The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “Thou shalt have the body,” that is, the judge must bring the person accused of a crime into the courtroom to hear what he was accused of. For much of human history, and in many countries even today, a person can be imprisoned on the orders of someone from the government and kept behind bars for years without ever having the opportunity to defend themselves or even know what they did wrong. In England, the right to be brought before a judge to hear and answer charges was enshrined in law more than 300 years ago, and the United States adopted British practice in its constitution. The Crown of Aragon also had a remedy corresponding to habeas corpus called manifestación de personas (literally demonstration of persons).  According to the law of manifestación, la Justicia de Aragon (lit. The judge of Aragon, an Aragonese judicial figure similar to an ombudsman but with extensive executive powers) could require that a judge, court or other official whom he has handed over to the Justicia (i.e. that it be proven to the Justicia) be prosecuted to ensure that the rights of that person are respected and that this person will not be subjected to violence before conviction.  In addition, Justicia reserved the right to review the judgment and decide whether it met the requirements for a fair trial. If the Justicia was not satisfied, it could refuse to return the accused to the authorities. The law of the manifestación acted as habeas corpus: knowing that the call to the Justicia would immediately follow any illegal detention, these were effectively illegal. Similarly, torture (forbidden in Aragon since 1325) will never take place.  In some cases, people exercising their right to protest were detained under Justicia surveillance in protestación prisons (notorious for their mild and simple conditions) or under house arrest. In general, however, the person was released and placed under the protection of Justicia, where he was awaiting trial.
La Justicia has always granted the right to demonstración by delay, but it really only had to act in extreme cases, such as in 1590, when Antonio Pérez, the disgraced secretary of Philip II of Spain, fled Castile in Aragon and used his Aragonese domination to appeal to the Justicia for the right to demonstrate. This prevented his arrest at the king`s request. The France and the United States played a synergistic role in the international team, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. French judge and Nobel Peace Prize laureate René Cassin wrote the first draft, and argued against arbitrary detention. René Cassin and the French team then lobbied for habeas corpus provisions to be enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  “Bloomfield, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to the murder of five people in New Mexico, filed a habeas corpus petition to withdraw his guilty plea.” – “Attorney General`s Office Helps Keep Murderer Behind Bars,” Silver City Sun-News (May 25, 2017) To be successful, a habeas corpus application must meet the following criteria. First, the applicant [i.e., the person seeking habeas corpus review] proves that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once the deprivation of liberty has been established, the applicant must provide a legitimate reason to challenge its legality. Where the applicant has invoked such a ground, the burden of proving the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty lies with the defendant authorities [i.e. the person or institution which detained the applicant].  Later that year, an appeals court also dismissed Happy`s habeas corpus petition.
The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of the English inheritance law of Australia.  In 2005, the Australian Parliament passed the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of the law, in part because of the limitations of habeas corpus law.    The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times in English history, most recently in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although internment without trial has been permitted by law since then, for example during the two world wars and the riots in Northern Ireland, habeas corpus is technically still available to these internees in modern times. However, since habeas corpus is only a procedural instrument for reviewing the lawfulness of a detainee`s detention, the application for habeas corpus remains unsuccessful as long as the detention is carried out in accordance with an Act of Parliament. Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts may declare an Act of Parliament incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but such a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect until the Government responds to it.  — Also known as habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum Germany has constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention, and these have been transposed into law in a way that can be considered equivalent to habeas corpus arrest warrants.