandum, ‘Vocational Training Camps’ and Applicable International Standards, October 2007. 268 Submissions during the visit of the EJP to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israeli and Palestinian organisations including Machsom Watch, HaMoked, B’Tselem and Addameer – Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association. See also Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Terrorism, Mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Doc. A/HRC/6/17/Add.4, 16 November 2007. 109