5. 虽然国际人权法不排除以安全为由对某人进行非刑事拘留(如行政拘留或拘禁)的可能性，但这种拘留可能带来任意剥夺自由的严重风险。如果存在可消除这种威胁的其他侵入性较低的有效措施，包括刑事司法制度，则这种拘留就等于任意拘留。人权事务委员会认为，如果在非常特殊情况下，以当前、直接和紧迫威胁为由，对被认为带来这种威胁的一些人员实行拘留，缔约国就有举证责任，证明有关人员确实会造成这种威胁，证明不能通过其他措施消除威胁。11拘留当局负有举证责任，随着拘留时间的延长，这种举证责任还会增加。此外，委员会还规定，拘留当局必须保证，拘留时间不会超过绝对必要，总拘留时间是有限度的，在任何情况下都将尊重就拘留的合法性向法院提出异议的权利。还必须保证由法院或其他具有同样独立和公正特点的法庭进行及时和定期审查，因为司法机关是这些条件的必要保障，同样，向被拘留者提供获得最好由其选择的独立法律意见的机会以及让被拘留者了解至少是据以做出裁决的证据的实质也是这些条件的必要保障。12
5. While international human rights law does not foreclose the possibility of subjecting a person to non-criminal detention on security grounds, such as administrative detention or internment, such detention can entail serious risks of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Such detention would amount to arbitrary detention where other less intrusive, effective measures addressing the threat, including the criminal justice system, are available. According to the Human Rights Committee, if, under exceptional circumstances, a present, direct and imperative threat is invoked to justify the detention of persons considered to present such a threat, the burden of proof lies on States parties to show that the individual poses such a threat and that it cannot be addressed by alternative measures.11 The burden to prove such justification rests with the detaining authority and increases with the length of the detention. Furthermore, the Committee has stated that the detaining authority must ensure that the detention will not last longer than absolutely necessary, that its overall length will be limited and that the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court will be respected in all cases. The prompt and regular review by a court or other tribunal possessing the same attributes of independence and impartiality as the judiciary is also deemed a necessary guarantee for those conditions, as is access to independent legal advice, preferably selected by the detainee, and the disclosure to the detainee of, at least, the essence of the evidence on which the decision is taken.12