A/57/173 brought before a competent judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over him. Here habeas corpus performs a vital role in ensuring that a person’s life and physical integrity are respected, in preventing his disappearance or the keeping of his whereabouts secret and in protecting him against torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.11 15. Judicial control of interference by the executive power with the individual’s right to liberty is an essential feature of the rule of law. With respect to the non-derogability of the right to habeas corpus, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on the question of human rights and state of emergency, Leandro Despouy, noted that the lessons to be drawn from the practice of States were also important for this clarification, since experience had shown that Governments generally understood that there must be no limitations on habeas corpus in states of emergency. This was demonstrated by the fact that the Special Rapporteur had received only one notification of the suspension of this remedy, and that was 10 years ago. Concurrently, the Human Rights Committee, in response to a resolution of the SubCommission advocating the preparation of a draft protocol to prohibit any derogation from articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, said that it was convinced that States parties as a rule understood that the remedies of habeas corpus and amparo should not be restricted in states of emergency. Likewise, the Committee, when considering the report of a State party, pointed out that measures adopted by a Government to combat terrorism should not affect the exercise of the fundamental rights set forth in the Covenant, and in particular those in articles 6, 7 and 9. 12 16. Following the view expressed by the regional human rights courts referred to above, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is of the view that prompt judicial intervention serves as a guarantee that there will be no breach of the non-derogable right not to be subjected to torture or other forms of illtreatment. His predecessor has constantly argued that the use of incommunicado detention should be considered unlawful. The set of recommendations that he included in his last report to the General Assembly, 13 recommendations with which the current mandate-holder fully associated himself,14 calls upon States to take appropriate measures to abrogate incommunicado detention as torture is most frequently practised during incommunicado detention. Incommunicado detention should be made illegal, and persons held incommunicado should be released without delay. Legal provisions should ensure that detainees are given access to legal counsel within 24 hours of detention. Security personnel who do not honour such provisions should be punished. In exceptional circumstances, under which it is contended that prompt contact with a detainee’s lawyer might raise genuine security concerns and where restriction of such contact is judicially approved, it should at least be possible to allow a meeting with an independent lawyer, such as one recommended by a bar association. In all circumstances, a relative of the detainee should be informed of the arrest and place of detention within 18 hours. 15 Accordingly, since 1999, the Commission on Human Rights has reminded all States that prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.16 The previous Special Rapporteur further recommended that provisions should give all detained persons the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the detention, such as through habeas corpus or amparo; and that such procedures should function expeditiously.17 17. The Special Rapporteur notes that the abovementioned findings apply to all forms of deprivation of liberty, including administrative detention and immigration control measures. The Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 8 on article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated that if so-called preventive detention was used, for reasons of public security, it had to be controlled by these same provisions, that is, it must not be arbitrary and must be based on grounds and procedures established by law (paragraph 1); information on the reasons must be given (paragraph 2); and court control of the detention must be available (paragraph 4) as well as compensation in the case of a breach (paragraph 5). If, in addition, criminal charges were brought in such cases, the full protection of article 9 (2) and (3), as well as article 14, also had to be granted.18 18. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the view that, in accordance with international law, and as 7