A/HRC/19/43 prisoners or detainees who have or are suspected of having committed a crime (A/HRC/7/4, para. 45). Sometimes detention lasts only for a short period, while the person’s identity is verified. However, detention may also become prolonged, as the State seeks to process the individual’s deportation. 16. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has explicitly reminded States of the need to ensure the security of non-citizens, in particular with regard to arbitrary detention.18 The Human Rights Committee has also considered that practices involving the continued detention of a non-citizen when there is no real prospect of them being expelled constitute a violation of the right to liberty.19 For instance, the Committee has recalled that in order to avoid a characterization of arbitrariness, detention should not continue beyond the period for which the State party can provide appropriate justification. The Committee, therefore, considered arbitrary the continued detention for a period of four years of a person as an unlawful non-citizen because the State did not demonstrate that, in the light of the person’s particular circumstances, there were no less invasive means of achieving the same ends.20 The Committee has also expressed concern about the prolonged detention pursuant to immigration laws of non-citizens suspected of committing terroristrelated offences, with fewer guarantees than in the context of criminal procedures. 21 Similarly, the Committee against Torture has indicated that States should take measures to ensure that detention of non-citizens is used only in exceptional circumstances or as a last resort, and only for the shortest possible time. 22 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed its concern that non-citizens may be remanded in custody when they are not able to produce a valid identity document, or on suspicion of having produced a false identity. According to the Committee, in such circumstances, detention should only be imposed on the basis of objective grounds stipulated in law, such as the risk of flight, the risk that the person might destroy evidence or influence witnesses, or the risk of serious disturbance of public order. 23 The independent expert on minority issues has also expressed concern that travel of non-citizens or stateless persons between different areas or to a particular region may sometimes be limited or confined to the boundaries of a particular village or dedicated settlement and that failure to comply with such measures may lead to arrest and imprisonment (A/HRC/4/19/Add.1, para. 126). 18 19 20 21 22 23 General recommendation No. 30, para. 19. See, for example, Human Rights Committee, communications No. 560/1993, A. v. Australia, Views adopted on 3 April 1997; No. 900/1999, C. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 October 2002; No. 1014/2001, Baban et. al. v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 August 2003; No. 1069/2002, Bakhtiyari v. Australia, Views adopted on 29 October 2003; No. 1050/2002, D. and E. v. Australia, Views adopted on 11 July 2006; Nos. 1255, 1256, 1259, 1260, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1288/2004, Shams et. al. v. Australia, Views adopted on 20 July 2007; No. 794/1998, Jalloh v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 23 March 2002, para. 8.2; Human Rights Committee, concluding observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CCPR/CO/73/UK-CCPR/CO/73/UKOT ), para. 16; European Court of Human Rights, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 23 EHRR 413, 15 November 1996; European Commission on Human Rights, Caprino v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 6871/75, 3 March 1978. Communication No. 1442/2005, Yin Fong v. Australia, Views adopted on 23 October 2009. Human Rights Committee, concluding observations: United States of America (CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1), para. 19. Committee against Torture, concluding observations: Hungary (CAT/C/HUN/CO/4), para. 9. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, concluding observations: Canada (CERD/C/CAN/CO/18), para. 18; Norway (CERD/C/NOR/CO/18), para. 18. 7