Opinion; Subjects: LIBYA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.18-10187(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eighty-first session, 17–26 April 2018
Opinion No. 39/2018 concerning Abdu Ahmed Abdel Salam (Libya)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 33/30.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 8 February 2018 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of National Accord a communication
concerning Abdu Ahmed Abdel Salam. The Government has not replied to the
communication. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
General Assembly
Distr.: General
22 June 2018
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Mr. Abdel Salam is a Syrian national born in 1982. He and his family live
permanently in Libya where they have a permanent residence status and a work permit. Mr.
Abdel Salam was a shop assistant in a clothing shop in Sabha, Libya.
Context
5.
According to the source, the Special Deterrence Force is an armed group that has
been nominally integrated into the Libyan Ministry of the Interior. Its main forces are based
in Mitiga, Tripoli. The source notes that, even though the Force is formally under the
Ministry of the Interior, it is not under the effective control of the Government, retaining an
independent chain of command. The Force is commanded by Abbdul Rauf Kara. Force
personnel receive government salaries.
6.
The source indicates that, after the relapse in the conflict in 2014, a battalion of the
Special Deterrence Force was deployed to Sabha as a result of alliances with local forces
and armed actors. According to the source, while the Force’s central command is aligned
with the internationally recognized Government of National Accord and the Presidential
Council, the 116th Battalion of the Force in Sabha has reportedly pledged allegiance to the
self-styled Libyan National Army, commanded by Khalifa Haftar, while at the same time
appearing to retain some links with Tripoli.
7.
According to the source, under Libyan law, the Special Deterrence Force, while
authorized to conduct initial arrests, cannot lawfully detain any individual beyond 48 hours,
after which it is obliged to refer the detainee to the judicial police. The latter is a police
force that runs official prisons under the Ministry of Justice. The source recalls that the
United Nations-sponsored Libyan Political Agreement of December 2015 provides that all
armed groups, including those integrated into the Ministry of the Interior, should hand over
their detainees to the judicial police. Reportedly, the Force is known to hold thousands of
individuals in prolonged, unlawful imprisonment in its main detention facility at Mitiga,
Tripoli.
Arrest and detention
8.
According to the source, on 8 September 2016, Mr. Abdel Salam was arrested at his
place of work, a clothing shop in Sabha. Initially, his family was unaware of his
whereabouts, fearing that he had been abducted. At around 1 a.m., the following night, the
family received a telephone call from a member of the 116th Battalion in Shaba, who
informed them that Mr. Abdel Salam was in their custody. They were not immediately
informed of the reason for the detention.
9.
The source indicates that Mr. Abdel Salam has been detained at the 116th Battalion
detention facility in an area called Tariq Mintaqa al Jdid. The facility is well known as a
place of detention used by the 116th Battalion.
10.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Salam is a devout Muslim. Some perceive him
as a conservative or as holding extreme religious views. However, according to the source,
he is not a supporter of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or similar jihadist
organizations. In the view of the source, Mr. Abdel Salam may have expressed his religious
views to third parties in private, which may have prompted the third party to denounce him
to local armed forces or authorities. The source maintains that Mr. Abdel Salam spent all
his time in Sabha working in a clothing shop and, as such, was unlikely to have had the
time or opportunity to serve as a member of any armed group.
11.
According to the source, neither Mr. Abdel Salam nor his family has been informed
by the Special Deterrence Force of the existence of any evidence against him. The source
believes that the only evidence against Mr. Abdel Salam is a confession given under
torture. Apparently, in their verbal communications with Mr. Abdel Salam’s family,
officials of the 116th Battalion maintain that he is a follower of the ideology of Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant and a member of a terrorist network.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
3
12.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Salam was able to receive a family visit for the
first time about two months after his arrest. Since then, the family has been able to obtain
advance permission to visit him on a regular basis, approximately every 14 days. The visits
were initially attended by a member of the Special Deterrence Force. At a later stage, when
women or the victim’s elderly father were visiting, visits were conducted in private, but
lasted only between 5 and 10 minutes. Visits by younger male relatives have been overseen
by Force personnel, due to the perceived risk of attempts to release the detainee.
13.
Reportedly, due to the inadequacy of what is on offer at the detention facility, family
members regularly bring food and medicine to Mr. Abdel Salam. Mr. Abdel Salam’s health
condition has, however, deteriorated since his initial detention; he has lost weight, appears
very weak and might be anaemic.
14.
Furthermore, the source reports that there are credible allegations that Mr. Abdel
Salam has been tortured; methods have included beatings and torture by electrocution and
denial of food. The source also submits that Mr. Abdel Salam has given a confession under
duress.
15.
The source reports that some family members have indicated a severe deterioration
in Mr. Abdel Salam’s mental health. During a visit in late 2017, Mr. Abdel Salam halted all
verbal communication and appeared not to recognize close relatives. His situation has
improved slightly and he has resumed verbal communication, but he still appears fragile
psychologically.
16.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Salam has not yet had access to a lawyer.
Whenever family members have attempted to solicit legal services, local legal professionals
have refused to take on the case or even visit Mr. Abdel Salam in his current place of
detention, out of fear of the Special Deterrence Force.
17.
The source also specifies that, to date, the detainee has not been referred to the
judicial authorities or presented with formal criminal charges.
18.
Reportedly, at the end of 2017, a staff member assisting the Commander of the
116th Battalion told family members that Mr. Abdel Salam might be transferred to the main
base of the Special Deterrence Force in Tripoli. The family was opposed to this, given the
distance to Tripoli and the general mistrust of the Force, as it is known that they do not
follow orders from the Government. A suggestion that Mr. Abdel Salam be transferred to
Benghazi, controlled by the Libyan National Army, was also opposed by the family, for
similar reasons. So far, no transfer has taken place.
19.
Moreover, the family has repeatedly approached the Mayor of Sabha to plead for the
release of Mr. Abdel Salam. According to the source, in mid-2017, the Mayor stated in
conversations with the family that the only solution to the situation would be that if
released, he would be deported from Libya within 24 hours. In this respect, the source
pointed out that Mr. Abdel Salam does not hold a valid Syrian passport. The Mayor also
claimed that there was “nothing more he could do”, as he was “not in control of the 116th
Battalion”.
20.
The source further indicates that, in May 2017, the United Nations Support Mission
in Libya (UNSMIL) contacted the Mayor of Sabha by phone to request further information
about the case of Mr. Abdel Salam and to reiterate that he has the right to appear before a
court in order to challenge the decision to detain him. The Mayor stated his willingness to
raise the issue with the detaining force. This intervention was to no avail. In June 2017,
UNSMIL conveyed a letter to the office of the Commander of 116th Battalion in Sabha,
Masoud Jeddi, identifying the case of Mr. Abdel Salam and requesting a clarification of his
legal status. To date, UNSMIL has not received any response.
21.
According to the source, since then, repeated attempts by the family to negotiate a
release with officials of the 116th Battalion have been fruitless.
Response from the Government
22.
On 8 February 2018, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular procedure. The Working Group requested the
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
4
Government to provide, by 9 April 2018, detailed information about the current situation of
Mr. Abdel Salam and any comments on the source’s allegations.
23.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government,
nor did the Government request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for
in the Working Group’s methods of work.
Discussion
24.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
25.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge
the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
26.
Before considering the substance of the allegations made by the source, the Working
Group takes note of the fact that Mr. Abdel Salam was detained by the Special Deterrence
Force and held by its 116th Battalion in Sabha. The Working Group notes that, while this
group is integrated into the Libyan Ministry of the Interior, allegedly, it is not, however,
under the de facto control and command of the Government of National Accord, which is
the only Government recognized by the Security Council (see resolution 2259 (2015)).
27.
Nevertheless, the source has argued and the Government has not challenged the
allegation that those who conducted the arrests and who control the detention facilities in
which Mr. Abdel Salam is held, the 116th Battalion, in fact, receive salaries from the
Government through the Ministry of the Interior (see para. 5 above). The Working Group
also takes note that, in its recent report on the situation of arbitrary detention in Libya, the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) states that
the Special Deterrence Force receives support, including salaries, uniforms and equipment,
from the State, but effectively maintains its own command structures and operates with a
significant level of autonomy.1
28.
In this respect, the Working Group observes that, in his 2017 report on the situation
of human rights in Libya, the High Commissioner pointed out that the use of armed groups
to carry out State law enforcement functions had compounded the problems of impunity.
Since 2012, armed groups have been nominally integrated into various State structures,
including the Ministries of Defence, the Interior and Justice, while in practice maintaining
their own command and control structure. Under this arrangement, the State continued to
pay their salaries, while the armed groups carried out law enforcement functions, such as
arrests and running detention centres, with little or no official oversight or control.2
29.
The High Commissioner recommended that the Government urgently address the
proliferation of armed groups, including through disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration, and the building of national security forces under the command and control of
the State.3 He further recommended that the Government also address the situation of
detainees, whether foreign or Libyan nationals, by ensuring that the State was in control of
all detention facilities and that cases were screened with a view to detainees being released
or charged and judged in a trial affording all procedural guarantees, in accordance with
Libyan law and international standards.4
30.
In the view of the Working Group, the fact that the Special Deterrence Force
members are on the State’s official payroll is a significant indicator, which demonstrates a
1 OHCHR, “Abuse behind bars: arbitrary and unlawful detention in Libya” (Geneva, April 2018), p.
18.
2 See A/HRC/34/42, para. 64.
3 Ibid., para. 86 (a).
4 Ibid., para. 86 (c).
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
5
close link between the Government and the Force. 5 Moreover, the Working Group is
mindful of the decree issued by the Presidency Council,6 which, inter alia, authorizes the
Force and its 116th Battalion to implement State security policy and to combat organized
crime and terrorism on behalf of the Government, including to arrest suspects. This
document also makes it clear that the Force and its 116th Battalion are affiliated with the
Ministry of the Interior.
31.
Article 5 of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts,
which represents customary international law, clarifies that the conduct of a person or entity
that is not an organ of the State but that is empowered by the law of that State to exercise
elements of governmental authority is considered an act of the State under international
law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.7 In the
present case, the Special Deterrence Force was clearly mandated by the Government to
detain individuals through this decree and therefore, as a very minimum, it should have
known of the actions carried out by the Force, it should have taken measures to protect
individuals and should have known that such actions would overstep the boundaries of
legality.
32.
Moreover, the positive obligation of the State to prevent and punish crimes in order
to uphold its human rights duties remains intact irrespective of whether the actions of the
Special Deterrence Force can be attributed to the Government. The Working Group
concludes that, in this case, the Government is responsible for the actions of the Force.
33.
The source has submitted the allegation, which was not challenged by the
Government, that Mr. Abdel Salam was arrested by the Special Deterrence Force on 8
September 2016 without a warrant, without giving any reasons for his detention at the time
of the arrest and without having been informed of any charges since then.
34.
The Working Group recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that anyone
who is arrested must be promptly informed of the reasons for the arrest and of any charges
brought against him or her. The right to be promptly informed of charges concerns notice of
criminal charges and, as the Human Rights Committee has noted in paragraph 29 of its
general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, this right applies in
connection with ordinary criminal prosecutions and also in connection with military
prosecutions or other special regimes directed at criminal punishment. In the present case,
Mr. Abdel Salam has been in detention for a period of more than 19 months and must still
be informed of any formal charges against him. In other words, the authorities have not
formally invoked any legal basis justifying his detention. This is a breach of article 9 (2) of
the Covenant.
35.
Furthermore, in order to establish that detention is legal, anyone detained has the
right to challenge the legality of his or her detention before a court, as envisaged by article
9 (4) of the Covenant. The Working Group wishes to recall that, according to the United
Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of
Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, the right to
challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, which is
essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.8 This right, which is in fact a
peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty,9 applies
to all situations of deprivation of liberty, including not only to detention for purposes of
criminal proceedings but also to situations of detention under administrative and other
fields of law, including military detention, security detention, detention under counter-
5 See also opinion No. 6/2017; see also opinions No. 3/2016 and No. 4/2016.
6 See Decree No. 555 (2018), establishing the Al Radaa Authority, read in the light of a 2011 decree of
the National Transitional Council, in which the Special Deterrence Force was converted to armed
brigades under the Supreme Security Council and were later placed under the control of the Ministry
of the Interior (see resolution No. 191 of 2011 dissolving the Supreme Security Council).
7 See the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and
Summary Executions, principle 2; see also A/HRC/34/42, para. 22.
8 See A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 2–3.
9 Ibid., para. 11.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
6
terrorism measures, involuntary confinement in medical or psychiatric facilities, migration
detention, detention for extradition, arbitrary arrests, house arrest, solitary confinement,
detention for vagrancy or drug addiction, and detention of children for educational
purposes.10 Moreover, it also applies irrespective of the place of detention or the legal
terminology used in the legislation. Any form of deprivation of liberty on any ground must
be subject to effective oversight and control by the judiciary.11
36.
The Working Group notes that, since his arrest on 8 September 2016, Mr. Abdel
Salam has not been presented before any judicial authority that would have been able to
proclaim on the legality or otherwise of his detention. He has thus been detained for over 19
months without any possibility to challenge the legality of his detention in breach of article
9 (4) of the Covenant. The Working Group observes that this was a breach of article 9 (3)
of the Covenant as the authorities failed to bring Mr. Abdel Salam promptly before a
judicial authority for trial or release.
37.
Moreover, the Working Group notes that, in order to ensure the effective exercise of
this right, the detained persons should have access, from the moment of arrest, to legal
assistance of their own choosing as stipulated in the Basic Principles and Guidelines.12 This
was denied to Mr. Abdel Salam, which de facto deprived him of the liberty to exercise his
right to challenge the legality of his detention, further denying him his rights under article 9
(4) of the Covenant.
38.
In this respect, the Working Group is particularly alarmed to note that the lawyers
approached by the family of Mr. Abdel Salam declined to undertake the task due to fears of
being themselves detained by the Special Deterrence Force. The Working Group underlines
that it is the legal and positive duty of the State to protect everyone on its territory or under
its jurisdiction against any human rights violation and to provide remedies whenever a
violation occurs. The Working Group recalls in particular that the Basic Principles and
Guidelines state that legal counsel should be able to carry out their functions effectively and
independently, free from fear of reprisal, interference, intimidation, hindrance or
harassment (see A/HRC/30/37, annex, para. 15). The Working Group refers the present
case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for further
consideration.
39.
The Working Group concludes that, given that the detention of Mr. Abdel Salam
took place without an arrest warrant, that no formal charges have been brought against him
since the arrest and that he has been effectively prevented from exercising his right to
challenge the legality of detention, his arrest and detention are arbitrary and fall under
category I of the Working Group.
40.
The Working Group observes that Mr. Abdel Salam has been in detention since 8
September 2016 and no charges have been brought against him, which is a total denial of
his rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. Furthermore, as already discussed above,
Mr. Abdel Salam has been denied any legal assistance and the attempts by his family to
ensure that he has a legal counsel have been unsuccessful due to the fear of reprisals of the
lawyers approached. The Working Group has already expressed its view that the Libyan
authorities must ensure the ability of legal counsels to operate professionally without fear of
reprisals. In the context of fair trial rights, this also constitutes a breach of Mr. Abdel
Salam’s rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.
41.
The Working Group observes that the family members of Mr. Abdel Salam were not
informed of his detention until a day after his arrest; they were prevented from visiting him
for about two months and that, since then, the visits have been allowed every 14 days. The
failure to allow Mr. Abdel Salam to notify his family of his whereabouts and the failure by
the authorities to inform his family of his whereabouts promptly is a violation of principle
19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
10 Ibid., para. 47 (a).
11 Ibid., para. 47 (b).
12 Ibid., principle 9, paras. 12–15.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
7
or Imprisonment as is the failure to allow family visits for the first two months of Mr.
Abdel Salam’s detention.
42.
The Working Group is concerned about the allegations of torture and ill-treatment,
including for the extraction of confessions, made by the source in relation to Mr. Abdel
Salam. Those allegations have not been challenged by the Government. The treatment
described reveals a prima facie breach of the absolute prohibition of torture, which is a
peremptory norm of international law, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of the Body of Principles (principle 6)
and of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela Rules) (rule 1). The Working Group therefore refers the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment for further consideration.
43.
Moreover, the Working Group notes that the use of a confession extracted through
ill-treatment may also constitute a violation by Libya of its international obligation under
article 15 of the Convention against Torture. Furthermore, the Body of Principles
specifically prohibits taking undue advantage of the situation of detention to compel
confession or incriminating statements (see principle 21).13 It is also a breach of article 14
(3) (g) of the Covenant.
44.
Furthermore, the Working Group observes that Mr. Abdel Salam is a Syrian
national. Therefore, Libya must respect the obligations that it undertook when it became a
State party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Working Group notes that
consular assistance or consular protection constitutes an important safeguard for individuals
who are arrested and detained in a foreign State to ensure that international standards are
being complied with. It provides such detainees, as well as consular officials of the
detainee’s nationality, with certain consular rights, which include, inter alia, the right to
freely communicate with and have access to their detained nationals and to be informed
about the arrest without delay.
45.
The Working Group considers that the disregard for Mr. Abdel Salam’s fair trial
rights has been of such gravity as to render his detention arbitrary and to fall under category
III.
46.
The Working Group is seriously alarmed by the reported deteriorating physical and
mental health of Mr. Abdel Salam and reminds the Government of its obligations under
international law to preserve his life and well-being. The Working Group refers the present
case to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health.
47.
The Working Group is mindful of the recent report on the situation of arbitrary
detention in Libya by OHCHR.14 The pattern of arbitrary deprivation of liberty documented
in that report is very similar to the circumstances in the present case, which is of great
concern to the Working Group. The Working Group strongly urges the Government and
other stakeholders to urgently implement the recommendations of the High Commissioner
as detailed in that report.
Disposition
48.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Abdu Ahmed Abdel Salam, being in contravention of
articles 3, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9
and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I and III.
49.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Abdel Salam without
delay and bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the
13 See also opinions No. 48/2016, No. 3/2017, No. 6/2017 and No. 29/2017.
14 OHCHR, “Abuse behind bars”.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39
8
international norms on detention, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
50.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Abdel Salam immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
51.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.
Abdel Salam, and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of his rights.
52.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group
refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
Follow-up procedure
53.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Abdel Salam has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Abdel
Salam;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Abdel
Salam’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of Libya with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
54.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
55.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
56.
The Government should disseminate through all available means the present opinion
among all stakeholders.
57.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.15
[Adopted on 26 April 2018]
15 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.