Justice
Can a person be held under emergency powers without being suspected of an offence?
Where a constitution provides for it, it usually provides conditions in the same breath. South Africa attaches eight of them to detention without trial; Brazil requires an arrest under emergency powers to be communicated to a judge immediately; one system bars discriminatory internment outright.
In short
Ordinary detention rests on suspicion of an offence, and this platform already describes how systems allow a court to be asked whether someone may lawfully be held. Emergency detention raises a prior question that page does not reach: whether a person may be held at all when the ordinary ground is absent — and, where the answer is yes, what the same instrument requires in exchange.
Why it exists
AnalysisDetention is the exercise of public power whose subject cannot walk away to complain about it, which is why it attracts more procedural protection than anything else a state does. An emergency is precisely the condition in which the arguments for holding someone without the ordinary ground are strongest — and therefore the condition in which written conditions do the most work.
How it works
South Africa authorises detention without trial in consequence of a derogation and then makes eight conditions mandatory. Section 37(6) requires that an adult family member or friend be contacted as soon as reasonably possible; that the detainee’s name and place of detention be published in the national Gazette within five days; that a court review the detention as soon as reasonably possible and in any event within ten days, and again at ten-day intervals; and that the detainee be allowed to appear in person before any court considering the detention, to be represented by a legal practitioner at those hearings and to make representations.
It also requires that the detainee be allowed to choose and be visited at any reasonable time by a medical practitioner and by a legal representative.
Brazil takes a different route: its milder emergency regime does not create a detention-without-suspicion power at all, and constrains the arrest power it does touch. Article 136 §3 provides that during an estado de defesa, arrest for a crime against the State ordered by the executor of the measure must be communicated immediately to the competent judge, who releases the detainee if the arrest is unlawful; that the detainee may request a forensic medical examination; that incommunicado detention is prohibited; and that detention for such an offence may not exceed ten days unless authorised by the Judiciary.
Canada does something neither of the others does: it bars a category of detention outright in the enabling statute. Section 4(b) of the Emergencies Act provides that nothing in the Act confers power to make orders or regulations providing for the detention, imprisonment or internment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
AnalysisThat provision has an obvious history behind it and does not depend on knowing it. As a piece of drafting it is a limit on what the Act can ever be read to authorise, rather than a condition on the exercise of a power the Act grants.
Kenya places the routes themselves beyond reach. Article 25 provides that despite any other provision in the Constitution, the right to a fair trial and the right to an order of habeas corpus shall not be limited — and Article 58(6) permits emergency legislation to limit a right only to the extent strictly required by the emergency.
France shows a constitutional court drawing the line during an emergency rather than in advance. In décision n° 2020-800 DC the Conseil constitutionnel imposed a reservation of interpretation on health-emergency confinement: quarantine or isolation measures prohibiting the person from leaving the place of quarantine cannot continue beyond fourteen days without prior authorisation by a judge.
And in décision n° 2015-527 QPC it held the other side of the same line, finding that an assignation à résidence under the state of emergency is an administrative-police measure which, by its object and scope, does not amount to a deprivation of individual liberty within Article 66 — while still requiring it to be justified and proportionate under the control of the administrative judge.
Common misconceptions
Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.
Common belief: A state of emergency allows anyone to be detained indefinitely.
In practice: Not under these instruments. South Africa requires court review within ten days and again at ten-day intervals; Brazil limits detention for a crime against the State during an estado de defesa to ten days unless the Judiciary authorises more.
Common belief: Emergency detention means no lawyer and no court.
In practice: South Africa’s s. 37(6) requires that the detainee be allowed to appear in person before any court considering the detention, to be represented by a legal practitioner at those hearings, and to be visited by a legal representative and a chosen medical practitioner.
Common belief: Every emergency regime creates a power to detain without suspicion.
In practice: Brazil’s estado de defesa does not. Article 136 §3 constrains arrest for a crime against the State and requires immediate communication to a judge; it creates no detention power resting on something other than an offence.
Common belief: Habeas corpus can always be suspended in an emergency.
In practice: Kenya’s Article 25 places the right to an order of habeas corpus among the rights that shall not be limited, despite any other provision in the Constitution.
Common belief: Any emergency restriction on where a person may be is a detention.
In practice: The Conseil constitutionnel held otherwise for an assignation à résidence, treating it as an administrative-police measure not amounting to a deprivation of liberty under Article 66 — while requiring quarantine that prohibits departure to have prior judicial authorisation beyond fourteen days.
How this varies between jurisdictions
A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.
Five instruments, four techniques.
- Authorise it, and attach eight mandatory conditions including periodic court review and publication of the name — South Africa, s. 37(6)–(8).
- Do not create the power, and keep a judge in the loop from the first hours — Brazil, CF Art. 136 §3.
- Bar a category of detention outright in the enabling statute — Canada, Emergencies Act s. 4(b).
- Place the remedy itself beyond limitation — Kenya, Art. 25 with Art. 58(6).
- Draw the constitutional threshold case by case, with judicial authorisation beyond a stated period — France, Conseil constitutionnel décisions 2015-527 QPC and 2020-800 DC.
Worked examples
Systems this platform has researched. Each example links to the dossier it draws on.
- South Africa
- Provides for detention without trial and then attaches eight mandatory conditions to it in s. 37(6)–(8), including notification of a family member or friend, publication of the detainee’s name in the Gazette within five days, court review within ten days and at ten-day intervals afterwards, appearance in person, legal representation at those hearings, and access to a chosen medical practitioner.
- Brazil
- Does not create a detention-without-suspicion power at all under the estado de defesa. Art. 136 §3 instead constrains arrest for a crime against the State: it must be communicated immediately to the competent judge, who releases the detainee if the arrest is unlawful, and incommunicado detention is prohibited.
Where the pattern does not hold
Systems at the same level that arrange this differently. The pattern above is a pattern, not a rule.
- Canada
- Places an absolute substantive bar in the statute rather than conditions on a power: Emergencies Act s. 4(b) provides that nothing in the Act confers power to make orders or regulations providing for the detention, imprisonment or internment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Rights and accountability
AnalysisThe recurring feature is that the strongest protections are procedural rather than substantive. Publishing a name, requiring a court to look again in ten days, forbidding incommunicado detention — none of these decides whether a person should be held, and all of them make the question answerable by someone other than the person holding them.
AnalysisThat is also what makes them enforceable. A requirement that detention be justified invites an argument; a requirement that a court review it within ten days is either met or not.
AnalysisNone of this implies that a state facing an insurrection or a catastrophe should be unable to hold anyone. The constitutions that provide these conditions provide the powers too, in the same sections — the conditions are what a system attaches to a power it has decided is necessary, not an argument that it is not.
What we could not establish
- Five systems are described from primary text. What any other system permits was not researched.
- This page describes constitutional and statutory conditions. It cannot indicate whether any detention anywhere is or was lawful, states no route of challenge and no time limit applicable to anyone, and is not legal advice. Anyone dealing with a real detention needs a lawyer in that jurisdiction immediately.
Where to go next
Related: reviewing detention, which rights can never be suspended, and courts during a state of emergency.
Related topics
- What can a court do about someone being held?
More systems protect against unlawful detention than use the words "habeas corpus". Brazil names it in the constitution and makes the action free; South Africa gives the same protection without the name; France routes it through the judicial authority as guardian of individual liberty.
- Can a government suspend rights in an emergency, and are any of them untouchable?
Neither "rights are suspended" nor "rights can never be limited" survives contact with the texts. Five different architectures do this job — a list of untouchable rights, a protected core of every right, a closed list of permitted measures, a closed list of suspendable rights, and no derogation machinery at all.
- What actually changes in law when a government declares a state of emergency?
Less, and more specifically, than the phrase suggests. Two constitutions answer it with closed lists of what may be done; one bars amending the constitution while it runs; two systems have no such regime at all, and handle emergencies under ordinary law.
Sources
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Government of South Africa (gov.za) · Legislation · 1996 · link verified 2026-07-27
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (in force 4 February 1997), fetched from the official gov.za chapters and schedules and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes. Supports s 1(c) and s 2 (constitutional supremacy — "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid"); s 165 (judicial authority vested in independent courts); s 166 (the courts: the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Magistrates' Courts); s 167(3) (the Constitutional Court is "the highest court of the Republic", the apex for all matters since the Seventeenth Amendment); s 178 (the Judicial Service Commission); s 179 (a "single national prosecuting authority", headed by the National Director appointed by the President, exercising its functions without fear, favour or prejudice, with the Justice Minister exercising "final responsibility"); s 181 (the Chapter 9 institutions — the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and others); s 205–207 (a single national police service, the Minister determining national policing policy, the National Commissioner controlling the service, provinces limited to oversight); and Schedules 4 and 5 (which contain no provincial competence over courts, prosecution, prisons or criminal law, only police "to the extent that Chapter 11 confers"). Establishes constitutional supremacy and that all four justice functions are national. WAVE 12 ADDITION, read from the clean digital text published by the Department of Justice at justice.gov.za and corroborated against the gov.za chapter pages: s 9(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law; s 33(1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, s 33(2) written reasons where rights have been adversely affected, s 33(3) national legislation providing for review by a court or independent and impartial tribunal; s 34 Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum; s 35(2)(b) the right of a detained person to choose and consult a legal practitioner, s 35(2)(c) the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, s 35(2)(d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court, and s 35(2)(e) to conditions of detention consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment. ACCESS NOTE: the scanned gazette PDF at gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf is an OCR with visible corruption and was rejected as a source; nothing is quoted from it. WAVE 14 ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(3)(f) the right of every accused person to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(g) to have a legal practitioner assigned by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(k) “to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language”; and s 35(4) that whenever the section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(5) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." As with the Kenyan provision, exclusion is conditional on the effect of admission rather than automatic on the violation. Also read directly from the same chapter text, the whole of s 35(2)(d) and its chapeau: "Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right u2014 u2026 (d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released". Three features of that provision are cited on this platform and each is in the text itself: that the right extends to sentenced prisoners, that the challenge is made in person before a court, and that release is the stated remedy. The provision states no procedure for bringing such a challenge and no time limit, and this record supports no claim about either. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Department of Justice chapter text. Section 37 is the most fully specified emergency clause in this wave, and its detail is the finding. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(1): “37. (1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when— (a) the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(2)(b): “The Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency for no more than three months at a time. The first extension of the state of emergency must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the Assembly. Any subsequent extension must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the members of the Assembly. A resolution in terms of this paragraph may be adopted only following a public debate in the Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(3): “(3) Any competent court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(4): “(4) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency may derogate from the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (a) the derogation is strictly required by the emergency; and (b) the legislation— (i) is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to states of emergency; (ii) conforms to subsection (5); and (iii) is published in the national Government Gazette as soon as reasonably possible after being enacted.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(5) and the Table of Non-Derogable Rights: “(5) No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of a declaration, may permit or authorise— (a) indemnifying the state, or any person, in respect of any unlawful act; (b) any derogation from this section; or (c) any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, to the extent indicated opposite that section in column 3 of the Table. Table of Non-Derogable Rights [1 Section number | 2 Section title | 3 Extent to which the right is protected] 9 | Equality | With respect to unfair discrimination solely on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, sex, religion or language. 10 | Human Dignity | Entirely 11 | Life | Entirely 12 | Freedom and Security of the person | With respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c). 13 | Slavery, servitude and forced labour | With respect to slavery and servitude 28 | Children | With respect to: – subsection (1)(d) and (e); – the rights in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(g); and – subsection 1(i) in respect of children of 15 years and younger. 35 | Arrested, detained and accused persons | With respect to: – subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c) and (2)(d); – the rights in paragraphs (a) to (o) of subsection (3), excluding paragraph (d) – subsection (4); and – subsection (5) with respect to the exclusion of evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(6)-(8): “(6) Whenever anyone is detained without trial in consequence of a derogation of rights resulting from a declaration of a state of emergency, the following conditions must be observed: (a) An adult family member or friend of the detainee must be contacted as soon as reasonably possible, and informed that the person has been detained. (b) A notice must be published in the national Government Gazette within five days of the person being detained, stating the detainee’s name and place of detention and referring to the emergency measure in terms of which that person has been detained. (c) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a medical practitioner. (d) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a legal representative. (e) A court must review the detention as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than 10 days after the date the person was detained, and the court must release the detainee unless it is necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order. ... (7) If a court releases a detainee, that person may not be detained again on the same grounds unless the state first shows a court good cause for re-detaining that person. (8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to persons who are not South African citizens and who are detained in consequence of an international armed conflict. Instead, the state must comply with the standards binding on the Republic under international humanitarian law in respect of the detention of such persons.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.36: “36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. (2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.201; cf. ss.198(d), 199(6): “201. (1) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible for defence. (2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employment of the defence force— (a) in co-operation with the police service; (b) in defence of the Republic; or (c) in fulfilment of an international obligation. (3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of— (a) the reasons for the employment of the defence force; (b) any place where the force is being employed; (c) the number of people involved; and (d) the period for which the force is expected to be employed. (4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.”. Cited for prospective-only effect, the twenty-one-day limit and the escalating extension majorities, validity review by any competent court, the strictly-required test, the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, the absolute bar on indemnifying unlawful acts, and the conditions on detention without trial. It records no state of emergency ever declared under this Constitution and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Chapter 2 (Bill of Rights) read from the South African Government's own published text at gov.za. Supports s. 12(1)-(2) (freedom and security of the person, including not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause, not to be detained without trial, freedom from all forms of violence from either public or private sources, and not to be tortured or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; and bodily and psychological integrity, including security in and control over one's body and freedom from medical or scientific experiments without informed consent). Supports s. 14 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Note what this provision does NOT contain, which the page relying on it states: no warrant requirement and no authorisation rule of any kind. Supports s. 35(1) (rights of arrested persons, including (a) to remain silent; (b) to be informed promptly of the right to remain silent AND of the consequences of not remaining silent; (c) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (d) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 48 hours after arrest, or the end of the first court day after the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a non-court day; (e) and (f)). Supports s. 35(2) (rights of detained persons, including prompt information of the reason, choice of and consultation with a legal practitioner and prompt information of that right, state-assigned counsel where substantial injustice would otherwise result, and the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and be released if it is unlawful). Supports s. 35(3) (fair-trial rights, including (a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it; (b) adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; (c) a public trial before an ordinary court; (h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings; (i) to adduce and challenge evidence; (j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence; (k) to be tried in a language the accused understands or to have the proceedings interpreted). Supports s. 36(1)-(2), the general limitation clause: rights may be limited “only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose”, and that except as provided in s. 36(1) or elsewhere in the Constitution, no law may limit any entrenched right. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that ss. 12, 14 and 35 are worded “Everyone” while political rights under s. 19 are for “every citizen”. Constitutional text only: no Constitutional Court decision, no statute, and nothing about any other country.
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988
Presidência da República — Casa Civil (Planalto) · Legislation · 1988-10-05 · link verified 2026-07-25
The authoritative Portuguese text, read in full. THE backbone of the Brazil pages. Supports: the federation of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities, 'todos autônomos' (Art. 18; Art. 1); separation of powers (Art. 2); the criminal-justice guarantees of Art. 5 — devido processo legal (LIV), contraditório e ampla defesa (LV), presumption of innocence 'ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória' (LVII), and habeas corpus (LXVIII); that penal and procedural law are the EXCLUSIVE (privativa) competence of the Union (Art. 22, I) while direito penitenciário is CONCURRENT (Art. 24, I) and the States hold the reserved/residual competences (Art. 25 §1); public security through the six órgãos of Art. 144 (I polícia federal; II rodoviária federal; III ferroviária federal; IV polícias civis; V polícias militares e corpos de bombeiros militares; VI polícias penais, added by EC 104/2019), with the polícias civis 'dirigidas por delegados de polícia de carreira' exercising 'as funções de polícia judiciária e a apuração de infrações penais, exceto as militares' (§4), the polícias militares holding 'a polícia ostensiva e a preservação da ordem pública' (§5), and both subordinate to the Governors (§6); the Judiciary organs of Art. 92 (STF, CNJ, STJ, TST, TRFs/Juízes Federais, and the labour, electoral, military and state courts), the STF as guardian of the Constitution (Art. 102), the CNJ (Art. 103-B) and state justice (Art. 125); the Ministério Público as 'instituição permanente, essencial à função jurisdicional do Estado' defending 'a ordem jurídica, o regime democrático e os interesses sociais e individuais indisponíveis', with autonomy and the principles of unidade, indivisibilidade e independência funcional (Art. 127), its structure MPU (MPF/MPT/MPM/MPDFT) + MPE (Art. 128), its functions including promoting 'privativamente, a ação penal pública' (Art. 129 I) and the inquérito civil / ação civil pública for interesses difusos e coletivos (Art. 129 III), and the CNMP (Art. 130-A); and that the Union organizes and maintains the Judiciary, Ministério Público and police of the Federal District (Art. 21, XIII–XIV). The Portuguese text alone has legal effect. WAVE 12 ADDITION, further clauses of Art. 5 read directly from the same Planalto text: XXXV a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito; XXXVI the law shall not impair a vested right, a perfect juridical act or res judicata; XXXVII não haverá juízo ou tribunal de exceção; XXXIX não há crime sem lei anterior que o defina, nem pena sem prévia cominação legal; XL a lei penal não retroagirá, salvo para beneficiar o réu; LVI evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in the process; LXXV the State shall indemnify a person convicted by judicial error and one held beyond the term fixed in the sentence; LXXVIII reasonable duration of proceedings and the means guaranteeing the speed of their handling, in the judicial and administrative spheres. WAVE 14 ADDITION, further provisions read directly from the same Planalto text: Art. 5º LXXIV “o Estado prestará assistência jurídica integral e gratuita aos que comprovarem insuficiência de recursos”; Art. 5º LXXVI that civil birth registration and the death certificate are free, in the form of the law, for the recognisedly poor; Art. 5º LXXVII that actions of habeas corpus and habeas data are free, as are, in the form of the law, the acts necessary to the exercise of citizenship; Art. 103-B § 4º that the Conselho Nacional de Justiça has competence for “o controle da atuação administrativa e financeira do Poder Judiciário e do cumprimento dos deveres funcionais dos juízes”, including safeguarding the autonomy of the Judiciary and issuing regulatory acts (I), reviewing the legality of administrative acts of members or organs of the Judiciary and annulling, revising or setting a period for compliance (II), and receiving complaints against members or organs of the Judiciary including its auxiliary services and delegated notarial and registry services, taking over disciplinary proceedings in course and ordering removal, availability or retirement and applying other administrative sanctions (III); Art. 133 “O advogado é indispensável à administração da justiça, sendo inviolável por seus atos e manifestações no exercício da profissão, nos limites da lei”; and Art. 134 in its current wording, that the Defensoria Pública is a permanent institution essential to the jurisdictional function of the State, incumbent on it, as an expression and instrument of the democratic regime, fundamentally to provide legal guidance, the promotion of human rights and the defence, in all degrees, judicial and extrajudicial, of the individual and collective rights of the needy. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Planalto text. Brazil states its emergency architecture as a closed system: two regimes, an exhaustive list of measures for each, and an express preservation of liability afterwards. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136, caput: “Art. 136. O Presidente da República pode, ouvidos o Conselho da República e o Conselho de Defesa Nacional, decretar estado de defesa para preservar ou prontamente restabelecer, em locais restritos e determinados, a ordem pública ou a paz social ameaçadas por grave e iminente instabilidade institucional ou atingidas por calamidades de grandes proporções na natureza.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 § 2º, added after adversarial review found this platform quoting it from a record that did not carry it, and re-verified against the Planalto text: “§ 2º O tempo de duração do estado de defesa não será superior a trinta dias, podendo ser prorrogado uma vez, por igual período, se persistirem as razões que justificaram a sua decretação.” Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §1º, I–II: “I - restrições aos direitos de: a) reunião, ainda que exercida no seio das associações; b) sigilo de correspondência; c) sigilo de comunicação telegráfica e telefônica; II - ocupação e uso temporário de bens e serviços públicos, na hipótese de calamidade pública, respondendo a União pelos danos e custos decorrentes.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §3º, I–IV: “§ 3º Na vigência do estado de defesa: I - a prisão por crime contra o Estado, determinada pelo executor da medida, será por este comunicada imediatamente ao juiz competente, que a relaxará, se não for legal, facultado ao preso requerer exame de corpo de delito à autoridade policial; II - a comunicação será acompanhada de declaração, pela autoridade, do estado físico e mental do detido no momento de sua autuação; III - a prisão ou detenção de qualquer pessoa não poderá ser superior a dez dias, salvo quando autorizada pelo Poder Judiciário; IV - é vedada a incomunicabilidade do preso.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §§4º–7º: “§ 4º Decretado o estado de defesa ou sua prorrogação, o Presidente da República, dentro de vinte e quatro horas, submeterá o ato com a respectiva justificação ao Congresso Nacional, que decidirá por maioria absoluta. § 5º Se o Congresso Nacional estiver em recesso, será convocado, extraordinariamente, no prazo de cinco dias. § 6º O Congresso Nacional apreciará o decreto dentro de dez dias contados de seu recebimento, devendo continuar funcionando enquanto vigorar o estado de defesa. § 7º Rejeitado o decreto, cessa imediatamente o estado de defesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 138, caput: “Art. 138. O decreto do estado de sítio indicará sua duração, as normas necessárias a sua execução e as garantias constitucionais que ficarão suspensas, e, depois de publicado, o Presidente da República designará o executor das medidas específicas e as áreas abrangidas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 139: “Art. 139. Na vigência do estado de sítio decretado com fundamento no art. 137, I, só poderão ser tomadas contra as pessoas as seguintes medidas: I - obrigação de permanência em localidade determinada; II - detenção em edifício não destinado a acusados ou condenados por crimes comuns; III - restrições relativas à inviolabilidade da correspondência, ao sigilo das comunicações, à prestação de informações e à liberdade de imprensa, radiodifusão e televisão, na forma da lei; IV - suspensão da liberdade de reunião; V - busca e apreensão em domicílio; VI - intervenção nas empresas de serviços públicos; VII - requisição de bens. Parágrafo único. Não se inclui nas restrições do inciso III a difusão de pronunciamentos de parlamentares efetuados em suas Casas Legislativas, desde que liberada pela respectiva Mesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 141 and parágrafo único: “Art. 141. Cessado o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, cessarão também seus efeitos, sem prejuízo da responsabilidade pelos ilícitos cometidos por seus executores ou agentes. Parágrafo único. Logo que cesse o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, as medidas aplicadas em sua vigência serão relatadas pelo Presidente da República, em mensagem ao Congresso Nacional, com especificação e justificação das providências adotadas, com relação nominal dos atingidos e indicação das restrições aplicadas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 60 §§1º and 4º: “§ 1º A Constituição não poderá ser emendada na vigência de intervenção federal, de estado de defesa ou de estado de sítio. […] § 4º Não será objeto de deliberação a proposta de emenda tendente a abolir: I - a forma federativa de Estado; II - o voto direto, secreto, universal e periódico; III - a separação dos Poderes; IV - os direitos e garantias individuais.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 142, caput and §1º: “Art. 142. As Forças Armadas, constituídas pela Marinha, pelo Exército e pela Aeronáutica, são instituições nacionais permanentes e regulares, organizadas com base na hierarquia e na disciplina, sob a autoridade suprema do Presidente da República, e destinam-se à defesa da Pátria, à garantia dos poderes constitucionais e, por iniciativa de qualquer destes, da lei e da ordem. § 1º Lei complementar estabelecerá as normas gerais a serem adotadas na organização, no preparo e no emprego das Forças Armadas.”. Cited for the closed lists of permitted measures, the immediate judicial communication of an arrest, the congressional role, the express preservation of liability for unlawful acts after the regime ends, and the bar on amending the Constitution while one is in force. It records no declaration of either regime and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Article 5 read incisum by incisum from the same Planalto consolidated text. Supports the caput, and specifically its rights-holder scope: “Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes”. Supports Art. 5º X: “são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação”. Supports Art. 5º XI: “a casa é asilo inviolável do indivíduo, ninguém nela podendo penetrar sem consentimento do morador, salvo em caso de flagrante delito ou desastre, ou para prestar socorro, ou, durante o dia, por determinação judicial” — note that judicial authorisation is textually confined to daytime, which is the narrowest such qualifier found in this wave. Supports Art. 5º XII: “é inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal” — the exception reaches the LAST-NAMED category only, requires a judicial order, and is confined to criminal investigation or criminal procedural instruction. Supports Art. 5º LIV (“ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal”), LV (contraditório and ampla defesa in judicial and administrative proceedings), LVI (“são inadmissíveis, no processo, as provas obtidas por meios ilícitos”) and LVII. Supports Art. 5º LXI: “ninguém será preso senão em flagrante delito ou por ordem escrita e fundamentada de autoridade judiciária competente, salvo nos casos de transgressão militar ou crime propriamente militar, definidos em lei”. Supports LXII (arrest and place of custody communicated immediately to the competent judge and to the family or a person indicated). Supports LXIII: “o preso será informado de seus direitos, entre os quais o de permanecer calado, sendo-lhe assegurada a assistência da família e de advogado” — a constitutional notification duty coupled with a silence right, and worded for “o preso”. Supports LXIV, LXV (“a prisão ilegal será imediatamente relaxada pela autoridade judiciária”) and LXVI. Supports § 1º (“As normas definidoras dos direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata”), § 2º (rights expressed in the Constitution do not exclude others deriving from the regime and principles it adopts, or from international treaties to which Brazil is party) and § 3º (“Os tratados e convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos que forem aprovados, em cada Casa do Congresso Nacional, em dois turnos, por três quintos dos votos dos respectivos membros, serão equivalentes às emendas constitucionais”, added by Emenda Constitucional nº 45 de 2004). VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Article 5 contains no general limitation clause of the Canadian, South African, Kenyan or Swiss kind; limits appear inside individual incisos. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supremo Tribunal Federal, no statute, nothing about any other country.
Department of Justice Canada (Justice Laws Website) · Legislation · 1988 · link verified 2026-08-26
The official consolidated text on the Justice Laws Website, read directly. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 3: “For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. Supports Emergencies Act, preamble: “must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 6(1); s. 17(1) for a public order emergency; s. 6(2) (declaration contents): “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 7(2) (90 days, public welfare); s. 18(2) (30 days, public order); s. 29(2) (60 days, international); s. 39(2) (120 days, war): “A declaration of a public order emergency expires at the end of thirty days unless the declaration is previously revoked or continued in accordance with this Act.”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 58(7), read with ss. 7(2), 18(2), 29(2), 39(2): “If a motion for confirmation of a declaration of emergency is negatived by either House of Parliament, the declaration is revoked”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 14(2); s. 25(3) for public order emergencies: “The Governor in Council may not issue a declaration of a public welfare emergency where the direct effects of the emergency are confined to, or occur principally in, one province unless the lieutenant governor in council of the province has indicated to the Governor in Council that the emergency exceeds the capacity or authority of the province to deal with it.”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 4(b): “providing for the detention, imprisonment or internment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents..on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”. Supports Emergencies Act, s. 62(1) (Parliamentary Review Committee) and s. 63(1) (inquiry): “The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held”. IMPORTANT SCOPE LIMIT, recorded because adversarial review refuted the opposite reading: the preamble directs the Governor in Council to “have regard to” the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that is a direction to consider, NOT an incorporation. Canada has no domestic derogation mechanism; limitation of Charter rights runs through s. 1 and, for a legislature, s. 33. This record supports the four classes, their expiry periods, the last-resort condition, the provincial-consent gate, the absolute bar on discriminatory internment, and the parliamentary revocation route. It records no declaration, supports no claim about any particular use of the Act, and supports no claim about any other country.
National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law), for the Republic of Kenya · Legislation · 2010 · link verified 2026-07-27
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (in force 27 August 2010), retrieved as the full official Kenya Law (National Council for Law Reporting) text and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes, including a direct read of the Fourth Schedule. Supports: Art. 1–2 (sovereignty of the people; the Constitution is supreme and any inconsistent law void); Art. 59 (the Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission, and 59(4) allowing legislation to restructure it into separate commissions — the hook for the KNCHR/NGEC/CAJ split, and 59(2)(h) the ombudsman-type function); Art. 156 (the Attorney-General as principal legal adviser, who does not conduct criminal prosecutions); Art. 157 (the Director of Public Prosecutions — 157(4) power to direct the Inspector-General to investigate; 157(5) a single non-renewable eight-year term; 157(10) not requiring any person's consent and not under the direction or control of any person or authority); Art. 160 (judicial independence — courts subject only to the Constitution and the law); Art. 162–163 (the superior courts and the Supreme Court as apex, bound-by rule 163(7)); Art. 165 (the High Court — 165(3)(a) unlimited original jurisdiction, 165(3)(d) jurisdiction to determine whether any law is inconsistent with the Constitution — diffuse constitutional review); Art. 170 (the Kadhis' courts, limited to Muslim personal-status matters where all parties profess Islam); Art. 171–172 (the Judicial Service Commission); Art. 243–246 (the National Police Service as one national service throughout Kenya, the two services, the Inspector-General's independent command under 245(2)(b), the direction firewall under 245(4), and the National Police Service Commission); and the Fourth Schedule Part 1 items 7 (police services, criminal law and correctional services) and 8 (courts), which place all four justice functions in the national government. Establishes constitutional supremacy and that, despite devolution to 47 counties, courts, prosecution, police and prisons are all national functions. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same official Kenya Law text: Art. 50(4) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." Note the conditional structure: exclusion follows from a judgment about the effect of admitting the evidence, not automatically from the fact of the violation. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same official Kenya Law text. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(1): “58. State of emergency (1) A state of emergency may be declared only under Article 132 (4) (d) and only when— (a) the State is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to meet the circumstances for which the emergency is declared.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 132(4)(d)-(e): “132. Functions of the President ... (4) The President may— (a) perform any other executive function provided for in this Constitution or in national legislation ...; (b) receive foreign diplomatic and consular representatives; (c) confer honours in the name of the people and the Republic; (d) subject to Article 58, declare a state of emergency; and (e) with the approval of Parliament, declare war.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(2)-(3): “(2) A declaration of a state of emergency, and any legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of the declaration, shall be effective only— (a) prospectively; and (b) for not longer than fourteen days from the date of the declaration, unless the National Assembly resolves to extend the declaration. (3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— ... (b) for not longer than two months at a time.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(3)-(4): “(3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) by resolution adopted— (i) following a public debate in the National Assembly; and (ii) by the majorities specified in clause (4); and (b) for not longer than two months at a time. (4) The first extension of the declaration of a state of emergency requires a supporting vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the National Assembly, and any subsequent extension requires a supporting vote of at least three-quarters of all the members of the National Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(5): “(5) The Supreme Court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; and (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(6): “(6) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) may limit a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (i) the limitation is strictly required by the emergency; and (ii) the legislation is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to a state of emergency; and (b) shall not take effect until it is published in the Gazette .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 25: “25. Fundamental Rights and freedoms that may not be limited Despite any other provision in this Constitution, the following rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be limited— (a) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) freedom from slavery or servitude; (c) the right to a fair trial; and (d) the right to an order of habeas corpus .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 241(3); cf. Article 240(8): “(3) The Kenya Defence Forces— (a) are responsible for the defence and protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic; (b) shall assist and cooperate with other authorities in situations of emergency or disaster, and report to the National Assembly whenever deployed in such circumstances; and (c) may be deployed to restore peace in any part of Kenya affected by unrest or instability only with the approval of the National Assembly.”. CORRECTION TO A COMMON MISSTATEMENT, verified against the text: the escalating extension thresholds in Article 58(3) are TWO-THIRDS and then THREE-QUARTERS of all the members of the National Assembly, not two-thirds and then sixty-five per cent. Note also that Article 58(6) speaks of LIMITING a right rather than derogating from one, and that Article 25 lists rights that “shall not be limited” at all. This record supports the declaration, extension, review and limitation architecture; it records no state of emergency and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same Kenya Law text, Chapter Four article by article. Supports Art. 24(1), the limitation clause: a right shall not be limited “except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.” Supports Art. 24(2), which is the provision that distinguishes Kenya's clause from South Africa's: a limiting provision enacted or amended on or after the effective date “is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation” (24(2)(a)); shall not be construed as limiting unless clear and specific (24(2)(b)); and “shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content” (24(2)(c)). Supports Art. 24(3): “The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied.” Supports Art. 24(5), that legislation may limit the application of Arts. 31, 36, 37, 41, 43 and 49 to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service. Supports Art. 27(1): “Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.” Supports Art. 31 verbatim: “Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person, home or property searched; (b) their possessions seized; (c) information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Supports Art. 49(1), rights of arrested persons, including (a) to be informed promptly, in a language the person understands, of the reason for the arrest, the right to remain silent, and the consequences of not remaining silent; (b) to remain silent; (c) to communicate with an advocate and other persons whose assistance is necessary; (d) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (f) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 24 hours after being arrested, or the end of the next court day where the 24 hours end outside ordinary court hours; and (h) to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions unless there are compelling reasons not to be. Supports Art. 50(1), the right of every person to have a dispute resolvable by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that these provisions are worded “Every person” and “An arrested person”. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Kenyan courts, no statute, nothing about any other country.
Conseil constitutionnel (France) · Court record · 2015-12-22 · link verified 2026-08-26
Four decisions, each read directly on the Conseil constitutionnel's own site. ACCESS NOTE, consistent with what the France pilot recorded: legifrance.gouv.fr bot-walls automated requests, so the statutory text of the loi du 3 avril 1955 is taken from where the Conseil constitutionnel and the Sénat quote it verbatim rather than from Légifrance. Supports Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2015-527 QPC du 22 décembre 2015, cons. 8: “8. Considérant que la Constitution n'exclut pas la possibilité pour le législateur de prévoir un régime d'état d'urgence ; qu'il lui appartient, dans ce cadre, d'assurer la conciliation entre, d'une part, la prévention des atteintes à l'ordre public et, d'autre part, le respect des droits et libertés reconnus à tous ceux qui résident sur le territoire de la République ; que parmi ces droits et libertés figurent la liberté d'aller et de venir, composante de la liberté personnelle protégée par les articles 2 et 4 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789”. Supports Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2015-527 QPC du 22 décembre 2015, cons. 12 and 15: “12. Considérant, en deuxième lieu, que tant la mesure d'assignation à résidence que sa durée, ses conditions d'application et les obligations complémentaires dont elle peut être assortie doivent être justifiées et proportionnées aux raisons ayant motivé la mesure dans les circonstances particulières ayant conduit à la déclaration de l'état d'urgence ; que le juge administratif est chargé de s'assurer que cette mesure est adaptée, nécessaire et proportionnée à la finalité qu'elle poursuit [..] 15. Considérant que les dispositions contestées ne privent pas les personnes à l'encontre desquelles est prononcée une assignation à résidence du droit de contester devant le juge administratif, y compris par la voie du référé, cette mesure”. Supports Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2020-800 DC du 11 mai 2020, para. 43 (réserve d'interprétation on CSP art. L. 3131-17 II): “43. En second lieu, les dispositions du cinquième alinéa du paragraphe II de l'article L. 3131-17 prévoient que les mesures de mise en quarantaine ou de placement en isolement interdisant toute sortie de l'intéressé hors du lieu où se déroule la quarantaine ou l'isolement ne peuvent se poursuivre au-delà d'un délai de quatorze jours sans que le juge des libertés et de la détention, préalablement saisi par le préfet, ait autorisé cette prolongation. Toutefois, aucune intervention systématique d'un juge judiciaire n'est prévue dans les autres hypothèses. Dès lors, ces dispositions ne sauraient, sans méconnaître les exigences de l'article 66 de la Constitution, permettre la prolongation des mesures de mise en quarantaine ou de placement en isolement imposant à l'intéressé de demeurer à son domicile ou dans son lieu d'hébergement pendant une plage horaire de plus de douze heures par jour sans l'autorisation du juge judiciaire.”. Supports Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 85-187 DC du 25 janvier 1985, cons. 9-10: “10. Considérant que, si la régularité au regard de la Constitution des termes d'une loi promulguée peut être utilement contestée à l'occasion de l'examen de dispositions législatives qui la modifient, la complètent ou affectent son domaine, il ne saurait en être de même lorsqu'il s'agit de la simple mise en application d'une telle loi ; que, dès lors, les moyens développés par les auteurs de saisines ne peuvent être accueillis”. Supports Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2022-840 DC du 30 juillet 2022, para. 1: “1. Les députés requérants défèrent au Conseil constitutionnel la loi mettant fin aux régimes d'exception créés pour lutter contre l'épidémie liée à la covid-19. Ils contestent la conformité à la Constitution de certaines dispositions de son article 3.”. Cited for the French CONCEPTUAL FRAMING — that an emergency regime is treated not as a derogation from the Constitution but as an exercise of the legislature's Article 34 competence subject to a duty of conciliation — and for two concrete judicial controls: full proportionality review of an assignation à résidence, and a reservation of interpretation requiring prior judicial authorisation before a quarantine or isolation measure prohibiting departure may continue beyond fourteen days. It records no measure taken against any person, states no procedure for challenging one, and supports no claim about any other country.