CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0.0 Introduction
The origin of "human rights" lies in the nature of Human beings[1]. Human rights belong to every member of the human family. This is regardless of sex, political opinion, race, socio-economic group, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other status. They are rights that are inherent to all human beings. Human rights are all universal, interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible.[2]They are universal because they apply to all people simply based on being human. They are inalienable since a person seeking them does not take the rights away to exercise their rights whether one likes them or not. They are only limited in certain tightly defined circumstances and some rights, such as the prohibition on torture and slavery are never limited.[3]They are indivisible since one does not choose or handpick which rights they want to honor or dishonor. Many rights depend on each other to be meaningful, for example, the right to fair trial would be meaningless without the prohibition on discrimination, and the right to free speech must go hand in hand with the right to assemble peacefully.
1.1.0 Background to the Study
Indefinite detention violates the constitution and bills of rights of most countries, as well as a number of international treaties[4]. Norms, of course, are subject to interpretation. The case-law provides concrete illustration and further development of the codified norms.
In the context of the “terrorism” some countries have adopted legislation allowing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. Particularly worrisome are certain pieces of legislation adopted in countries that are bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the American Convention on Human Rights[5].
In the United Kingdom the 11 Muslim detainees in the Belmarsh prison case, most of whom have been held since December 2001, successfully challenged their indefinite detention without trail and obtained a favourable ruling from the House of Lords on 16 December 2004, which reversed the Court of Appeal finding of October 2002 that indefinite detention was compatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations[6].
It is now up to the British Parliament to repeal or modify Article 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crimeand Security Act of 2001 (ATCSA), which the Lords have ruled to be incompatible with the British Human Rights Act and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In particular, the Lords found that indefinite detention and closed trails discriminates on the grounds of nationality (Article 14 of the ECHR), because it applies only to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, notwithstanding a comparable threat from terrorism suspects holding United Kingdom nationality.
Read more » 
