A/74/136 set, a wide range of official sources were used: administrative records from State agencies; figures and indicators provided by United Nations agencies and other international organizations; and information from peer-reviewed literature. For all types of deprivation of liberty, the data set is based on a sample gathered from 69 to 137 States, except in the context of armed conflict (16 States) and national security (31 States). As the study estimations are based on sound regression models, various types of sociodemographic data and legal sources, they should be interpreted as a reliable minimum. A full description of the methodology and extensive references to all sources are included in the global study. 15. Twelve geographic and/or thematic consultations were held to further inform the study, in Prague, Warsaw and Brussels (2017) and Bangkok, Paris, Addis Ababa, Pretoria, Belgrade, New York, Montevideo, Tunis and Montego Bay, Jamaica (2018). Consultations brought together government officials, representatives of regional and international organizations, United Nations entities, non -governmental organizations, national human rights institutions, national preventive mechanisms, academia and children. Unfortunately, owing to financial constraints, it was not possible to invite children to all consultations. Nevertheless, under the leadership of renowned child participation experts and non-governmental organizations, the views and experiences of 274 children and adolescents (204 male; 70 female) from the ages of 10 to 24 from 22 different States were gathered in order to inform the study. 16. The Independent Expert wishes to thank all individuals who actively participated in the joint endeavour of preparing the study, most often on a pro bono basis. Their dedication and professionalism were indispensable for the successful completion of the study. IV. Contextualizing children’s deprivation of liberty A. Right to personal liberty 17. The right to personal liberty is one of the oldest and most important human rights. It protects the freedom of bodily movement in a very narrow sense and needs to be distinguished from the broader right to freedom of movement. 18. In preparing the study, the Independent Expert decided to follow the broad definition of deprivation of liberty and places of detention as set out in article 11 (b) of the Havana Rules of 1990 and article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 2002. Hence, the term “places of detention” covers all places where children may be deprived of liberty, such as prisons, police lock-ups, pretrial detention centres, military camps, social care facilities, institutions for persons with disabilities or for persons addicted to drugs or alcohol, “orphanages”, children’s homes, institutions for the educational supervision of children, psychiatric hospitals, mental health centres or migration detention centres. The study does not, however, cover deprivation of liberty within the family and by private criminal actors, such as trafficking or sale of children. 19. While adults may be lawfully detained for a variety of reasons and even for extensive periods of time, article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides much stricter limits for children. In addition to the general norm that “no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily ”, the provision continues as follows: “The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”. “Measure of last resort” means that depriving children of liberty should be the last option only, and in principle be avoided. If 6/23 19-11838