[PASSED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Quelesh]

Edit: The resolution has passed; thank you to everyone who supported this resolution!

Here are the previous drafting threads for this proposal: 1, 2.

(Human rights / strong)

The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Character count: 3,182

Earlier drafts:

(Human rights / strong)

The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period;

2. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the time limit in clause 1 if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

3. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

4. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 3;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

7. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

8. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting any of the following:

9. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

10. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

11. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

12. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

13. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Character count: 3,171

(Human rights / strong)

The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period or 24 hours in any 365-day period;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial arbiter; should the arbiter deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES the following:

8. Detention is, by definition, involuntary. Therefore, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting voluntary protective custody or any other form of voluntary custody;

9. Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the practice of double jeopardy.

Character count: 2,742

See the previous draft threads linked above for earlier incarnations of this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Quelesh]

So far, I've made the following changes to the incarnation previously submitted:

1. Removed "either formally charging or" from clause 1. This, I think, makes more clear that clause 1 addresses only suspicionless detention, and that clause 2 addresses detention on suspicion of a crime but without filing charges.

2. Added the "cure the illegality" language to clause 7. One ambassador brought up that clause 7 may be interpreted as requiring the immediate release of a detainee if any aspect of her detention is ruled illegal by the arbiter. I pointed out that the wording of the clause doesn't mean that, but I can easily see why someone would interpret it this way, so I added this language to clarify what is really meant.

3. Added the CLARIFIES clause, with its list of things that this proposal does not do.

One objection to the proposal was that it may be interpreted as banning involuntary psychiatric commitment. This has now been addressed with clause 9; it was never my intention to do so with this proposal. Involuntary psychiatric commitment is a topic best suited to a separate proposal; I support the Luxian draft on this topic, but may support another well-written proposal as well.

Another objection to the earlier incarnation of this proposal was that clause 5 may have the effect of essentially banning double jeopardy. That is not my intent here, and this is why I added clause 10 to clarify what this proposal does not do with regard to double jeopardy. (Note that double jeopardy is already banned by another resolution.) I considered accomplishing this by adding language to clause 5 instead (something like "unless the acquittal is overturned or vacated in accordance with international and domestic law"), but this would open up a rather flagrant loophole.

To my knowledge, no one brought up the potential protective custody issue, but I thought it was worth adding the clarifying clause 8.

I am very interested in my colleagues' comments concerning the changes made so far. (Hm, that sentence was unintentionally alliterative.)

I also am considering a couple of additional changes. In particular, I am considering removing the 30-day and 365-day time limits from clause 1, leaving only the seven-day time limit. The purpose of those additional time limits was to prevent abuse (by, say, suspicionlessly detaining a person for two hours every week, as a form of harassment). However, I fear that they may make that clause unnecessarily complicated, and that they may not be worth including.

I am also considering adding a limited exception to clause 1 for the safety of the individual being detained, and possibly for public safety as well. If so, this would be a limited exception, merely extending the time limit a finite amount (similar to what the Sanctarian draft would do); it would not allow for indefinite detention, which is one of the injustices this proposal is aiming to prohibit.

I am also considering tweaking the time limits in clauses 1 and 2. I am not inclined to remove the time limits entirely, as this would lead to abuse, and the line must be drawn somewhere. However, I'm certainly open to reasonable changes in this regard.

I'm very interested in comments and suggestions on these possible changes, and other changes that my colleagues think would be in the best interests of this proposal. Keep in mind, however, that I do not intend to weaken this proposal to the point where it would be ineffective.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Puissancevise]

For. Definitely.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

8. Detention is, by definition, involuntary. Therefore, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting voluntary protective custody or any other form of voluntary custody;

Oh lovely, so if this Passes we can hold people indefinitely so long as they submit to arrest and sign a document swearing such? I'm sure our officers can see to that.

In addition:

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

You've said here 'the same criminal charges', when you mean 'the same criminal charge'. With this, it is now impossible to arrest person X for the charge of Disorderly Drunkeness on Wednesday, if they were held to sober up on Monday. This is a textbook example of the eternal chains legislature Quelesh's diplomats are so fond of.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs

[Quelesh]

8. Detention is, by definition, involuntary. Therefore, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting voluntary protective custody or any other form of voluntary custody;

Oh lovely, so if this Passes we can hold people indefinitely so long as they submit to arrest and sign a document swearing such? I'm sure our officers can see to that.

That would be a violation of your nation's obligation under GAR2 to comply with international law in good faith.

In addition:

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

You've said here 'the same criminal charges', when you mean 'the same criminal charge'. With this, it is now impossible to arrest person X for the charge of Disorderly Drunkeness on Wednesday, if they were held to sober up on Monday. This is a textbook example of the eternal chains legislature Quelesh's diplomats are so fond of.

Whether the plural or singular is used in clause 3 is irrelevant here. If someone is accused of committing, say, assault, is arrested for that assault, is later released, and then is accused of committing a separate assault, that person can be rearrested and detained for the second alleged assault.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[New Edom]

Princess Mara nervously sips a bottle of water and realizing she accidentally picked that bottle of that really nice vinaigrette she stole from the mess chokes into a napkin, and has a huge coughing fit, unable to participate in the debate, she holds up a hand and heads off to the washroom, muffled coughing going on all the way.

[Cerberion]

While I understand the arbitrary assignment of the times used, I don't think they make much logical sense.

I personally would reword the whole thing with stuff like.

No individual can be detained without being suspected of a crime.

That is afterall what really matters here.

Also:

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

The problem here is that this can be deliberately misinterpreted.
The same criminal charge. Johnny Barker has been charged with 17 grand theft autos.
The charge for each offence is grand theft auto
Each charge is the same for each offence.

Under this caveat his defense lawyer will argue that each one is the same criminal charge.

This may be just because you pluralized charge. "same criminal charges" automatically speaks of multiple instances of the charge.

[Ossitania]

While this is certainly an improvement, simply saying that this does not affect double jeopardy doesn't change the fact that clause 5 effectively creates a second layer of double jeopardy. The question here is whether or not member-states would be able to arrest and detain individuals who had previously been acquitted of a crime were DJP to be repealed. If that is not the case, then all the clarifying clauses in the world aren't going to make us drop our objection. We are curious as to what the flagrant loophole that the Quelesian delegation is so scared of would do, as all we can see it doing is not swinging a(nother) wrecking ball through the pillars of criminal justice.

We also do not believe this draft provides sufficient scope for the protective custody of the dangerously inebriated, as such individuals may not be capable of giving the consent necessary for voluntary

[Southern Patriots]

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

Despite even the presence of new evidence? Without even provisions for such a situation?

Of course, upon further review I discover that in my absence the travesty of "Double Jeopardy Prohibition" was indeed passed, mocking the justice system of the World Assembly.

[Bears Armed]

Medical quarantines, prisoners-of-war, 'enemy' civilian nationals interned by belligerent nations during wartime, belligerent nations' military personnel interned by neutral nations into whose territories they've strayed during wartime?

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

"Aha!" A young diplomatic aide bursts into the room, brandishing a flowchart stolen from the Queleshian WA office.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Fix the spelling of "community" and you've got a new classic going, Stallion

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

OOC: Fix the spelling of "community" and you've got a new classic going, Stallion

OOC: Intentional! Pick up on it IC and I have a justification.

[Cinistra]

I have a distinct feeling of Deja vu, here...

[New Edom]

"Hey, I've got a question--what is Habeas Corpus anyway? Does it mean 'have the body' or something like that? Because it sounds kind of like latin," said Princess Mara, raising her hand. "And that chart thing is ZOMG hilarious, I'm taking a picture of it and sending it to my cousin."

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

"Hilarious?!" Another aide piped up, the Ambassador sitting back, impassive. "This is not only heavily indicative of systematic poor practice in the Queleshian WA liaison, but incontrovertable PROOF..."
He leapt to his feet, unfurling an aerial photograph.

"...OF THE CONTROL THE QUELESHIAN DYSLEXIC SYNDICATE HAS OVER THEIR NATION!"

[Ossitania]

OOC: Jesus, really? Learning disability jokes?

[Linux and the X]

OOC: Jesus, really? Learning disability jokes?

Quite tasteless, I agree, but that's exactly what makes it WA material.

[Credania]

I'm going to have to agree with this.
If you can edit your draft and create a final presentation form and propose it to the World Assembly, you would definitely have my vote, as well as Credania's. However, I do recommend you fix the grammar so we can discern between the confusing portions of the bill (and possibly provide an example for each confusing section?).

For example, when it talks about an individual being charged for the same crime, I believe being charged twice for the same SPECIFIC incident is preposterous! If it refers to different incidents of the individual being charged for the same GENERAL crime, I would be in favor because it could exemplify an individual pattern in that person (i.e. that a person has murdered twice, and if released would do it again based on behavior and past examples).

[Ainocra]

Opposed, we need no intrusions into our justice system from this body.

[Quelesh]

Also:

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

The problem here is that this can be deliberately misinterpreted.
The same criminal charge. Johnny Barker has been charged with 17 grand theft autos.
The charge for each offence is grand theft auto
Each charge is the same for each offence.

Under this caveat his defense lawyer will argue that each one is the same criminal charge.

This may be just because you pluralized charge. "same criminal charges" automatically speaks of multiple instances of the charge.

Would changing the wording from "the same criminal charges" to "the same alleged criminal act" satisfy this concern?

While this is certainly an improvement, simply saying that this does not affect double jeopardy doesn't change the fact that clause 5 effectively creates a second layer of double jeopardy. The question here is whether or not member-states would be able to arrest and detain individuals who had previously been acquitted of a crime were DJP to be repealed. If that is not the case, then all the clarifying clauses in the world aren't going to make us drop our objection. We are curious as to what the flagrant loophole that the Quelesian delegation is so scared of would do, as all we can see it doing is not swinging a(nother) wrecking ball through the pillars of criminal justice.

Given the clarifying clause, clause 5 cannot be interpreted as affecting the practice of double jeopardy. It seems to me that re-arrest and re-detention is, in nations which would do such things, part of the practice of double jeopardy.

I am willing to change clause 5 in such a way as to address your concerns while simultaneously not weakening the proposal, but at this time I don't see a way to do so. My first thought was to add "unless the individual's acquittal has been reversed or vacated in accordance with international law." However, international law does nothing to prohibit the reversal of an acquittal. Double Jeopardy Prohibition does not prohibit the reversal of an acquittal; it merely prohibits putting the individual on trial again, even if the acquittal is reversed. If I added that wording, then member states would be able to reverse a person's acquittal and then, once the acquittal had been reversed, detain her indefinitely. Double Jeopardy Prohibition would prevent them from putting her on trial again, but this resolution would not prohibit them from detaining her, as her acquittal has been reversed.

My fundamental concern with clause 5 is to prohibit the following scenario: A member state detains a person and charges her with a crime. The person is put on trial and acquitted of the crime, but the member state continues to detain her anyway.

Can you think of a way that I could word clause 5 in order to prohibit this scenario, and not open up the loophole I mentioned above, while also not affecting double jeopardy? (If not, I still maintain that clause 5 cannot be interpreted as affecting double jeopardy, given the clarifying clause.)

We also do not believe this draft provides sufficient scope for the protective custody of the dangerously inebriated, as such individuals may not be capable of giving the consent necessary for voluntary

If being "dangerously inebriated" in public is a crime in your nation, then you can detain her on suspicion of that crime. If not, then you can still detain her for up to two hours (and possibly longer, if I add the ability to extend the time limit in clause 1 in the interests of public safety). However, I do not intend to provide a blanket exception for drunk people.

Medical quarantines, prisoners-of-war, 'enemy' civilian nationals interned by belligerent nations during wartime, belligerent nations' military personnel interned by neutral nations into whose territories they've strayed during wartime?

I will consider adding an exception for medical quarantine situations and for the detention of prisoners of war.

I'm going to have to agree with this.
If you can edit your draft and create a final presentation form and propose it to the World Assembly, you would definitely have my vote, as well as Credania's. However, I do recommend you fix the grammar so we can discern between the confusing portions of the bill (and possibly provide an example for each confusing section?).

For example, when it talks about an individual being charged for the same crime, I believe being charged twice for the same SPECIFIC incident is preposterous! If it refers to different incidents of the individual being charged for the same GENERAL crime, I would be in favor because it could exemplify an individual pattern in that person (i.e. that a person has murdered twice, and if released would do it again based on behavior and past examples).

I appreciate your support. However, I'm not sure where the grammar is incorrect. Could you point it out to me? I'm also not entirely sure what you mean about the same incident versus the same general crime. Are you referring to the "on suspicion of the same criminal charges" language in clause 3? I'm considering changing that to "on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act."

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Ossitania]

Given the clarifying clause, clause 5 cannot be interpreted as affecting the practice of double jeopardy. It seems to me that re-arrest and re-detention is, in nations which would do such things, part of the practice of double jeopardy.

I am willing to change clause 5 in such a way as to address your concerns while simultaneously not weakening the proposal, but at this time I don't see a way to do so. My first thought was to add "unless the individual's acquittal has been reversed or vacated in accordance with international law." However, international law does nothing to prohibit the reversal of an acquittal. Double Jeopardy Prohibition does not prohibit the reversal of an acquittal; it merely prohibits putting the individual on trial again, even if the acquittal is reversed. If I added that wording, then member states would be able to reverse a person's acquittal and then, once the acquittal had been reversed, detain her indefinitely. Double Jeopardy Prohibition would prevent them from putting her on trial again, but this resolution would not prohibit them from detaining her, as her acquittal has been reversed.

My fundamental concern with clause 5 is to prohibit the following scenario: A member state detains a person and charges her with a crime. The person is put on trial and acquitted of the crime, but the member state continues to detain her anyway.

Can you think of a way that I could word clause 5 in order to prohibit this scenario, and not open up the loophole I mentioned above, while also not affecting double jeopardy? (If not, I still maintain that clause 5 cannot be interpreted as affecting double jeopardy, given the clarifying clause.)

"5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless the individual's acquittal has been reversed or vacated in accordance with international law and the detention is for the purpose of a new trial on the same charges;"

That would be my suggestion.

If being "dangerously inebriated" in public is a crime in your nation, then you can detain her on suspicion of that crime. If not, then you can still detain her for up to two hours (and possibly longer, if I add the ability to extend the time limit in clause 1 in the interests of public safety). However, I do not intend to provide a blanket exception for drunk people.

Extending the time limit to even twelve hours if the detention is in the interest of public safety would be more than sufficient.

[Quelesh]

"5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless the individual's acquittal has been reversed or vacated in accordance with international law and the detention is for the purpose of a new trial on the same charges;"

That would be my suggestion.

I'll have to tweak that to ensure that there are no loopholes, but something like that might work.

If being "dangerously inebriated" in public is a crime in your nation, then you can detain her on suspicion of that crime. If not, then you can still detain her for up to two hours (and possibly longer, if I add the ability to extend the time limit in clause 1 in the interests of public safety). However, I do not intend to provide a blanket exception for drunk people.

Extending the time limit to even twelve hours if the detention is in the interest of public safety would be more than sufficient.

Twelve hours is 1/14 of a week. Allowing people to be detained for up to 1/14 of the time without even being suspected of a crime seems a bit excessive to me. I was thinking of generally leaving the two hour time limit in place, but allowing member states to extend this by up to four additional hours (e.g. up to six hours total) in the interests of the safety of the individual or of pubic safety. I'd say something like "reasonably necessary to ensure public safety," so member states would have to have at least some reasonable justification for utilizing the extension.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Quelesh]

A new draft has been posted:

(Human rights / strong)

The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period;

2. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the time limit in clause 1 if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

3. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

4. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 3;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

7. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

8. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting any of the following:

9. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

10. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

11. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

12. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

13. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Character count: 3,171

Changes:

1. Removed the 30-day and 365-day time limits from clause 1, leaving only the seven-day time limit intact.

2. Added a new clause 2 with a limited public/individual safety exception allowing for a time-limited extension of the time limit in clause 1, and renumbered the remaining clauses accordingly.

3. Added the "unless..." language to clause 6, to clarify that this resolution does not prohibit detention for the purpose of double jeopardy, so long as international law is followed. I appreciate Ossitania's suggestion in this regard.

4. Moved the "nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted..." language to the CLARIFIES line, instead of in each subsequent line, to reduce unnecessary repetition.

5. Added the "fully informed, uncoerced consent" language to clause 9, to avoid a potential loophole.

6. Added the "ability of this Assembly..." language to clause 11, out of an abundance of caution.

7. Added clauses 12 and 13 relating to the detention of prisoners of war and the imposition of necessary medical quarantines.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Ossitania]

We approve wholeheartedly of the current draft. You could probably even remove clause 11 at this point, if you wanted, as it is no longer possible to construe clause 6 as affecting the practice of double jeopardy.