The prohibition against arbitrary arrest and detention is one of the most fundamental rights within International Human Rights Law predicating as it is on the principle of liberty or freedom.
The right to liberty is contained as a basic guarantee within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 9) and common to several other international treaties including the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (Article 9(1)), African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Article 6) and the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 7(2) and 7(3)). It also appears in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as Article 20 which states that ‘It is not permitted without legitimate reason to arrest an individual, or restrict his freedom, to exile or to punish him’. 
However, under current British laws, Irish citizens in the Six Counties can be locked up and repeatedly questioned by police for up to 28 days without being charged. They might not even be told why they are there.
Britain already has the longest period of pre-charge detention in the western world, and has failed to act in accordance, or comply, with various rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
In 1988, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Brogan and three others from the Six counties that their detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (now replaced by the Terrorism Act 2006) constituted a breach of Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court thereby set a four day six hour time limit of detention before a person must be charged or released. Rather than abide by this limit, the British government’s response was immediately to derogate itself from the European Convention.
Nevertheless, the Brogan case remains to be the benchmark laid down by the European Court. For example, in the case of Asan and Others v. Turkey (31 July 2007) the applicants contended that Turkey violated Article 5 (liberty and security). The European Court admitted the applicants’ claims and found a violation of the length of applicants’ detention because Turkish authorities violated the four day six hour limit that the ECHR set in Brogan and Others v. The United Kingdom, (29 November 1988). The court ruled in favour of Asan and the others that there had been a violation their of rights under the European Convention just as it had in the case of Ocalan v. Turkey, (2005).
It can be argued that extended detention times also constitute inhuman treatment. The psychological implications for the detainee, who may be held for up to 28 days without any charge being put to him or her, are severe. This psychological pressure may lead to self-incrimination, false confessions, self-harm and suicide attempts.
Detainees in the Six Counties, who were often held for up to 7 days; have testified to the psychological pressure brought to bear by extended detention. In particular extended detention can lead to an increase in the consumption of anti-depressants, development of a limited appetite and weight loss. If detention for only 7 days can have such effects, then the effects of detention for periods of up to 14 and 28 days could be serious and lasting.
It can also be argued that Britain’s derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights were unlawful because there was no emergency “threatening the life of the nation” in existence to justify them. The derogation's were lifted on 19th February 2001, when the Terrorism Act 2000 (now the Terrorism Act 2006) came into force, which contains a mechanism for judicial sanction of prolonged detention, but the state of emergency has not been rescinded by the British.
There is no state of emergency “threatening the life of the nation” and consequently no justification for maintaining either a state of emergency or draconian laws. Elections have been held throughout the entire conflict; the Stormont Assembly can go about its business; schools, hospitals and other services all operate without interruption in the Six Counties.
It remains to be seen whether this legislation permitting 28 day detention eventually stands up to challenges which will undoubtedly lead back again to the European Court.