Condensed: A person deprived of his or her liberty must be informed at the time of being deprived of liberty of the reasons therefore. It is not necessary that all reasons be conveyed by the arresting officer at the very moment of deprivation of liberty but the authorities should provide sufficient detailswithin hours so as to enable the detained person to decide whether to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The detained person should be informed of both the legal and factual basis for the deprivation of liberty. The information must be conveyed in non-technical terms and in a language understood by the arrested person. Comprehensive: Article 9(2) of the ICCPR provides that ‘Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.’ The right to be promptly informed of reasons for deprivation of liberty and charges is also protected in other international and regional human rights instruments.[1] The right to be informed about the reasons for deprivation of liberty applies to all reasons for deprivation of liberty, not only arrest on criminal charges.[2] (See *arbitrary arrest and detention*, *administrative or preventative detention*). The arrested person ‘must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness’[3] (*right to challenge the legality of detention*; *brought promptly before a judge*). In some instances the circumstances of the arrest are such that it must be clear to the arrested person why he or she was arrested. In Bennett v Jamaica, the HRC held that there was no violation of article 9(2) as Mr Bennett had turned himself in and a police officer had told him later the same day that he was questioned about ‘involvement in the slaying of Mr Derrick Hugh’. [4] To just convey that a specific law has been violated or that the arrested person has breached state security is not sufficient.[5] In Carballal v Uruguay, the HRC held that it is not sufficient for the purposes of article 9(2) to arrest and detain a person on grounds of a presumed connection with rebellious activities. The arrested person must be given explanations as to ‘the scope and meaning of “subversive activities”, which constitute a criminal offence under the relevant legislation’.[6] Promptly means that if sufficient information has not been provided by the arresting officer this must be done within hours, in the case of criminal charges at the latest by the first interrogation following arrest.[7] The information about reasons for arrest and charges must be provided promptly in a language which the arrested person understands.[8] Law enforcement agencies must therefore have a system in place for providing interpreters at short notice. The HRC found no violation where the detained persons had to wait for seven and eight hours respectively before being informed of the reasons for arrest. It noted that the police formalities had been suspended for three hours until ‘the interpreter arrived, so that the accused could be duly informed in the presence of legal counsel’.[9] [1] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by UNGA resolution 43/173 (1988) principles 10, 11(2), 12(1), 13 and 14; ACHR art 7(4) (‘Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him’); ECHR art 5(2) (Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.’) There is no specific provision in the ACHPR, However, see Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 262 (ACHPR 2000) paras 43-44 and Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003) art M(2)(a). [2] See eg Van der Leer v the Netherlands application 11509/85 (ECtHR 1990). [3]Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (ECtHR 1990) para 40. Drescher Caldas v Uruguay (HRC ) para 13.2; Campbell v Jamaica, communication 248/1987 (HRC 1992) para 6.3. [4]Bennet v Jamaica (HRC 1999) para 10.3. [5]Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom para 41; Ilombe and Shandwe v Democratic Republic of the Congo (HRC 2006). [6]Carballal v Uruguay, communication R.8/33 (HRC 1981) paras 12-13. [7]Kerr v United Kingdom (ECtHR, admissibility decision, 1999) (‘within a few hours of his arrest and thus within the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness’). See also Griffin v Spain communication 493/1992 (HRC 1995) para 9.2; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom para 42; Kelly v Jamaica communication 253/1987 (HRC 1991) para 5.8. [8] Body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment, principle 14; ECHR art 5(2); Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003) art M(2)(a); Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2008) principle V. [9]Hill v Spain, communication 526/1993, (HRC 1997) para 12.2.
A person deprived of his or her liberty must be informed at the time of being deprived of liberty of the reasons therefore. It is not necessary that all reasons be conveyed by the arresting officer at the very moment of deprivation of liberty but the authorities should provide sufficient details within hours so as to enable the detained person to decide whether to challenge the lawfulness of the detention.
The detained person should be informed of both the legal and factual basis for the deprivation of liberty. The information must be conveyed in non-technical terms and in a language understood by the arrested person.
Comprehensive:
Article 9(2) of the ICCPR provides that ‘Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.’ The right to be promptly informed of reasons for deprivation of liberty and charges is also protected in other international and regional human rights instruments.[1]
The right to be informed about the reasons for deprivation of liberty applies to all reasons for deprivation of liberty, not only arrest on criminal charges.[2] (See *arbitrary arrest and detention*, *administrative or preventative detention*).
The arrested person ‘must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness’[3] (*right to challenge the legality of detention*; *brought promptly before a judge*).
In some instances the circumstances of the arrest are such that it must be clear to the arrested person why he or she was arrested. In Bennett v Jamaica, the HRC held that there was no violation of article 9(2) as Mr Bennett had turned himself in and a police officer had told him later the same day that he was questioned about ‘involvement in the slaying of Mr Derrick Hugh’. [4]
To just convey that a specific law has been violated or that the arrested person has breached state security is not sufficient.[5] In Carballal v Uruguay, the HRC held that it is not sufficient for the purposes of article 9(2) to arrest and detain a person on grounds of a presumed connection with rebellious activities. The arrested person must be given explanations as to ‘the scope and meaning of “subversive activities”, which constitute a criminal offence under the relevant legislation’. [6]
Promptly means that if sufficient information has not been provided by the arresting officer this must be done within hours, in the case of criminal charges at the latest by the first interrogation following arrest.[7]
The information about reasons for arrest and charges must be provided promptly in a language which the arrested person understands.[8] Law enforcement agencies must therefore have a system in place for providing interpreters at short notice. The HRC found no violation where the detained persons had to wait for seven and eight hours respectively before being informed of the reasons for arrest. It noted that the police formalities had been suspended for three hours until ‘the interpreter arrived, so that the accused could be duly informed in the presence of legal counsel’.[9]
[1] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by UNGA resolution 43/173 (1988) principles 10, 11(2), 12(1), 13 and 14; ACHR art 7(4) (‘Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him’); ECHR art 5(2) (Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.’) There is no specific provision in the ACHPR, However, see Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 262 (ACHPR 2000) paras 43-44 and Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003) art M(2)(a).
[2] See eg Van der Leer v the Netherlands application 11509/85 (ECtHR 1990).
[3] Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (ECtHR 1990) para 40. Drescher Caldas v Uruguay (HRC ) para 13.2; Campbell v Jamaica, communication 248/1987 (HRC 1992) para 6.3.
[4] Bennet v Jamaica (HRC 1999) para 10.3.
[5] Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom para 41; Ilombe and Shandwe v Democratic Republic of the Congo (HRC 2006).
[6] Carballal v Uruguay, communication R.8/33 (HRC 1981) paras 12-13.
[7] Kerr v United Kingdom (ECtHR, admissibility decision, 1999) (‘within a few hours of his arrest and thus within the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness’). See also Griffin v Spain communication 493/1992 (HRC 1995) para 9.2; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom para 42; Kelly v Jamaica communication 253/1987 (HRC 1991) para 5.8.
[8] Body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment, principle 14; ECHR art 5(2); Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003) art M(2)(a); Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2008) principle V.
[9] Hill v Spain, communication 526/1993, (HRC 1997) para 12.2.