相关规则
Malaysia
Practice Relating to Rule 99. Deprivation of Liberty
Malaysia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside the Federation, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the … [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
Malaysia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, Section 3(1).
In its judgment in the Malek case in 2007, Malaysia’s High Court in Kuala Lumpur stated:
In dealing with art 5(3) of the Constitution, I am mindful of the fact that I am presently dealing with the fundamental liberty of the citizens. The preservation of the personal liberty of the individual is a sacred universal value of all civilized nations and is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1948. Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution guarantees every person in this country of his personal liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest particularly arbitrary arrest by the State. As I have said in Abdul Ghani Haroon, and I will say it again now, judges are protectors of the fundamental liberties of the citizens and that this is a sacred duty or trust which Judges must constantly uphold. 
Malaysia, High Court (Kuala Lumpur), Malek case, Judgment, 18 October 2007, § 18.
In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
8. [The delegate of Malaysia] said that …
10. … [t]he laws of naval warfare incorporated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including necessity and proportionality …
11. [In the case of the attacks by the Israel Defense Forces on the Mavi Marmara and five accompanying vessels in May 2010] … [w]here vessels were captured, the protections provided in the Second and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I continued to apply to the persons on board the vessels. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, §§ 8, 10 and 11.
In 2012, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
[The delegate of Malaysia] said that … Israel, as the [O]ccupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, had failed to ensure that the people of Palestine lived a life free of misery, by blatantly disregarding international law, including the [1949] Geneva Conventions … Its list of violations included … prolonged detention of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 22 October 2012, as published in the summary record of the 15th meeting, 24 December 2012, UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.15, § 47.
Malaysia’s Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (2012) states:
2. This Act shall apply to security offences [defined in the Penal Code (1997) as including waging and abetting the waging of war against Malaysia’s Head of State].
4. (1) A police officer may, without warrant, arrest and detain any person whom he has reason to believe to be involved in security offences.
(2) A person arrested under subsection (1) shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest by the police officer making the arrest. 
Malaysia, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, 2012, Articles 2 and 4.
In its judgment in the Malek case in 2007, Malaysia’s High Court in Kuala Lumpur stated:
In respect of an arrest under the [Internal Security Act], the legal and constitutional duty on the part of the arresting authority, as imposed by art 5(3) of the Federal Constitution, is to inform the person arrested of the grounds of his arrest. This duty must be discharged in a manner that makes the said constitutional protection meaningful. This means that the detainee must be told briefly and in clear and simple language that he is being arrested because there is reason to believe that his activities (the gist of which should be intimated to the detainee) have been such as to justify his detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country. In addition, … the detainee must also be told that there is reason to believe that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country. Here too, the detainee must be given, albeit, in a brief form, some idea in substance (that is to say, some essential particulars) in what way he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in the manner alleged to be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia. It is my view that, in order to satisfy these two limbs/grounds, it does not suffice to merely parrot the provisions of s 8 or s 73(1) (b) without some indication to the detainee of the substance of what he has done or of what he is about to do or of what he is likely to do. At this point, no detailed particulars need to be informed to the detainee but at least he will know in essence the reason he is being arrested. 
Malaysia, High Court (Kuala Lumpur), Malek case, Judgment, 18 October 2007, § 11.
Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (1960), as amended in 1989, provides:
Power to order detention or restriction of persons
8. (1) If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as “a detention order”) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years.
(7) The Minister may direct that the duration of any detention order or restriction order be extended for such further period, not exceeding two years, as he may specify, and thereafter for such further periods, not exceeding two years at a time …
Judicial review of act or decision of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Minister
8B. (1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision. 
Malaysia Internal Security Act, 1960, revised version of 1972, as amended in 1989, §§ 8(1), (7) and (B)(1).