▁clearly ▁un const itution al . ▁ ▁Civil ▁imprison ment ▁ ▁Sach s ▁J ▁( M ok g oro ▁J ▁conc urr ing ) ▁con cur red ▁in ▁the ▁jud g ments ▁of ▁Krieg ler ▁J ▁and ▁Did c ott ▁J , ▁but ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁cont ention ▁of ▁the ▁Association ▁of ▁Law ▁Soci eties — that ▁the ▁court ▁should ▁use ▁its ▁powers ▁to ▁keep ▁the ▁comm itt al ▁proceed ings ▁alive ▁pending ▁their ▁rect ification ▁by ▁the ▁Legisl ature — required ▁full er ▁analysis ▁of ▁the ▁institution ▁of ▁civil ▁imprison ment . ▁On ▁any ▁analysis , ▁using ▁any ▁approach , ▁there ▁could ▁be ▁no ▁doubt ▁that ▁comm itting ▁someone ▁to ▁prison ▁involves ▁a ▁severe ▁cur tail ment ▁of ▁that ▁person ' s ▁freedom ▁and ▁personal ▁security ; ▁indeed , ▁the ▁very ▁purpose ▁of ▁comm itt al ▁is ▁to ▁limit ▁the ▁freedom ▁of ▁the ▁person ▁concerned . ▁Given ▁the ▁manifest ▁and ▁substantial ▁invasion ▁of ▁personal ▁freedom ▁thus ▁involved , ▁the ▁real ▁issue ▁that ▁the ▁court ▁had ▁to ▁decide ▁was ▁whether ▁such ▁an ▁in fr ing ement ▁could ▁be ▁just ified ▁in ▁terms ▁of ▁the ▁general ▁limitations ▁on ▁rights ▁permitted ▁by ▁section ▁ 3 3 ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution . ▁ ▁The ▁only ▁conclusion ▁Sach s ▁J ▁could ▁draw , ▁from ▁such ▁international ▁instruments ▁as ▁the ▁American ▁Dec laration ▁of ▁the ▁Rights ▁and ▁D ut ies ▁of ▁Man , ▁the ▁American ▁Convention ▁of ▁Human ▁Rights , ▁the ▁United ▁Nations ▁International ▁C oven ant ▁on ▁Civil ▁and ▁Political ▁Rights , ▁Pro tocol ▁ 4 ▁of ▁the