Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 225based mainly on the closed material, Article 5.4 would be violated. InMansour Ahani v. Canada, 882 the Human Rights Committee held that ahearing on a security certificate which formed the basis for the detentionof a non-national pending deportation was sufficient to comply withdue process under Article 14 ICCPR. The Committee based its decisionon the fact that the non-national had been provided by the Court witha redacted summary of the allegations against him, and that the Courthad sought to ensure that despite the national security constraints inthe case, the detainee could respond to the case against him, make hisown case and cross-examine witnesses.4. Reparation for unlawful detentionThe UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparationfor victims of gross violations of international human rights lawand serious violations of international humanitarian law (the Principles)affirm that States have an obligation to provide available, adequate,effective, prompt and appropriate remedies to victims of violations ofinternational human rights law and international humanitarian law, includingreparation. 883In accordance with this general principle, persons who are found by domesticor international courts or other appropriate authorities to havebeen wrongly detained have a right to reparation, in particular compensation,for their wrongful detention (Article 5.5 ECHR; Article 9.5 ICCPR,Article 14.7 ArCHR). Under the ICCPR this right arises whenever thereis “unlawful” detention, i.e. detention which is either in violation of domesticlaw, or in violation of the Covenant. Under the ECHR, it arisesonly where there is detention in contravention of the Convention itself(although in practice this will include cases where the detention did nothave an adequate basis in domestic law). 884 The award of compensationmust be legally binding and enforceable: 885 ex gratia payments will notbe sufficient.882 Ahani v. Canada, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 503, para. 10.5.883 Articles 2 and 3 of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation.884 Nowak, CCPR Commentary, op. cit., fn. 730, pp. 180–182.885 Brogan and Others v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Plenary, Applications Nos. 1209/84, 11234/84,11266/84, 11386/85, Judgment of 29 November 1988, para. 67.