Editing Habeas corpus (section)

==By jurisdiction==
===Australia===
The writ of ''habeas corpus'' as a procedural remedy is part of [[Australia]]'s English law inheritance.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Clark |first1=David |first2=Gerard |last2=McCoy |year=1998 |title=Habeas Corpus |publisher=Federation Press}}</ref> In 2005, the [[Australian parliament]] passed the [[Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005]]. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on ''habeas corpus''.<ref>{{cite web |title=A human rights guide to Australia's counter-terrorism laws |url=https://www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-guide-australias-counter-terrorism-laws |website=Australian Human Rights Commission |access-date=13 April 2015 |date=2012-12-14}}</ref><ref name=UNESCOZ>{{cite web |title=National security and anti-terrorism laws in Australia |url=http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html |website=The News Manual |publisher=UNESCO |access-date=13 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Rix |first=Mark |title=Australia's Anti-Terrorism Legislation – The national security state and the community legal sector |journal=Research Online |publisher=University of Wollongong |date=2006 |url=http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=gsbpapers |access-date=13 April 2015}}</ref>

===Canada===
''Habeas corpus'' rights are part of the English legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law and have been enshrined in [[Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 10(c)]] of the ''[[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'', which states that "[e]veryone has the right on arrest or detention ... to have the validity of the detention determined by way of ''habeas corpus'' and to be released if the detention is not lawful".<ref>''Constitution Act, 1982'', Schedule B to the ''Canada Act 1982'' (UK), 1982, c 11, [http://canlii.ca/t/ldsx#sec10 s 10]</ref> The [[Legal tests|test]] for ''habeas corpus'' in Canada was established by the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in ''[[Mission Institution]] v Khela'',<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Davis|first=Ian|date=2019|title=Taking Prisoners' Rights Seriously on Substantive Habeas Corpus Review|url=https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2019CanLIIDocs2835|journal=Canadian Journal of Human Rights|volume=29|pages=34–35|id=2019 CanLIIDocs 2835|via=[[CanLII]]}}</ref> as follows:<blockquote>To be successful, an application for ''habeas corpus'' must satisfy the following criteria. First, the applicant [i.e., the person seeking ''habeas corpus'' review] must establish that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once a deprivation of liberty is proven, the applicant must raise a legitimate ground upon which to question its legality. If the applicant has raised such a ground, the onus shifts to the respondent authorities [i.e., the person or institution detaining the applicant] to show that the deprivation of liberty was lawful.<ref>''Mission Institution v Khela'', 2014 SCC 24 at [http://canlii.ca/t/g69pq#par30 para 30]</ref></blockquote>Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred at multiple times. During the [[October Crisis]] in 1970, the ''[[War Measures Act]]'' was invoked by the [[Governor General of Canada]] on the [[Advice (constitutional)|constitutional advice]] of Prime Minister [[Pierre Trudeau]], who had received a request from the [[Quebec]] Cabinet.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Parkes|first=Debra|date=2012|title=The 'Great Writ' Reinvigorated? Habeas Corpus in Contemporary Canada|url=https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2012CanLIIDocs271|journal=Manitoba Law Journal|volume=36|issue=1|pages=352|doi=10.29173/mlj826 |id=2012 CanLIIDocs 271|via=CanLII}}</ref> The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and [[Ukrainian Canadian internment]] during [[World War I]], and the internment of German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and [[Japanese Canadian internment|Japanese-Canadians]] during [[World War II]]. The writ was suspended for several years following the [[Battle of Fort Erie (1866)]] during the [[Fenian raids|Fenian Raids]], though the suspension was only ever applied to suspects in the [[Thomas D'Arcy McGee]] assassination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/033001/f2/033001-1402.7-e.pdf |title=The Fenians in Canada |first=David A. |last=Wilson |publisher=[[Library and Archives Canada]] |access-date=2 October 2013}}</ref>

The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see ''May v Ferndale Institution'').<ref>{{cite CanLII |litigants=May v Ferndale Institution |link= |year=2005 |court=scc |num=82 |parallelcite=[2005] 3 SCR 809 |date=2005-12-22}}</ref> Under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|''Criminal Code'']] the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised.

===France===
As a fundamental human right in the 1789 [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] drafted by [[Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette|Lafayette]] in co-operation with [[Thomas Jefferson]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/marquis-de-lafayette |title=Marquis de Lafayette |publisher=Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia |year=2014 |access-date=2014-06-15}}</ref> safeguards against arbitrary detention are enshrined in the French Constitution and regulated by the Penal Code. These safeguards are equivalent to those found under the Habeas-Corpus provisions found in Germany, the United States and several Commonwealth countries. The French system of accountability prescribes severe penalties for ministers, police officers and civil and judiciary authorities who either violate or fail to enforce the law.

{{blockquote|Article&nbsp;7 of [1789] Declaration also provides that "No individual may be accused, arrested, or detained except where the law so prescribes, and in accordance with the procedure it has laid down." ... The Constitution further states that "No one may be arbitrarily detained. The judicial authority, guardian of individual liberty, ensures the observance of this principle under the condition specified by law." Its article&nbsp;5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and sets forth permissible circumstances under which people may be deprived of their liberty and procedural safeguards in case of detention. In particular, it states that "anyone deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/habeas-corpus/france.php |title=Habeas Corpus Rights: France |first=Nicole |last=Atwill |publisher=U.S. Library of Congress |year=2009 |access-date=2014-06-14}}</ref>}}

France and the United States played a synergistic role in the international team, led by [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], which crafted the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]. The French judge and Nobel Peace Laureate [[René Cassin]] produced the first draft<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.droits-fondamentaux.org/spip.php?article42 |title=A World Made New – Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |first1=Mary Ann |last1=Glendon |first2=Emmanuel |last2=Decaux |publisher=Le Centre de recherche sur les droits de l'homme et le droit humanitaire, CRDH, Université Panthéon-Assas |access-date=2014-06-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714114736/http://www.droits-fondamentaux.org/spip.php?article42 |archive-date=2014-07-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml |series=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights |title=History of the Document |publisher=United Nations |access-date=2014-06-15}}</ref> and argued against arbitrary detentions. René Cassin and the French team subsequently championed the ''habeas corpus'' provisions enshrined in the [[European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/twentieth-century-european-history/rene-cassin-and-human-rights-great-war-universal-declaration?format=HB |title=René Cassin and Human Rights: From the Great War to the Universal Declaration |first1=Jay |last1=Winter |first2=Antoine |last2=Prost |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=June 2013 |access-date=2013-12-30}}</ref>

===Germany===
Germany has constitutional guarantees against improper detention and these have been implemented in statutory law in a manner that can be considered as equivalent to writs of ''habeas corpus''.

Article&nbsp;104, paragraph&nbsp;1 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]] (ratified in 1949) provides that deprivations of liberty may be imposed only on the basis of a specific enabling statute that also must include procedural rules. Article&nbsp;104, paragraph&nbsp;2 requires that any arrested individual be brought before a judge by the end of the day following the day of the arrest. For those detained as criminal suspects, article&nbsp;104, paragraph&nbsp;3 specifically requires that the judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention.

Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article&nbsp;2 paragraph&nbsp;2 of the Basic Law which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. In addition, several other articles of the Basic Law have a bearing on the issue. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires a statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law while also guaranteeing judicial review; article&nbsp;20, paragraph&nbsp;3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article&nbsp;3 which guarantees equality.

In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article&nbsp;19, paragraph&nbsp;4 of the Basic Law, which provides as follows: "Should any person's right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/habeas-corpus/germany.php |title=Habeas Corpus Rights: Germany |publisher=Law Library of Congress |website=Loc.gov |date=March 2009 |access-date=2013-06-17}}</ref>

===India===
In the [[India|Republic of India]], the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] and [[High courts of India|High Courts]] possess the authority to issue a writ of ''habeas corpus'', as granted by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for-enforcement-of-rights-conferred-by-this-part/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230403082113/https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for-enforcement-of-rights-conferred-by-this-part/ |archive-date=3 April 2023 |website=Constitution of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-226-power-of-high-courts-to-issue-certain-writs/ |website=Constitution of India}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]]) is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of ''habeas corpus'', mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]]).|multiline=True|source=[[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]], Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]])|title=[[Constitution of India]]}}{{Blockquote|text=(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of ''habeas corpus'', mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.|title=[[Constitution of India]]|source=Part VI, Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.}}

On 9 December 1948, during a session of the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]], H.V. Kamath, a member, suggested the removal of specific references to writs in Article 32, expressing concern that such references could restrict judges from establishing new types of writs in the future, while [[B. R. Ambedkar|Dr. B.R. Ambedkar]], the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, emphasized the significance of retaining references to the writs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted that writs, including ''habeas corpus'', are already part of the Indian legal framework, but the existing writs are vulnerable to modifications through legislative changes, whereby the legislature, particularly with a strong majority, can amend the relevant laws, potentially leading to the suspension of writs like ''habeas corpus''. However, following the Constitution's enactment, which includes explicit references to writs, these writs cannot be easily nullified by any legislative body because the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue them.<ref name="vol7">{{Citation |last=Constituent Assembly of India |title=Constituent Assembly Debates: 4th November 1948 to 8th January 1949 |url=https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762996/1/cad_04-11-1948.pdf |volume=7 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201129222659/https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762996/1/cad_04-11-1948.pdf |archive-date=29 November 2020 |author-link=Constituent Assembly of India}}</ref><ref name="9dec1948">{{Cite web |title=Constituent Assembly Debates: 09 Dec 1948 |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/09-dec-1948/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230403082357/https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/09-dec-1948/ |archive-date=3 April 2023 |access-date=2023-04-03 |website=constitutionofindia.net}}</ref>

The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases, has effectively resorted to the writ of ''habeas corpus'' to secure release of a person from illegal detention.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Baxi |first1=Pratiksha |date=April 2009 |edition=Reprint 2012 |title=Habeas Corpus Juridical Narratives of Sexual Governance |url=http://www.jnu.ac.in/cslg/workingPaper/09-Habeus%20%28Pratiksha%20Baxi%29.pdf |department=Centre for the Study of Law and Governance |publisher=Jawaharlal Nehru University |place=New Delhi |access-date=23 November 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125237/http://www.jnu.ac.in/cslg/workingPaper/09-Habeus%20%28Pratiksha%20Baxi%29.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2016}}</ref> The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of ''[[locus standi]]'', so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of ''habeas'' relief has expanded in recent times by actions of the Indian judiciary.<ref>{{cite web |title=Writ of Habeas Corpus for securing liberty |url=http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wha.htm |access-date=2010-08-30 |website=Legalserviceindia.com |publisher=ABS-CBN News}}</ref>

Usually, in most other jurisdictions, the writ is directed at police authorities. The extension to non-state authorities has its grounds in two cases: the 1898 [[King's Bench Division|Queen's Bench]] case of ''[[Ex Parte]] [[Proctor#Disciplinary functions|Daisy Hopkins]]'', wherein the [[Proctor#Cambridge University|Proctor of Cambridge University]] did detain and arrest Hopkins without his jurisdiction, and Hopkins was released,<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Exparte, Hopkins (Daisy)|reporter=56 JP 262; 61 LJQB 240|year=1891}}</ref> and that of ''[[Somerset v Stewart]]'', in which an African slave whose master had moved to London was freed by action of the writ. For example, in October 2009, the Karnataka High Court heard a ''habeas corpus'' petition filed by the parents of a girl who married a Muslim boy from Kannur district and was allegedly confined in a ''madrasa'' in Malapuram town.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/love-jihad-court-unhappy-with-probe/article169724.ece |title='Love Jihad': Court unhappy with probe |date=27 October 2009 |newspaper=The Hindu}}</ref> In 1976, the ''habeas'' writ was used in the [[Rajan case]], a student victim of torture in local police custody during the nationwide [[The Emergency (India)|Emergency]] in India. On 12&nbsp;March 2014, [[Subrata Roy]]'s counsel approached the Chief Justice moving a ''habeas corpus'' petition. It was also filed by the [[Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party|Panthers Party]] to protest the imprisonment of [[Anna Hazare]], a social activist.

===Ireland===
In the [[Republic of Ireland]], the writ of ''habeas corpus'' is available at common law and under the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816.

A remedy equivalent to ''habeas corpus'' is also guaranteed by Article&nbsp;40 of the [[Constitution of Ireland|1937 constitution]]. The article guarantees that "no citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law" and outlines a specific procedure for the [[High Court (Ireland)|High Court]] to enquire into the lawfulness of any person's detention. It does not mention the Latin term ''habeas corpus'', but includes the English phrase "produce the body".

Article&nbsp;40.4.2° provides that a prisoner, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make a complaint to the High Court (or to any High Court judge) of unlawful detention. The court must then investigate the matter "forthwith" and may order that the defendant bring the prisoner before the court and give reasons for his detention. The court must immediately release the detainee unless it is satisfied that he is being held lawfully. The remedy is available not only to prisoners of the state, but also to persons unlawfully detained by any private party. However, the constitution provides that the procedure is not binding on the [[Irish Defence Forces|Defence Forces]] during a state of war or armed rebellion.

The full text of Article&nbsp;40.4.2° is as follows:

{{blockquote|Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to ''produce the body'' of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law. [italics added]}}

The writ of ''habeas corpus'' continued as part of the Irish law when the state seceded from the [[United Kingdom]] in 1922. A remedy equivalent to ''habeas corpus'' was also guaranteed by Article&nbsp;6 of the [[Constitution of the Irish Free State]], enacted in 1922. That article used similar wording to Article&nbsp;40.4 of the current constitution, which replaced it 1937.

The relationship between the Article&nbsp;40 and the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816 is ambiguous, and Forde and Leonard write that "The extent if any to which Article&nbsp;40.4 has replaced these Acts has yet to be determined". In ''The State (Ahern) v. Cotter'' (1982) Walsh J. opined that the ancient writ referred to in the Habeas Corpus Acts remains in existence in Irish law as a separate remedy from that provided for in Article&nbsp;40.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Michael |last1=Forde |first2=David |last2=Leonard |title=Constitutional Law of Ireland |year=2013 |pages=371–372}}</ref>

In 1941, the Article&nbsp;40 procedure was restricted by the [[Second Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|Second Amendment]]. Prior to the amendment, a prisoner had the constitutional right to apply to any [[High Court of the Republic of Ireland|High Court]] judge for an enquiry into her detention, and to as many High Court judges as she wished. If the prisoner successfully challenged her detention before the High Court she was entitled to immediate, unconditional release.

The Second Amendment provided that a prisoner has only the right to apply to a single judge, and, once a writ has been issued, the President of the High Court has authority to choose the judge or panel of three judges who will decide the case. If the High Court finds that the prisoner's detention is unlawful due to the unconstitutionality of a law the judge must refer the matter to the [[Irish Supreme Court|Supreme Court]], and until the Supreme Court's decision is rendered the prisoner may be released only on bail.

The power of the state to detain persons prior to trial was extended by the [[Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|Sixteenth Amendment]], in 1996. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the ''O'Callaghan'' case that the constitution required that an individual charged with a crime could be refused bail only if she was likely to flee or to interfere with witnesses or evidence. Since the Sixteenth Amendment, it has been possible for a court to take into account whether a person has committed serious crimes while on bail in the past.

===Italy===
The right to freedom from arbitrary detention is guaranteed by Article&nbsp;13 of the [[Constitution of Italy]], which states:<ref>{{cite web |title=The Italian Constitution |url=http://www.quirinale.it/page/costituzione |publisher=The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic}}</ref> {{blockquote|Personal liberty is inviolable. No one may be detained, inspected, or searched nor otherwise subjected to any restriction of personal liberty except by order of the Judiciary stating a reason and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by the law. In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and urgency as shall conclusively be defined by the law, the police may take provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to the Judiciary for validation and which, in default of such validation in the following 48&nbsp;hours, shall be revoked and considered null and void. Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to restriction of personal liberty shall be punished. The law shall establish the maximum duration of preventive detention.}}

This implies that within 48 hours every arrest made by a police force must be validated by a court.

Furthermore, if subject to a valid detention, an arrested can ask for a review of the detention to another court, called the Review Court (''Tribunale del Riesame'', also known as the Freedom Court, ''Tribunale della Libertà'').

=== Macau ===
In [[Macau]], the relevant provision is Article 204 in the Code of Penal Processes,<ref>{{cite web|url = https://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/96/36/codpropenpt/codpropen0001.asp#a204 |title = Código de Processo Penal Artico 204.º (Macau)|language = pt}}</ref> which became law in 1996 under [[Portuguese Macau|Portuguese rule]]. {{lang|la|Habeas corpus}} cases are heard before the [[Court of Final Appeal (Macau)|Tribunal of Ultimate Instance]]. A notable case is [[Case 3/2008 in Macau]].

===Malaysia===
In [[Malaysia]], the remedy of ''habeas corpus'' is guaranteed by the federal constitution, although not by name. Article&nbsp;5(2) of the [[Constitution of Malaysia]] provides that "Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him".

As there are several statutes, for example, the [[Internal Security Act (Malaysia)|Internal Security Act 1960]], that still permit detention without trial, the procedure is usually effective in such cases only if it can be shown that there was a procedural error in the way that the detention was ordered.

===New Zealand===
In [[New Zealand]], ''habeas corpus'' may be invoked against the government or private individuals. In 2006, a child was allegedly kidnapped by his maternal grandfather after a custody dispute. The father began ''habeas corpus'' proceedings against the mother, the grandfather, the grandmother, the great-grandmother, and another person alleged to have assisted in the kidnap of the child. The mother did not present the child to the court and so was imprisoned for [[contempt of court]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dinsdale |first1=Mike |title=Court orders return of kidnapped boy |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/court-orders-return-of-kidnapped-boy/CZ56I3NTAEPTOQVSJKI2HNBYHE/ |access-date=1 September 2024 |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |date=28 October 2006}}</ref> She was released when the grandfather came forward with the child in late January 2007.

===Pakistan===
Issuance of a writ is an exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction of the superior courts in Pakistan. A writ of ''habeas corpus'' may be issued by any High Court of a province in Pakistan. Article&nbsp;199 of the [[Constitution of Pakistan|1973&nbsp;Constitution]] of the Islamic Republic of [[Pakistan]], specifically provides for the issuance of a writ of ''habeas corpus'', empowering the courts to exercise this prerogative. Subject to the Article&nbsp;199 of the Constitution, "A High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any person, make an order that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without a lawful authority or in an unlawful manner". The hallmark of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is to keep various functionaries of State within the ambit of their authority. Once a High Court has assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter before it, [[justiciability]] of the issue raised before it is beyond question. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has stated that the use of words "in an unlawful manner" implies that the court may examine whether it was a colorable exercise of the power of authority, if a statute has allowed such detention. The court can then examine whether this was action was taken in [[bad faith]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/habeas-corpus/pakistan.php |title=Habeas Corpus Rights: Pakistan |work=loc.gov |date=March 2009}}</ref>

===Portugal===
In Portugal, article&nbsp;31 of the [[Constitution of Portugal|Constitution]] guarantees citizens against improper arrest, imprisonment or detention.

The full text of Article&nbsp;31 is as follows:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://dre.pt/constitution-of-the-portuguese-republic|title=Constitution of the Portuguese Republic|work=dre.pt|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref> {{blockquote|Article 31 (''Habeas corpus'')
# ''Habeas corpus'' is available to counter misuse of power in the form of illegal arrest, imprisonment or detention. Application for it must be made to the competent court.
# Application for a ''habeas corpus'' order may be made by the person so arrested, imprisoned or detained, or by any citizen in possession of his political rights.
# Within a time limit of eight days of an application for ''habeas corpus'', the judge shall rule thereon in a hearing that shall be subject to the adversarial principle.}}

There are also statutory provisions, most notably the Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 220 and 222 that stipulate the reasons by which a judge may guarantee ''habeas corpus''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://dre.pt/web/guest/legislacao-consolidada/-/lc/117352444/201903111102/73648523/diploma/indice |title=Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code (Código de Processo Penal)|work=dre.pt|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref>

===The Philippines===
In the Bill of Rights of the Philippine constitution, ''habeas corpus'' is guaranteed in terms almost identically to those used in the U.S. Constitution. Article&nbsp;3, Section&nbsp;15 of the [[Constitution of the Philippines]] states that "The privilege of the writ of ''habeas corpus'' shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it".

In 1971, after the [[Plaza Miranda bombing]], the Marcos administration, under [[Ferdinand Marcos]], suspended ''habeas corpus'' in an effort to stifle the oncoming insurgency, having blamed the [[Communist Party of the Philippines|Filipino Communist Party]] for the events of 21 August. Many considered this to be a prelude to [[martial law]]. After widespread protests, however, the Marcos administration decided to reintroduce the writ. The writ was again suspended when Marcos declared martial law in 1972.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-09-21|title=FALSE: 'Only one executed,' 'none arrested' under Marcos' Martial Law – Enrile|url=https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/false-only-one-executed-none-arrested-criticizing-marcos-martial-law|access-date=2021-10-29|website=Rappler}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Tan|first=Ab|date=1981-01-18|title=Marcos Ends Martial Law, Keeps Tight Grip|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/18/marcos-ends-martial-law-keeps-tight-grip/89533b86-8100-4713-9e77-6e4ebab6bacb/|access-date=2021-10-29|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

In December&nbsp;2009, ''habeas corpus'' was suspended in Maguindanao as President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo placed the province under martial law. This occurred in response to the [[Maguindanao massacre]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Andoy Barrios <!-- on Sat, 12/05/2009 – 23:08 --> |url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/04/09/arroyo-orders-martial-law-maguindanao |title=Arroyo proclaims martial law in Maguindanao |publisher= ABS-CBN News Online |website=Abs-cbnnews.com |date=2009-12-05 |access-date=2010-08-30}}</ref>

In 2016, President [[Rodrigo Duterte]] said he was planning on suspending ''habeas corpus''.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/152167-duterte-suspend-writ-habeas-corpus-warning |title=Duterte to suspend writ of habeas corpus if 'forced' |first=Paterno II |last=Esmaquel |date=13 November 2016 |access-date=2020-03-03 |publisher=Rappler |website=rappler.com}}</ref>

At 10&nbsp;pm on 23&nbsp;May 2017 Philippine time, President [[Rodrigo Duterte]] declared martial law in the whole island of Mindanao including Sulu and Tawi-tawi for the period of 60&nbsp;days due to the series of attacks mounted by the [[Maute group]], an ISIS-linked terrorist organization. The declaration suspended the writ.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/05/23/1703088/duterte-declares-martial-law-mindanao |title=Duterte declares martial law in Mindanao |newspaper=Philadelphia Star |date=2017-05-24 |first1=Jonathan |last1=de Santos |first2=Roel |last2=Pareño |first3=Alexis |last3=Romero |first4=Christina |last4=Mendez |access-date=2017-05-23}}</ref>

===Scotland===
{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title           = Criminal Procedure Act 1701
| type                  = Act
| parliament            = Parliament of Scotland
| long_title            = Act for preventing wrongful imprisonment and against undue delays in trials.
| year                  = 1701
| citation              = 1701 c. 6{{br}}[12mo ed: c. 6]
| introduced_commons    = 
| introduced_lords      = 
| territorial_extent    = 
| royal_assent          = 31 January 1701
| commencement          = 
| expiry_date           = 
| repeal_date           = 
| amends                = 
| replaces              = 
| amendments            = {{ubli|[[Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1906]]|[[Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964]]|[[Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]]}}
| repealing_legislation = 
| related_legislation   = 
| status                = amended
| legislation_history   = 
| theyworkforyou        = 
| millbankhansard       = 
| original_text         = 
| revised_text          = 
| use_new_UK-LEG        = 
| UK-LEG_title          = Criminal Procedure Act 1701
| collapsed             = yes
}}

The [[Parliament of Scotland]] passed a law to have the same effect as ''habeas corpus'' in the 18th century. This is now known as the '''{{visible anchor|Criminal Procedure Act&nbsp;1701}}'''&nbsp;(c.&nbsp;6).<ref>See [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1519689 Full text of the Act]. This law was given its current short title by the [[Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964]]</ref> It was originally called "the Act for preventing wrongful imprisonment and against undue delays in trials". It is still in force although certain parts have been repealed.

===Spain===
The present [[Constitution of Spain]] states that "A ''habeas corpus'' procedure shall be provided for by law to ensure the immediate handing over to the judicial authorities of any person illegally arrested". The statute which regulates the procedure is the ''Law of Habeas Corpus of 24 May 1984'', which provides that a person imprisoned may, on her or his own or through a third person, allege that she or he is imprisoned unlawfully and request to appear before a judge. The request must specify the grounds on which the detention is considered to be unlawful, which can be, for example, that the custodian holding the prisoner does not have the legal authority, that the prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated, or that he has been subjected to mistreatment. The judge may then request additional information if needed, and may issue a ''habeas corpus'' order, at which point the custodian has 24&nbsp;hours to bring the prisoner before the judge.

Historically, many of the territories of Spain had remedies equivalent to the ''habeas corpus'', such as the privilege of ''manifestación'' in the [[Crown of Aragon]] or the right of the Tree in [[Biscay]].

===Taiwan===
''Habeas corpus'' is explicitly stated in article 8 of the [[Constitution of the Republic of China]], in which guarantees that anyone has the right to request a writ of ''habeas corpus'' for himself or any other person that is being detained by any organization or individual other than courts. Also, courts shall not reject the request, nor order the detainer to investigate and report before surrendering the detainee; the detainer must bring the person in question to the court within 24 hours without condition, and the detainee shall be released on the spot if the detention is deemed illegal. The article was further enforced by the Habeas Corpus Act.<ref>{{cite web |title=Habeas Corpus Act – Article Content – Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan). |url=https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0010008 |access-date=8 January 2023}}</ref>

===United States===
{{Main|Habeas corpus in the United States}}
<!-- This section is only a BRIEF SUMMARY. Please consider adding extra material to the main article instead! -->
The United States inherited ''habeas corpus'' from the [[English common law]]. In England, the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original [[Thirteen Colonies|thirteen American colonies]] declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.{{dubious|date=August 2023}}{{citation needed|date=August 2023}} The [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] specifically includes the ''habeas'' procedure in the [[Suspension Clause]] (Clause&nbsp;2), located in [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article One]], Section&nbsp;9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of ''habeas corpus'' shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".<ref name=EB1911>{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Habeas Corpus |volume=12 |pages=784–786 |first=William Feilden |last=Craies}}</ref>

The writ of ''habeas corpus ad subjiciendum'' is a civil, not criminal, ''[[ex parte]]'' proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, ''habeas corpus'' proceedings are to determine whether the court that imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired. ''Habeas corpus'' is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement|United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] pursuant to a deportation proceeding.<ref>{{Cite web|editor-last=Kim|editor-first=Jonathan |date=June 2017|title=Habeas Corpus|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus|access-date=2021-03-01|website=Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute – Habeas Corpus}}</ref>

Presidents [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Ulysses Grant]] suspended ''habeas corpus'' during the Civil War and Reconstruction for some places or types of cases.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm |title=Abraham Lincoln's 1862 Proclamation Suspending Habeas Corpus |publisher=Usgovinfo.about.com |access-date=2013-06-17 |archive-date=25 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120625121110/http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70261 |title=Ulysses S. Grant: Proclamation&nbsp;204 – Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the County of Union, South Carolina |publisher=Presidency.ucsb.edu |access-date=2013-06-17}}</ref> During [[World War II]], President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] suspended habeas corpus. Following the [[September 11 attacks]], President [[George W. Bush]] attempted to place [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guantanamo Bay]] detainees outside of the jurisdiction of ''habeas corpus'', but the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] overturned this action in ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]''.