E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3 page 18 63. The Working Group is therefore concerned that administrative detention could be misused to circumvent the legal time limit on detention without charges. Another major problem in terms of arrest and detention is that administrative detention does not involve adequate procedures. 64. From the information received during the visit, it appears that detention for administrative offences, although decided by a court, is not preceded by a public and adversarial procedure and does not guarantee a fair trial as defined by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most of the persons interviewed stated that they did not have a trial and that their sentence was notified to them while in detention. The Working Group noticed that persons detained for administrative offences are convinced that they do not need the assistance of a lawyer because they do not consider themselves implied in the perpetration of a criminal offence. 65. With regard to foreigners, the Working Group is especially concerned at the situation of detainees awaiting deportation. The Working Group notes that in practice, Belarus applies double-sentencing to foreigners condemned to deprivation of liberty for criminal offences, even when they have strong ties within the country. A foreigner who has completed his sentence is directly transferred from prison to an administrative detention centre in order to be deported. The Working Group met an Israeli and a Syrian citizen who had been detained for several months at the Okrestina detention centre in application of this procedure. These two persons had been living in the country for many years before their sentencing, were married to Belarusian citizens and whose children were also Belarusian citizens. According to the Government, the two cases were very specific and did not reflect the existing practice in this field. F. Jurisdiction of military courts over civilians 66. The Working Group notes with concern the existence, at all levels, as well as at the Supreme Court, of a military court system competent to try civilians. Although the Working Group was informed that military jurisdictions apply the same laws as civilian courts, it remains nonetheless concerned at the fact that the investigators, the prosecutors and the judges are all military personnel. 67. At the Peskavsty Free Settlement, the Working Group was able to meet Mr. Yuri Bandazhevsky, founder of the Gomel Institute of Medicine, known for his study on the impact of small-dose radiation on the human body, who was arrested on 13 June 1999 in Gomel. Mr. Bandazhevsky was told that he had been detained on the basis of Presidential decree No. 21 of 21 October 1997 on “Urgent Measures to Combat Terrorism and Other Particularly Dangerous Violent Crimes”. However, 23 days after his arrest on 5 August, he was charged of bribery along with 18 colleagues, under article 169, part III, of the 1960 Criminal Code then in force. On 18 June 2001, Mr. Bandazhevsky was sentenced by the Military Board of the Supreme Court to eight years of hard labour, the confiscation of all possessions and a suspension from professional practice for an additional five years. Mr. Bandazhevsky was tried before a military jurisdiction because one of his co-defendants had military status. 68. The Working Group reiterates its concern at the competence of military jurisdictions to try civilians. It underlines that the trial of civilians by military or exceptional jurisdictions is one of the most serious causes of arbitrary detention.