D. Pre-trial and administrative detention Pre-trial and administrative detention raises a number of concerns in the context of state action against terrorism. The UN and regional systems all emphasize certain core principles including the necessity of judicial control, the right of accused persons to know the charges at issue, and limits on the length of pre-trial detention. United Nations The Human Rights Committee addressed the question of pre-trial and administrative detention on grounds of public security in its General Comment No. 8 on article 9 of the Covenant: [I]f so-called preventive detention is used, for reasons of public security, it … must not be arbitrary, and must be based on grounds and procedures established by law (para. 1), information of the reasons must be given (para. 2) and court control of the detention must be available (para. 4) as well as compensation in the case of a breach (para. 5). And if, in addition, criminal charges are brought in such cases, the full protection of article 9(2) and (3), as well as article 14, must also be granted. --General Comment No. 8, para.4 (1982). D.1 Judicial control and prohibition of arbitrary detention Although article 9 of the Covenant, including its provisions for judicial control, is not specified as non-derogable under states of emergency in article 4, paragraph 2, the Human Rights Committee has stated: Safeguards related to derogation, as embodied in article 4 of the Covenant, are based on the principles of legality and the rule of law inherent in the Covenant as a whole. As certain elements of the right to a fair trial are explicitly guaranteed under international humanitarian law during armed conflict, the Committee finds no justification for derogation from these guarantees during other emergency situations. The Committee is of the opinion that the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental requirements of fair trial must be respected during a state of emergency. Only a court of law may try and convict a person for a criminal offence. The presumption of innocence must be respected. In order to protect non-derogable rights, the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention, must not be diminished by a State party's decision to derogate from the Covenant. --General Comment No. 29, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 2001 (para. 16). ***** 39