Opinion; Subjects: EGYPT, 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.19-04855(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eighty-third session, 19–23 November 2018
Opinion No. 87/2018 concerning Salah-Eldeen Abdel-Haleem Soltan,
Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed al-Yamani and Bassem Kamal
Mohamed Ouda (Egypt)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. 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 13 July 2018 the Working
Group transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Salah-Eldeen
Abdel-Haleem Soltan, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed al-Yamani and Bassem Kamal
Mohamed Ouda. The Government submitted a late response on 11 October 2018. 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/2018/87
General Assembly
Distr.: General
25 March 2019
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
(a)
Salah-Eldeen Abdel-Haleem Soltan
4.
Salah-Eldeen Abdel-Haleem Soltan is a political activist and was the Deputy Minister
of Islamic Endowment under the presidency of Mohamed Morsi. He is married with children
and usually resides in Al Basteen, Cairo.
5.
Mr. Soltan was arrested on 21 September 2013 at Cairo International Airport by
officers of the State security service, who did not present a warrant or explain the reasons for
his arrest. He was handcuffed to a chair for 17 hours at the airport before being taken to Tora
prison. Following his arrest, he was detained incommunicado for 15 days in Tora prison.
(i)
Rabaa operation room mass trial
6.
The source reports that on 23 September 2013, Mr. Soltan was charged by the State
Security Prosecutor, in the absence of his lawyer, with “inciting violence”, “being part of a
terrorist organization”, “plotting to cause chaos in the country”, and “spreading false
information in order to weaken or harm the dignity and prestige of the State”, in the Rabaa
operation room case (No. 2210/2014). He remained in pretrial detention until 1 April 2014,
on the basis of article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During that period, he was
denied the right to consult and receive visits from his lawyer.
7.
Reportedly, on 1 April 2014, the Cairo Criminal Court conducted the first hearing of
the trial, with subsequent hearings continuously postponed for a year. Mr. Soltan’s lawyer
was not allowed to challenge the evidence, which consisted solely of a secret testimony made
by an officer of the security service. Mr. Soltan’s lawyer was also denied access to relevant
information from the prosecution file and was not allowed to challenge prosecution
testimonies, cross-examine prosecution witnesses, present exculpatory evidence or call
defence witnesses. All communications between the defendants and their lawyers were
monitored. The defendants were kept in soundproof glass enclosures during the hearings. On
15 April 2015, Mr. Soltan was sentenced to death. That sentence was quashed by the Court
of Cassation, which ordered a retrial on 3 December 2015. On 14 April 2018, the Court of
Cassation upheld the sentence to five years’ imprisonment under maximum security. Both
the retrial and the appeal process were marked by irregularities similar to those observed
during the trial.
(ii)
Al Fateh Mosque mass trial
8.
The source submits that on 2 August 2015, Mr. Soltan was taken to the Cairo Criminal
Court to attend a hearing at which he discovered that he was also being prosecuted in the Al
Fateh Mosque case (case No. 8615/2013) together with 494 other co-defendants, and for
which the criminal investigation had started two years previously. However, the charges were
not official as he had never been presented before a prosecutor to be charged prior to the trial
hearing. During the trial, Mr. Soltan was kept in a soundproof glass enclosure, preventing
him from communicating freely with his lawyer and from challenging the accusations. His
lawyer was not allowed to challenge the inculpatory evidence, which consisted solely of
secret testimony made by an officer of the security service. On 18 September 2017, after a
two-year trial, during which hearings were continuously postponed, he was sentenced to life
imprisonment along with 42 other co-defendants on charges including “terrorism”, “murder”,
“use of explosives” and “damage to public property”. Since the appeal was lodged with the
Cairo Court of Appeal on 18 November 2017, no hearing has been scheduled.
9.
The source highlights the fact that the alleged acts for which Mr. Soltan is being
prosecuted in the two mass trials took place on the same day in two different places. In both
trials, the sentences were based on testimonies of State security officers, which provided
contradictory information on the whereabouts of the defendant. On 16 August 2013,
Mr. Soltan was allegedly “attending a meeting to plan chaos” in the Rabaa operation room
case, while at the same time, he was allegedly “at Al Fateh Mosque delivering a Friday
sermon inciting violence against the State” in the Al Fateh Mosque case. The Court of
Cassation did not take those inconsistencies into account.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
3
(iii)
Conditions of detention and reprisals
10.
The source reports that since his arrest, Mr. Soltan has been transferred from one
detention centre to another, without him, his family or his lawyer being informed of those
transfers beforehand. He is not allowed to communicate by telephone with his wife or
children, who are not living in Egypt. His visitation rights from other relatives every two
weeks are regularly denied or shortened without any justification. Moreover, Mr. Soltan has
been repeatedly subjected to torture and ill-treatment from the outset of his arrest to date.
Although Mr. Soltan informed the judicial authorities about the torture to which he was
subjected by security officers, no response was provided to his lawyer’s requests to launch
an inquiry and to carry out a medical examination. While suffering from a herniated disc,
kidney and liver conditions and hepatitis C, Mr. Soltan has been denied appropriate medical
treatment as a form of punishment.
11.
The source reports that Mr. Soltan was subjected to severe reprisals, including in
follow-up to his son’s testimony in November 2015 before the United States Congress on
human rights violations in Egypt. Mr. Soltan was taken from his cell and forcibly disappeared
for a month and a half, during which time his fate and whereabouts remained undisclosed.
He was placed in solitary confinement and subjected to severe torture by State security
officers who told him that his treatment was the result of his son’s treason in the United States
Congress. Moreover, on 13 March 2016, Mr. Soltan was beaten until he lost consciousness
and his jaw and two front teeth were broken. During the beating, the security officer told him
that that treatment was only a hint of what was to come. In August 2016, he was subjected to
long periods of solitary confinement in retaliation against his son’s statements before the
United States authorities and the European Parliament.
(b)
Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed al-Yamani
12.
Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed al-Yamani is an Egyptian citizen, born on
15 July 1987. He usually resides in 10th of Ramadan City, Sharqiyah Governorate. He is a
medical doctor and prior to his arrest, he was a resident doctor at Al Hussein University
Hospital in Cairo.
13.
The source reports that on 17 August 2013, Mr. al-Yamani was arrested during the
raid carried out by security forces on Al Fateh Mosque along with hundreds of other
supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, where he was present as a medical doctor treating
and documenting protesters’ injuries. He was beaten by security officers before being pushed
with 74 other individuals into an overcrowded vehicle. He was taken to Tora Security Camp
and then to the Dar al-Salam State Security Camp, where he was secretly detained for five
days, interrogated and subjected to torture, including electrocution, beatings and food
deprivation.
(i)
Charge and prolonged pretrial detention
14.
According to the source, while in secret detention, Mr. al-Yamani was brought,
without the assistance of a lawyer, before the State Security Prosecutor of the Cairo Criminal
Court and told that he was accused of “taking part in protests and supporting the overthrown
regime”. On 22 August 2013, he was moved to Wadi al-Natrun prison. His pretrial detention
was renewed every 45 days on the basis of article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
and lasted for two years.
(ii)
Al Fateh Mosque mass trial
15.
Reportedly, Mr. al-Yamani was prosecuted along with 494 co-defendants in the Al
Fateh Mosque mass trial. The defendants were collectively accused of “killing 44 police
officers”, “protesting without permission” and “disturbing the public peace”. Mr. al-
Yamani’s lawyer was denied access to, and was therefore unable to challenge, incriminating
evidence or present exculpatory evidence. On 18 August 2017, Mr. al-Yamani was sentenced
to five years in prison.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
4
(iii)
Conditions of detention
16.
The source reports that while in pretrial detention in Wadi al-Natrun prison, Mr. al-
Yamani was tortured and held in particularly inhumane conditions, denied all visits by his
lawyer and regularly denied visits from his family, as well as being deprived of medical care.
In March 2014, he was transferred to Tora prison where he was held with 15 other detainees
in an underground cell measuring 2 by 3 m2 with no light. He was later transferred back to
Wadi al-Natrun prison where he is still detained.
17.
Reportedly, in protest against his treatment, Mr. al-Yamani started a hunger strike in
January 2014 and as a result, was held in solitary confinement in a cell without light and was
deprived of sleep by means of flooding his cell with cold water in winter. He started coughing
up blood, which also appeared in his urine, showing signs of renal failure. The high-ranking
prison officers threatened to continue denying him medical care and to “leave him to die” if
he did not end his hunger strike. On 17 January 2015, Mr. al-Yamani lost consciousness and
burned a third of his back and his head after falling on water boiling on a cooker. He was
eventually diagnosed with serious burns, but was not transferred to a hospital for treatment.
He was returned to the cell, where he continued living in unhygienic conditions.1
(c)
Bassem Kamal Mohamed Ouda
18.
Bassem Kamal Mohamed Ouda is an Egyptian citizen born on 16 April 1970. He is a
professor of engineering and was the Minister of Supply and Internal Trade from 5 January
to 4 July 2013 under the presidency of Mohamed Morsi, during which time he was known as
“the minister of the poor.” He is married with four children.
19.
The source reports that on 12 November 2013, Mr. Ouda was arrested at around 8 p.m.
in a soap factory where he was hiding in Wadi al-Natroun, Buheira Governorate, by police
officers who did not present a warrant and did not explain the reasons for his arrest.
Reportedly, he had gone into hiding fearing reprisals after refusing to join the new
Government after the military takeover. Prior to his arrest, in August 2013, State security
forces had raided his home in his absence, breaking the entrance door and seizing documents
without any mandate. Following his arrest, he was taken to an unknown location where he
was secretly detained for 13 days. His family and his lawyer were denied information about
his fate and whereabouts, resulting in his being in a state of enforced disappearance. Later,
he reported that he was being detained in the Tora prison complex and brutally interrogated.
(i)
Charge and pretrial detention
20.
On 25 November 2013, Mr. Ouda was reportedly presented to the State Security
Prosecutor in the presence of his lawyer and informed that he was accused, along with dozens
of Muslim Brotherhood leaders, of “incitement to murder”, “belonging to a banned group”
and “planning to damage public buildings” in three different cases, namely the Qalyub case,
the Great Sea case and the Istiqama Mosque case. He was then transferred to Malhaq Al
Mizraa prison, within the Tora prison complex, where he remains detained to date.
(ii)
Mass trials
21.
The source reports that in addition to the prosecutions in those three mass trials,
Mr. Ouda was informed in late 2015 of his prosecution in the Rabaa dispersal case, along
with 739 defendants, two years after the beginning of the investigations and when the trial
was already ongoing. However, he was not officially informed of the exact charges against
him and could not prepare his defence as he was denied the right to visits from his lawyer.
22.
The source submits that during the mass trials, all hearings took place at the police
academy in camera. Mr. Ouda has been denied to right to consult his lawyer during the whole
pretrial period, as all visits were prohibited, and he was unable to prepare his defence or even
access relevant information on the charges against him or on the incriminating evidence. He
was able to talk only briefly to his lawyer prior to trial hearing sessions. During most of the
trials sessions, defendants were kept in soundproof glass enclosures. While Mr. Ouda
1 On 16 August 2018, after serving his five-year sentence, Mr. al-Yamani was released.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
5
complained repeatedly about the torture and cruel treatment he was suffering, as well as his
prolonged solitary confinement, no steps have been taken by the judicial authorities.
23.
Reportedly, in the Qalyub trial, on 28 October 2016, the Court of Cassation upheld
the life sentence against Mr. Ouda and 36 others. In the Istiqama Mosque case, the retrial
started on 7 May 2017 before the Criminal Court of Giza, but the decision has been
continuously postponed. In the Great Sea case, the retrial began on 13 November 2016 before
the Cairo Criminal Court; the verdict hearing has been continuously postponed. In the Rabaa
dispersal case, trial sessions have been continuously postponed since August 2015.
(iii)
Conditions of detention
24.
The source reports that Mr. Ouda has been subjected to severe acts of torture and has
been held in solitary confinement since his arrest more than four years ago. He has been
regularly denied the right to visits from both his family and his lawyer for long periods of
time; his family was most recently allowed to visit him in November 2016. He has also been
denied the right to perform prayers with other inmates, and to write and read. Mr. Ouda
suffers from several health complications that require specific medical attention, of which he
has been deprived since the beginning of his detention. In August 2017, Mr. Ouda went on
hunger strike for two weeks in protest against the fact that he had been denied visitation rights
for more than nine months.
(d)
Analysis of the violations of the three individuals’ rights
(i)
Category I
25.
The source submits that the circumstances of the three individuals’ arrest and custody,
which prevented them from challenging the legality of their detention, do not fulfil the criteria
of legality set out in article 9 (1), (2) and (4) of the Covenant, thus rendering their detention
arbitrary under category I.
26.
The source recalls that the arrests of Mr. Soltan and Mr. Ouda were carried out
without a mandate and that no reasons were provided for their arrests. The circumstances of
their arrests do not show any reasonable cause for in flagrante delicto arrest.
27.
Following Mr. Soltan’s arrest on 21 September 2013, he was kept handcuffed to a
chair for 17 hours in a detention room in the airport before being taken to Tora prison where
he was detained incommunicado for 15 days. He was presented to the State Security
Prosecutor on 23 September 2013 and charged while detained incommunicado.
28.
Following Mr. Ouda’s arrest on 12 November 2013, he was taken to an unknown
location where he was secretly detained for 13 days. Given that his family and his lawyer
were denied information on his fate and whereabouts during that period of time, he was
essentially in a state of enforced disappearance. He reappeared only when he was presented
to the State Security Prosecutor on 25 November 2013, in the presence of his lawyer.
29.
While Mr. al-Yamani was present in the mosque when it was raided by the security
forces, the source recalls that a unique feature of an arrest in flagrante delicto is that the
circumstances of the arrest should make clear to anyone the cause of the arrest. Nevertheless,
if the person arrested is not released, the authorities still need to make a formal notification
of the charges once they have decided on a criminal course of action.2 Following the raid,
Mr. al-Yamani was detained in secret for five days, interrogated and subjected to torture. He
was still in secret detention when he was brought, without the assistance of his lawyer, before
the State Security Prosecutor and told that he was accused of “taking part in protests and
supporting the overthrown regime”.
(ii)
Category II
30.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of the three individuals should be
characterized as arbitrary under category II, as it appears that they were arrested, prosecuted
and sentenced to heavy penalties for having peacefully opposed the ousting of the former
2 Opinion No. 41/2016, para. 26.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
6
President, Mohamed Morsi, and the subsequent military takeover, in violation of their rights
to freedom of expression (art. 19 of the Covenant) and to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association (arts. 21 and 22 of the Covenant). Moreover, Mr. Soltan and Mr. Ouda’s right to
take part in the conduct of public affairs (art. 25 of the Covenant) was also violated.
31.
According to the source, in the cases of Mr. Soltan and Mr. Ouda, the prosecution
failed to prove either their presence at the location of the alleged acts of violence or failed to
prove that they engaged in speech calling for protesters to commit acts of violence. In cases
where the death penalty was quashed by the Court of Cassation or where the Grand Mufti
refused to ratify the death sentence, the rationale behind those decisions was the lack of
incriminating evidence of the accused’s participation in acts of violence or calling for such
acts, which led to the death and wounding of protesters and security agents.
32.
The source recalls that under international law, gatherings and demonstrations must
be presumed peaceful by the State (A/HRC/31/66, para. 18). Therefore, even isolated acts of
violence during a demonstration should not lead to the collective incrimination of organizers
and protesters for acts of violence.
33.
The source submits that those arrests must be understood within the political context
that followed the ousting of the former President, Mohammed Morsi, and the military
takeover, during which the authorities carried out mass arrests of all political dissenters
regardless of the fact that they did not carry out acts of violence or incite others to do so. The
Muslim Brotherhood was banned shortly after the military takeover and, on 25 December
2013, in the absence of any judicial process, it was listed as a terrorist organization by the
interim Government. As a consequence, all the members of the previous Government and all
individuals who were deemed to support the Muslim Brotherhood were prosecuted on the
charge of “belonging to a banned group” and “belonging to a terrorist organization”, pursuant
to article 86 bis of the Criminal Code. As a consequence, all forms of protest and sit-ins
supporting the ousted Government, as well as any calls for such protests, were considered
terrorist acts or incitement to carry out such acts under article 86, regardless of their peaceful
character.
34.
The source submits that Mr. Soltan and Mr. Ouda, two Muslim Brotherhood former
ministers, are being prosecuted as leaders of a political party for having called upon their
supporters to oppose the military takeover and the ousting of their Government. In addition,
witnesses affirm that a few days prior to the raid on Al Fateh mosque, Mr. Soltan was
addressing protesters, calling upon them not engage in violence and stressing the importance
of the rule of law and peaceful protest. In the Rabaa operation room case, he was also
prosecuted for, inter alia, “weakening or harming the dignity and prestige of the Egyptian
State”, pursuant to article 80 (d) of the Criminal Code, for having publicly characterized the
military takeover as a “military coup”. The source highlights that the reason for Mr. Ouda’s
arrest was his refusal to support the military takeover.
35.
Mr. al-Yamani was arrested during the raid and kept in detention, despite the lack of
evidence that he had engaged in any type of violence and despite his claims that he was only
treating wounded protesters.
36.
The source concludes that the nature of the charges and the lack of evidence of any
violent act being carried out or called for by the three individuals show that the trials are
politically motivated. Furthermore, the multiplication of mass trials constitutes a form of
political persecution in the form of judicial harassment. Moreover, such mass trials disregard
any evaluation of individual criminal responsibility for the violence that occurred following
the military takeover and the fact that these men were prosecuted for their political affiliation.
(iii)
Category III
37.
The source submits that that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda were victims of
serious violations of their rights under articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant, which were of such
gravity as to give their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling under category III.
Violations during the pretrial detention phase
38.
The three individuals were detained in pretrial detention for long periods of time,
pursuant to article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The source recalls that concerns
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
7
have previously been expressed regarding the conformity of that provision with the right of
an accused to be tried without undue delay (art. 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant).3 Furthermore,
the source highlights that on 26 September 2013, an amendment to article 143 was introduced
by the interim President providing for unlimited pretrial detention of individuals awaiting
either a ruling from the Court of Cassation or a retrial in cases in which life imprisonment or
death sentences had previously been issued.
Violation of the right to adequately prepare one’s defence
39.
The source submits that for each trial, the defendants were not provided with adequate
time and facilities to prepare their defence and they were denied the right to access
prosecution files and to be assisted by their lawyers during all interrogations and hearings for
the renewal of their pretrial detention.
40.
Moreover, visitation rights for their lawyers and families were denied on a regular
basis. In the few instances they were allowed, the meetings with the lawyers were held under
the strict scrutiny of the security service or prison guards. Furthermore, State security
prosecutors denied access to exculpatory evidence such as testimonies from security officers
that were brought as secret evidence and which served as a basis to sentence the defendants.
Those practices constitute a violation of article 54 of the 2014 Constitution, which prohibits
the interrogation of any detainees in the absence of their lawyer, article 123 (b) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the right of the person under investigation to be
assisted by an attorney, and article 14 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.
Denial of the right to be informed of the charges
41.
The source recalls that Mr. Soltan and Mr. Ouda were not informed of all charges
brought against them, in violation of the right to be promptly informed of the charges
enshrined in article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. Mr. Soltan was not informed that he was
prosecuted in the Al Fateh Mosque case, let alone informed of the charges against him.
Mr. Ouda found himself in a similar situation when he was told the day of the first hearing
that he was also a defendant in the mass trial in the Rabaa dispersal case.
Violations occurring during the trial
42.
The source submits that collectively charging hundreds of individuals in mass trials
cannot ensure the fairness of the trials and the respect of defence rights. Furthermore, the
collective criminal responsibility of a high number of defendants in mass trials also amounts
to a violation of their right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the
Covenant and article 96 of the Constitution of Egypt. The collective imposition of criminal
responsibility, without providing the accused with meaningful ways to defend themselves,
leaves no room for any benefit of the doubt for the accused and for charges to be proved
beyond any reasonable doubt.
43.
According to the source, the trials all involve similar systematic violations, including
the fact that the judges denied the requests by the defence lawyers to order the prosecution to
disclose evidence so that it could be challenged. In several trials, hearings were held in
camera in police academy buildings. During the hearings, the defendants were kept in
soundproof glass enclosures from which they could not freely communicate with their
lawyers. Those practices, along with the systematic violations of defence rights, show that
the complainants were prosecuted in a context of political unrest and that such conditions
cannot guarantee the fairness of their trials.
Ill-treatment in detention
44.
The source expresses particular concern at the three individuals’ treatment in
detention, which amounts to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The
practices used against them constitute a form of reprisal and retaliation for their political
affiliation and for having denounced the unfairness of their trials, the inhumane conditions
of their detention and the denial of medical care. The source recalls that Mr. Soltan
3 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
8
disappeared and was tortured following his son’s testimony before the United States
Congress; Mr. al-Yamani was told that he would be “left to die” if he did not end his hunger
strike; and Mr. Ouda was subjected to cruel abuse for protesting against his solitary
confinement. Moreover, the judicial authorities failed to address the allegations made in that
regard, in violation of articles 1, 4, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and guideline
12 of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors.
(iv)
Category V
45.
According to the source, the arrest, prosecution and treatment of the three individuals
results directly from their political opinion and affiliation as leaders and supporters of the
Muslim Brotherhood, giving their detention an arbitrary character under category V.
46.
The source notes that the banning and listing of the Muslim Brotherhood political
party as a terrorist organization have been used to systematically deny the fundamental rights
of individuals considered to be members or supporters of that group. The source recalls that
the Committee against Torture highlighted the fact that torture appears to occur particularly
frequently following arbitrary arrests and is often carried out to obtain a confession or to
punish and threaten political dissenters (A/72/44, para. 69). Moreover, it appears that judges
deciding in mass trial cases have publicly stated their support for the military takeover and
denied the existence of documented human rights violations, raising concerns over their
independence from the executive.4 The source notes that several such statements demonstrate
the discriminatory and politically biased treatment of those who opposed the authorities and
violate the principle of equality before the law and presumption of innocence. The source
concludes that while that discriminatory treatment is not applied exclusively to political
opponents affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, but also to individuals considered to be
critical or opposed to the Government, it appears that real or perceived affiliation with or
support for the Muslim Brotherhood systematically results in a denial of equality before the
law.
Response from the Government and additional comments from the source
47.
On 13 July 2018, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the
Government under its regular communication procedure, requesting the Government to
provide detailed information by 11 September 2018 concerning the current situation of
Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda and any comment on the source’s allegations. The
Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the factual and legal grounds
justifying their continued detention and to provide details regarding the conformity of the
relevant legal provisions and proceedings with international law, in particular the norms of
international human rights law that bind Egypt. Moreover, the Working Group called upon
the Government to ensure Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s physical and mental
integrity.
48.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a timely response to the
communication from the Government. The Government did not request an extension of the
time limit for its reply, as provided for in paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of
work.
49.
The Government submitted its response on 11 October 2018, that is, after the deadline
given by the Working Group. The response was transmitted to the source on 16 October
2018. The source provided additional comments on 31 October 2018. While the Working
Group may render an opinion on the basis of all the information obtained, it is unable to
accept the Government response as if it had been presented in a timely manner.
Discussion
50.
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 (A/HRC/19/57,
4 See International Commission of Jurists, Egypt’s Judiciary: A Tool of Repression. Lack of Effective
Guarantees of Independence and Accountability (Geneva, 2016).
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
9
para. 68). The Working Group recalls that, where it is alleged that a person has not been
afforded by a public authority certain procedural guarantees to which he or she was entitled,
the burden of proof should rest with the public authority, because the latter is in a better
position to demonstrate that it has followed the appropriate procedures and applied the
guarantees required by law.5
51.
The Working Group wishes to reaffirm that the Government has the obligation to
respect, protect and fulfil the right to liberty of person and that any national law allowing
deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity with the relevant
international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
applicable international or regional instruments.6 Consequently, even if the detention is in
conformity with national legislation, regulations and practices, the Working Group is entitled
and obliged to assess the judicial proceedings and the law itself to determine whether such
detention is also consistent with the relevant rules and standards of international human rights
law.7
Category I
52.
The Working Group will consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without invoking any legal basis.
53.
While the Government states in its late reply that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda
were arrested and detained in accordance with the law and due process, and that its laws
provide for legal guarantees and judicial supervision, it has neither refuted the specific
allegations nor presented credible evidence to show how its laws on paper function in practice
in Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s cases.
54.
At the outset, the Working Group expresses its grave concern at the source’s
allegations of incommunicado detention: Mr. Soltan for a month and a half after his son’s
testimony before the United States Congress on the human rights violations in Egypt; Mr. al-
Yamani for 5 days during his interrogation following his arrest on 17 August 2013; and
Mr. Ouda for 13 days after his arrest on 12 November 2013. In Mr. Soltan’s case, the
Working Group notes that the concealment of his fate or whereabouts placed him outside the
protection of the law. It is the Working Group’s view that there can be no valid legal basis
for deprivation of liberty that places detainees outside the protection of the law, under any
circumstances, particularly because it deprives them of their rights to challenge the legality
of their detention, in violation of article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2 (3) and 9 (4) of the Covenant.
55.
The source also submits, and the Government does not refute, that Messrs. Soltan, al-
Yamani and Ouda were arrested without being shown an arrest warrant. The international
norms on detention include the right to be presented with an arrest warrant, which is
procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the prohibition of
arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 9 (1) of the Covenant, as well as principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.8 Any form
of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of,
a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest
possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in accordance with
principle 4 of that Body of Principles.
5 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, para. 55; and opinions No. 59/2016, para. 61; and No. 41/2013, para. 27.
6 General Assembly resolution 72/180, preambular para. 5; Commission on Human Rights resolutions
1997/50, para. 15, and 1991/42, para. 2; Human Rights Council resolutions 10/9, para. 4 (b), and 6/4,
para. 1 (a); and opinions No. 38/2018, para. 60; No. 94/2017, para. 47; No. 83/2017, para. 51;
No. 28/2015, para. 41; and No. 41/2014, para. 24.
7 Opinions No. 38/2018, para. 60; No. 94/2017, paras. 47–48; No. 33/2015, para. 80; No. 1/2003,
para. 17; No. 5/1999, para. 15; and No. 1/1998, para. 13.
8 Opinions No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 88/2017, para. 27. See also the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (art. 6) and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (art. 14 (1)).
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
10
56.
The Working Group finds that, in order to ascertain a legal basis for deprivation of
liberty, the authorities should have informed Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda of the
reasons for their arrest, at the time of arrest, and of the charges against them promptly. Their
failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
9 (2) of the Covenant.
57.
The Working Group notes that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda were not brought
promptly before a judge or afforded the right to take proceedings before a court so that it may
decide without delay on the lawfulness of their detention, in accordance with article 9 (3) and
(4) of the Covenant. This also deprived them of an effective judicial remedy for the violation
of their rights and freedoms, as provided for in articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 2 (3) and 14 (1) of the Covenant. Pretrial detention without an
individualized determination of the risk of flight, interference with the evidence or the
recurrence of the crime, as well as consideration of less intrusive alternatives, such as bail,
electronic bracelets or other conditions in accordance with the principle of necessity and
proportionality, is devoid of legal basis.9
58.
The Working Group therefore considers that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s
arrest and detention lack a legal basis and are thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
Category II
59.
The Working Group recalls that the rights to freedom of movement and residence,
freedom to seek asylum, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion
and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, participation in political and
public affairs, legal equality and non-discrimination, and protection of persons belonging to
ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities are among the most fundamental human rights,
deriving from the inherent dignity of the human person, reaffirmed and ensured by the
international community in articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant.
60.
The source alleges, and the Government does not refute, that Messrs. Soltan, al-
Yamani and Ouda have been arrested, tried and convicted for expressing their opinion in the
mass demonstrations organized by the Muslim Brotherhood after the 2013 coup d’état
removed them from power. Their cases appear to fit the pattern of systematic, widespread
and grave violations of freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly, as
identified by the Working Group in a series of complaints from the members of the ousted
Government of Mohamed Morsi and their fellow supporters, as well as real or perceived
protesters brought to its attention.10
61.
Although freedom of opinion and expression is not without limitation, article 29 (2)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the only legitimate limitations
to the exercise of one’s rights and freedoms must be for the purposes of securing due
recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. The
Covenant similarly lists the few legitimate objectives in articles 12 (3), 18 (3), 19 (3), 21 and
22 (2).
62.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes the observation by the Human Rights
Committee, in its general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression,
that restrictions on freedom of expression must not be overbroad. The Committee recalled
that such restrictions must conform to the principle of proportionality: they must be
appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument
among those that might achieve their protective function; and they must be proportionate to
the interest to be protected (para. 34). Moreover, the Committee emphasized that States
parties should not prohibit criticism of institutions, such as the army or the administration
(para. 38), and that the penalization of a media outlet, publishers or journalist solely for being
9 Opinion No. 61/2018, para. 50.
10 See opinions No. 27/2018, No. 78/2017, No. 30/2017, No. 41/2016, No. 7/2016, No. 6/2016,
No. 53/2015, No. 52/2015, No. 49/2015, No. 17/2015, No. 14/2015, No. 35/2014, No. 10/2014
and No. 39/2013.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
11
critical of the government or the political social system espoused by the government can
never be considered to be a necessary restriction of freedom of expression (para. 42).11
63.
In the same vein, the Working Group notes that the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has indicated that
the right to freedom of expression includes expression of views and opinions that offend,
shock or disturb (A/HRC/17/27, para. 37). Even persons who utter statements considered
unacceptable, disrespectful and in extremely bad taste by the authorities are entitled to
protection and cannot require persecution. In addition, the Human Rights Council, in its
resolution 12/16, called upon States to refrain from imposing restrictions on discussion of
government policies and political debate that are not consistent with article 19 (3) of the
Covenant.
64.
In the Working Group’s view, the principle of necessity and proportionality that
inheres in freedom of opinion and expression does so equally in other fundamental human
rights. The Working Group, in its deliberation No. 9, confirmed that the notion of “arbitrary”
sensu stricto includes both the requirement that a particular form of deprivation of liberty is
taken in accordance with the applicable law and procedure and that it is proportional to the
aim sought, reasonable and necessary (A/HRC/22/44, para. 61). In its jurisprudence, with
regard to the application of the principle of proportionality, the Working Group has applied
the four-pronged test of: (a) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to
justify the limitation of a protected right; (b) whether the measure is rationally connected to
the objective; (c) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without
unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective; and (d) whether, balancing the
severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the
importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement,
the former outweighs the latter.12
65.
Given the Government’s failure to provide prima facie credible evidence against
Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda to implicate them in specific violent acts, the Working
Group considers that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda have been deprived of their liberty
for their exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association. The Working Group also considers that their detention
violates their right to participation in political and public affairs as Messrs. Soltan and Ouda
were serving as the Deputy Minister of Islamic Endowment and the Minister of Supply and
Internal Trade respectively under the deposed Government of Mohamed Morsi and Mr. al-
Yamani was protesting against the military’s removal of that elected government. The
Working Group finds no legitimate aim or objective in a free and democratic society for their
deprivation of liberty.
66.
The Working Group, therefore, considers that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s
deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category II, as it resulted from their exercise of the
rights or freedoms guaranteed under articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 18, 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant.
Category III
67.
Given its finding that Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s deprivation of liberty is
arbitrary under category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that none of the three
should have been tried. However, given that the trials have taken place or are taking place,
the Working Group will consider whether the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and
due process were grave enough to give their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, so
that it falls within category III.
68.
According to the information provided by the source, which the Government has
failed to rebut with credible evidence, Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda were arrested
without the presentation of a warrant and were not promptly informed of the reasons for their
arrest or of any charges against them. While the Government states that they were arrested in
accordance with the law and due process and that its laws provide for legal guarantees and
11 Opinions No. 83/2018, para. 53; and No. 61/2018, para. 55.
12 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 35; No. 76/2017, para. 68; No. 58/2017, para. 48; No. 56/2017, para. 51;
No. 41/2017, para. 86; and No. 54/2015, para. 89.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
12
judicial supervision in accordance with international standards, it has failed to provide
evidence to prove that any contact has been made with any of the three of them since their
arrest.
69.
In Mr. al-Yamani’s case, the Working Group notes that temporary detention orders
are not so temporary when they are renewed automatically and indefinitely. While the
reasonableness of any delay in bringing the case to trial has to be assessed in the
circumstances of each case, taking into account the complexity of the case, in this instance
the Government failed to provide, on the basis of the principles of legitimacy, necessity and
proportionality, any justification for his pretrial detention, which has lasted for two years.
The Working Group finds that the Government neither tried Mr. al-Yamani within a
reasonable time nor released him, in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant. The prolonged and
indefinite pretrial detention is an abuse of power that violates the right to personal liberty and
the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant, and the entitlement to a fair
and public hearing under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
14 (1) of the Covenant. The near-automatic extension of Mr. al-Yamani’s pretrial detention
by courts with no regard for his due process and fair trial rights also undermines the
presumption of innocence guaranteed under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and 14 (2) of the Covenant.13
70.
Furthermore, the Government failed to respect Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda’s
right to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of
person, and their right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant. The interrogations in the
absence of their lawyers during their initial incommunicado detention deprived of them of
their right to legal counsel at the critical stage of criminal proceedings and exposed them to
torture and ill-treatment. The periodic incommunicado detention and the monitoring of
communication between the defendants and their lawyers violates the essence of the right to
legal assistance and preparation for defence and free communication with legal counsel under
article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b) and (c) of
the Covenant.
71.
During their trials, none of the three was given an adequate chance to confront the
witnesses or evidence against them or to present their witnesses and evidence before the
court, in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. Messrs. Soltan and Ouda’s trial while they were held in
soundproof glass enclosures aggravates this violation. Mr. Ouda’s in camera proceeding at
the police academy, for which the Government failed to provide any justification, further
violated his right to a public hearing under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Courts have the power to exclude all or part of the
public for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic
society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent
strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would
be prejudicial to the interests of justice. Apart from in such exceptional circumstances,
however, a hearing must be open to the general public as all trials in criminal matters must
in principle be conducted orally and publicly.14 Secret proceedings without justification raise
doubts about the equality of the parties and fairness of the hearing, as well as the competence,
independence and impartiality of the tribunal, in accordance with article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
72.
The source also contends, and the Government does not rebut, that the mass trials of
hundreds of defendants undermine the due process and fair trial rights and the presumption
of innocence guaranteed under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and 14 (2) of the Covenant. The Working Group notes that the United Nations High
13 Opinion No. 37/2018, para. 32.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and
tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 28–29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
13
Commissioner for Human Rights took the opportunity to criticize the most recent mass trial
and the resultant death sentences by an Egyptian court as “a gross and irreversible miscarriage
of justice”.15 The Working Group is also of the view that such mass trials are incompatible
with the interests of justice.
73.
The Working Group expresses its serious concern at the ill-treatment and denial of
medical treatment endured by Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda, in violation of articles 5
and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant,
as well as principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment, in addition to the relevant provisions of the Convention
against Torture. Not only is torture a grave violation of human rights per se, but it seriously
undermines the ability of persons to defend themselves and hinders their exercise of the right
to a fair trial, especially in light of the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or
to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.
74.
The Working Group notes with shock and dismay that Mr. Soltan has been subjected
to severe beatings that broke his jaw and two front teeth, and to prolonged solitary
confinement in retaliation for his son’s statements before the United States Congress and the
European Parliament.
75.
The Working Group refers to rule 45 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which stipulates that
solitary confinement is to be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time
as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a
competent authority. Rule 44 defines prolonged solitary confinement as solitary confinement
for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days. The Working Group concurs with the
Human Rights Committee, which noted that prolonged solitary confinement of a detained or
imprisoned person may amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant.16
76.
Given the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a
fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
Category V
77.
The Working Group will now examine whether Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and
Ouda’s deprivation of liberty constitutes discrimination under international law with respect
to category V.
78.
First and foremost, the Working Group notes that all three detainees are the leading
members and supporters of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Neither the source nor the
Government disputes that they have been arrested, tried and sentenced for their membership
and activities in that organization. The Working Group is also aware from its jurisprudence
about the collective punishment meted out to the real or perceived members of the Muslim
Brotherhood by the Government and courts over the past five years. The series of publicized,
mass trials also leaves no doubt about the collective nature of punishment.
79.
The Working Group is thus of the view that discrimination by the Government on the
basis of political opinion that aims at ignoring the equality of human beings is the only
plausible explanation for the arrest, detention and imprisonment of Messrs. Soltan, al-
Yamani and Ouda. The Working Group, therefore, concludes that the three individuals have
been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty because of their support for the Muslim Brotherhood,
15 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Egyptian death sentences result
from unfair trial, should be reversed – Bachelet” (9 September 2018), available at
www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23517&LangID=E.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 6. The Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has also called on the international
community to impose an absolute prohibition on solitary confinement exceeding 15 consecutive days
(A/66/268, para. 76).
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
14
in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles
2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and that their detention falls within category V.
80.
The Working Group notes that the present opinion is only one of many other opinions
in the past five years in which the Working Group finds the Government to be in violation of
its international human rights obligations.17 The Working Group recalls that, under certain
circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty
in violation of the rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity.
Disposition
81.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Salah-Eldeen Abdel-Haleem Soltan, Ibrahim Ahmed
Mahmoud Mohamed al-Yamani and Bassem Kamal Mohamed Ouda, being in
contravention of articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I, II, III and V.
82.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
83.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Soltan and Ouda immediately and
accord Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law.
84.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
85.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The Working Group
encourages the Government to ratify the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
86.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
87.
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 Messrs. Soltan and Ouda have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Messrs. Soltan,
al-Yamani and Ouda;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Messrs. Soltan, al-Yamani and Ouda and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
17 See, for example, opinions No. 27/2018, No. 26/2018, No. 83/2017, No. 78/2017, No. 30/2017,
No. 60/2016, No. 54/2016, No. 42/2016, No. 41/2016, No. 7/2016 and No. 6/2016.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/87
15
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Egypt with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
88.
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.
89.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of 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.
90.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has 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.18
[Adopted on 23 November 2018]
18 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.