territorial and temporal scope of the measure adopted. This implies that the necessity of the state of emergency itself and the derogation measures should regularly be reviewed by independent organs, in particular the legislative and judicial branch. The measures must also be consistent with other obligations under international law, particularly the rules of international humanitarian law and the peremptory norms of international law. (a)  Non-derogable human rights Derogation from certain human rights set out in international human rights treaties is prohibited, even in a state of emergency. Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights identifies as non-derogable the right to life, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the prohibition against slavery and servitude, freedom from imprisonment for failure to fulfil a contract, freedom from retrospective penalties, the right to be recognized as a person before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In its general comment N° 29, the Human Rights Committee has also emphasized that the Covenant’s provisions relating to procedural safeguards can never be made subject to measures that would circumvent the protection of these non-derogable rights. Regional human rights law has also emphasized the importance of procedural guarantees. The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, for example, has stated that “writs of habeas corpus and of ‘amparo’ are among those judicial remedies that are essential for the protection of various rights whose derogation is prohibited… and that serve, moreover, to preserve legality in a democratic society.… The constitutions and legal systems of the States parties that authorize, expressly or by implication, the suspension of the legal remedies of habeas corpus or of ‘amparo’ in emergency situations cannot be deemed to be compatible with the international obligations imposed on these States by the Convention.”46 Further to this list of non-derogable rights, article 4 (1) of the Covenant specifies that any derogating measures must not be inconsistent with obligations under international law which, as the Human Rights Committee has pointed out in its general comment N° 29, includes obligations under international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The Committee also identified rights and freedoms under customary international law (which is applicable to all States) that may not be derogated from even if not listed in article 4 (2). The Human Rights Committee has identified as customary law rights: the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity 27