to habeas corpus forms part of the right to trial under Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.59 Article 9 (3) of the ICCPR stipulates that: “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.” The Human Rights Committee, in interpreting this right: “…recalls that …anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge has to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and that … such delays must not exceed a few days.”60 This Committee has regularly found that the period between arrest and being brought before a judge has been prolonged, in violation of the ICCPR. In a series of findings, it determined that: 3 days,61 5 days,62 6 days,63 7 days,64 11 days,65 3 weeks,66 6 weeks,67 and 218 days,68 were too long, and that the ICCPR had been violated. The European Court of Human Rights found that periods of four days and six hours;69 14 or more days;70 and at least 16 and 23 days of detention71 “without being brought before a judge or other judicial officer did not satisfy the requirement of promptness in Article 5(3).”72 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in a case concerning the exercise of the remedy of amparo, which is similar to habeas corpus, considered that ruling on the remedy 21 days after it was filed was “clearly an excessive time.”73 The following standards can be deduced from the relevant jurisprudence: • • 59 The right to habeas corpus is a non-derogable right and cannot be suspended in times of emergency;74 Anyone arrested or detained needs to be brought before a judge as soon as possible, and the latest within a few days;75 Zegveld and Ephrem v. Eritrea, paras.55, 56 and Article 19 v. Eritrea, para.96. 60 Willy Wenga Ilombe and Nsii Luanda Shandwe v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, para.6.3; Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, para.7.6; Silbert Daley v. Jamaica, para.7.1; Louisa Bousroual v. Algeria, para.9.6; Abdukarim Boimurodov v. Tajikistan, para.7.4; Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, para.6.3; Ali Medjnoune v. Algeria, para.8.7. 61 Rostislav Borisenko v. Hungary, para.7.4. 62 Abdumalik Nazarov v. Uzbekistan, para.6.2. 63 Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, para.7.6. 64 Safarmo Kurbanova v. Tajikistan, para.7.2. 65 Dennis Lobban v. Jamaica, para.8.3. 66 Beresford Whyte v. Jamaica, para.9.1. 67 Silbert Daley v. Jamaica, para.7.1. 68 Ali Medjnoune v. Algeria, para.8.7 69 Brogan v United Kingdom, para.62. 70 Aksoy v Turkey, para.66. 71 Demir and others v Turkey, para.40. 72 Aksoy v. Turkey, para.66. 73 Tibi v. Ecuador, para.134. 74 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29, para.16; IACHR, Advisory Opinion, Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Article 27 (2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights, paras.25, 26; Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v Peru, para.188; Aksoy v. Turkey, paras.76 et seq.; Article 19 v. The State of Eritrea, para.96. 75 See jurisprudence referred to in the preceding paragraph. 18