(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty

(b) The date, time and place where the person was deprived of liberty and admitted to the place of deprivation of liberty

(c) The authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty and the grounds for the deprivation of liberty

(d) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty

(c) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty

One delegation asked what degree of precision should be used in indicating the time of deprivation of liberty The reasons for the deprivation of liberty should be added to subparagraph (c).

(b) Indicate those authorities authorized to order the deprivation of liberty

The name of the place of detention where the person was present should be added.

(a) Establish the conditions under which orders of deprivation of liberty may be given

(b) Indicate those authorities authorized to order deprivation of liberty

(d) Consider deprivation of liberty only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time and encourage the use of alternative measures to the deprivation of liberty

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant forbids any arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant prohibited any arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

(a) Establish the conditions under which orders for the deprivation of liberty may be given

(e) Guarantee access by the judicial authorities to the places where persons are deprived of liberty

In 30 cases, it considered the deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary.

DELIBERATION No. 8 ON DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY LINKED TO RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE INTERNET 32 52 14

The socially deprived may experience a deprivation of basic capabilities due to a lack of freedom, rather than merely low income.

To assess the conformity of the deprivation of liberty with international standards, the Working Group shall weigh them on a case by case basis, that is, whether the circumstances invoked justified the restriction on the freedom of expression by way of deprivation of liberty.

Hence, deprivation of liberty applied on the sole ground of having committed such actions is arbitrary.

The Working Group has qualified the case as an arbitrary detention of category I deprivation of liberty without any legal basis.

(g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the remains

(g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the remains.

Such deprivation of liberty for an unspecified period of time is contrary to the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(d) To have an enforceable right to compensation in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Several delegations suggested adding certain forms of deprivation of liberty by way of example arrest, detention and abduction, for instance.

The Working Group is, however, aware that not all deprivation of liberty connected to the use of the Internet is per se arbitrary there might be, and certainly are, situations where deprivation of liberty resulting from the use of the Internet can be justified.

To assess the compliance of the deprivation of liberty with international standards, the Working Group will weigh on a case by case basis whether the circumstances invoked justified the restriction on the freedom of expression by way of deprivation of liberty.

Therefore the deprivation of liberty fell under category II of the categories applicable to the consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.

He made an analogy with the Dangerous Drugs Act (2002) where the Court had found that there were adequate safeguards against deprivation of liberty.

Not even genocide was punishable by death, the maximum punishment being 10 to 20 years' deprivation of liberty.

He refers to the criteria under which the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determines whether a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary.

DELIBERATION No. 8 ON DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY LINKED TO RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE INTERNET

(c) Ensure that detained children are always separated from adults and that deprivation of liberty is used only as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate time and in appropriate conditions and

Some bloggers have described the Freedom Park as Round up Park or Deprived Freedom Park. The Son of the Khmer Empire reacts

Without prejudice to the other international obligations of the State Party with regard to deprivation of liberty, each State Party shall, under its law

The adverse party ( the source ) often disagrees as to whether the restriction applied by the authorities by way of deprivation of liberty was permissible under international law.

The Working Group adopted at its forty fourth session its Deliberation No. 8 concerning deprivation of liberty linked to resulting from the use of the Internet.

Some participants maintained that the definition must be kept sufficiently broad by referring to any other form of deprivation of liberty .

Some delegations proposed adding a third paragraph to article 17 that would stipulate that States Parties shall prohibit any secret forms of deprivation of liberty .

It reiterates that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957).

(c) Ensure that detained children are always separated from adults, and that deprivation of liberty is used as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate time and in appropriate conditions

Urge the creation or strengthening of national preventive mechanisms which are mandated to undertake independent visits to places of deprivation of liberty, as required by the Protocol.

The report includes the text of the Working Group's Deliberation No. 8 on deprivation of liberty linked to resulting from the use of the InternetOther sections of the report are devoted to the competence of the Working Group with regard to cases of detention linked to an armed conflict and to some issues of concern, such as over incarceration and the use of secret prisons in the context of the so called global war on terror .

Torture, as defined in the Convention, constituted in Hungarian law an aggravating circumstance affecting certain acts which involved deprivation of personal freedom.