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.22-10731(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-second session, 15–19 November 2021
Opinion No. 79/2021 concerning Zyad el-Elaimy and Louaya Sabri
Alshahat Abdelhalim (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 42/22.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 13 August 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Zyad el-Elaimy and
Louaya Sabri Alshahat Abdelhalim. 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).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
General Assembly
Distr.: General
7 July 2022
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
The source presents the cases of two Egyptian citizens, namely, Zyad el-Elaimy and
Louaya Sabri Alshahat Abdelhalim, charged in the case known as the Hope Coalition case
by the Supreme State Security Prosecution. The case takes its name from the Hope Coalition,
an emerging secular and civil association that a number of former parliamentarians,
journalists, businesspersons, youth leaders, human rights defenders and labour rights activists
attempted to establish in an effort to participate in the Egyptian parliamentary elections in
2020.
5.
According to the information received, more than 83 individuals are accused of
terrorism-related offences, including not only members of the Hope Coalition, like Mr. El-
Elaimy. Most of those accused in the case are civilians who were not affiliated with the Hope
Coalition or its members and did not engage in any political activities. This allegedly shows
the large-scale crackdown by the Government on any opposition and its citizens in general
in an attempt to inflict fear and prevent human rights groups and citizens from practising their
rights and freedoms, hoping to make a change in their country. The large-scale arrest and
detention of Hope Coalition members reportedly shows the alarming penalization of peaceful
and lawful participation in the political process.
6.
Mr. El-Elaimy is an Egyptian citizen, born in 1980. He is a human rights lawyer,
former member of the Parliament, one of the leaders of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party
and a founding member of the January 25 youth revolutionary coalition.
7.
According to the information received, on 25 June 2019 at around 2 a.m., a number
of national security agents in plain clothes arrested Mr. El-Elaimy upon leaving a friend’s
house in Cairo. The arrest happened simultaneously with the arrest of several other political
activists, under the pretext of allegedly planning to commit violent acts financed by the
Muslim Brotherhood, with the intention of causing chaos across the country, as announced
by the Minister of Interior in a public statement that day.
8.
Mr. El-Elaimy was reportedly brought before the Supreme State Security Prosecution
on the same day and accused of sharing common goals with a terrorist group and publishing
false news. The prosecution then ordered his pretrial detention in Tora prison for 15 days,
pending investigations. Since then, Mr. El-Elaimy’s pretrial detention in the case has been
periodically renewed.
9.
On 2 July 2019, the Public Prosecutor issued a decision to freeze the assets and ban
the travel of 83 individuals in relation to the Hope Coalition case, including Mr. El-Elaimy.
On 4 July, the Abdeen Felonies Court, Circuit No. 5, upheld the decision.
10.
The source claims that, in January 2020, Mr. El-Elaimy learned that there was another
case against him, in which a complaint had been filed stating that he had mentioned false
news about Egypt aimed at tainting its reputation in the international community. On 10
March, the Mokattam Misdemeanour Court sentenced Mr. El-Elaimy to one year in prison
in that case (No. 649/2020) and he received a fine of LE 20,000 (about $1,270). The case is
related to a television interview Mr. El-Elaimy gave to BBC News Arabic in July 2017, in
which he spoke about large-scale arbitrary detention and human rights abuses in Egypt. Mr.
El-Elaimy was sentenced according to articles 3/171 and 188 of the Egyptian Penal Code.
His defence lodged an appeal against the sentence. On 2 June 2020, the Court of Appeals
rejected the appeal and upheld the sentence.
11.
On 17 April 2020, the Cairo Felonies Court allegedly added Mr. El-Elaimy, along
with the names of 12 other detainees, to the country’s terrorist list for a period of five years.
The decision was reportedly taken in the absence of the defendants and their lawyers. Being
added to this list reportedly means the imposition of travel bans and asset freezes and
disbarment from the Lawyers Syndicate and from any political party. Subsequently, Mr. El-
Elaimy was named in a new case, investigated by the Supreme State Security Prosecution
and for which charges are reportedly unknown.
12.
Mr. El-Elaimy is in pretrial detention in Tora prison. Since he completed his one-year
sentence for one case, his pretrial detention has continued to be renewed approximately every
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
3
45 days in another case pending investigations. In July 2021, Mr. El-Elaimy’s case was
referred to the Cairo Felonies Court and registered under another number. However, the
hearing was postponed to 17 August. The prosecution accused Mr. El-Elaimy of spreading
false news, data and rumours inside and outside the country about the country’s internal
affairs. The prosecution based the charges on an article written and published by Mr. El-
Elaimy on 22 November 2016 about the situation of Nubians in Egypt.
13.
In addition, on 14 July 2021, the Court of Cassation upheld a decision by a lower court
to include Mr. El-Elaimy on the terrorist list, banning him from engagement in political work
and travel for five years.
14.
According to the source, since the beginning of Mr. El-Elaimy’s detention, his health
has been severely deteriorating. He suffers from unstable blood pressure, asthma and a
stomach ulcer, in addition to a rare autoimmune disease that requires treatment. He also
suffers from pericardial effusion. Mr. El-Elaimy has been on the same doses of his
medications since June 2019, although the doctor who had treated him outside the prison had
emphasized that he needed frequent medical follow-up to adjust his doses. The defence has
submitted several complaints concerning his deteriorating health conditions.
15.
On 11 July 2019, Mr. El-Elaimy’s defence submitted a complaint to the Public
Prosecutor, requesting his release due to his deteriorated health conditions. He also submitted
complaints to the Public Prosecutor and to the deputy minister of interior for prison
administration, requesting a referral to a hospital or an examination by a specialist.
16.
The source claims that no complaints were considered. Therefore, on 12 February
2020, Mr. El-Elaimy’s defence resorted to the Administrative Court to appeal the negative
decision to abstain from providing him with suitable health care. In the appeal, he demanded
the transfer of Mr. El-Elaimy to an external hospital, at the expense of his family, in order to
have radiology and a full check-up and to receive the necessary treatment. The claim remains
pending.
17.
Reportedly, Mr. El-Elaimy has been detained in inhumane conditions, in a small,
humid cell, with poor ventilation and unhygienic facilities. On 10 July 2019, his family
submitted a complaint to the National Council of Human Rights concerning the conditions
of detention. The family received no response. In addition, Mr. El-Elaimy’s defence
submitted a request to transfer him to a cell with appropriate conditions, as prescribed by law.
Thus far, the transfer has not taken place.
18.
It is alleged that, on 21 July 2019, Mr. El-Elaimy was brought before the Prosecution
for interrogation. During the interrogation, he reiterated the poor conditions of detention and
the deterioration of his health and asked to be moved to any hospital for medical examinations
and treatment, at his own expense. During the interrogation, Mr. El-Elaimy’s defence pleaded
that there was no reason for the detention on remand and requested his release.
19.
The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy has been denied his right to contact or meet
with his lawyer, as the lawyer has not been allowed to visit him in prison. Mr. El-Elaimy’s
defence lawyer has not been permitted to have access to copies of the arrest record, the files
on the investigations carried out by the Security Services, the charges or the legal documents
pertaining to Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases.
20.
Between 10 March and 22 August 2020, under the pretext of the coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) pandemic, all prison visits across Egypt were reportedly prohibited. Mr. El-
Elaimy was prevented from being visited by his family or communicating with them through
telephone calls or written letters. Despite the return of prison visits on 22 August, these have
been occasional and under strict, difficult and degrading conditions.
21.
In April 2020, Mr. El-Elaimy’s defence filed a lawsuit before the Administrative
Court, contesting the unlawful prohibition of his right to communicate with his family and
lawyer. The claim is pending.
22.
Ms. Abdelhalim is a 26-year-old Egyptian citizen, born in 1994. She lived in Khanka
Region, Al-Qalyubiya, and was a fourth-year student at the faculty of social sciences at Al-
Azhar University.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
4
23.
According to the information received, on 24 June 2019 at around 4 a.m., a number
of police officers and national security agents, in both plain clothes and uniforms, stormed
Ms. Abdelhalim’s place of residence. Reportedly, they violently searched the house and took
a number of mobile telephones, three laptop computers, gold earrings and LE 3,600. They
then arrested Ms. Abdelhalim without showing an arrest warrant or providing a legal
explanation, and dragged her to an unknown location, subjecting her to enforced
disappearance.
24.
Allegedly, after five days of enforced disappearance at the national security premises
in Shubra al-Khaimah, Ms. Abdelhalim was brought before the Supreme State Security
Prosecution on 29 June 2019 and accused of joining and financing a terrorist group and
possessing political pamphlets.
25.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s pretrial detention in the Al-Qanater
women’s prison was periodically renewed for the following one year and 8 months until, on
8 February 2021, when she was ordered to be released in that case. However, the release did
not materialize. On the next day, 9 February, Ms. Abdelhalim was brought again before the
Supreme State Security Prosecution, which accused her, in a new case, of organizing a secret
cell from inside prison and communicating with leaders of a foreign terrorist group. Since
then, Ms. Abdelhalim’s pretrial detention in the Al-Qanater women’s prison has been
continually renewed for 15-day periods pending investigations.
26.
According to the allegations of the source, during her enforced disappearance, Ms.
Abdelhalim stayed in a dark room and was continuously threated with being beaten and
electrocuted. During investigations, one of the national security agents showed her the blood
on the walls of the room she was detained in, indicating that it was the blood of two of Ms.
Abdelhalim’s neighbours, who had been killed. He reportedly threatened that she would
undergo the same fate if she did not confess and provide the national security agents with
some names.
27.
Ms. Abdelhalim was able to see her family for the first time 21 days after her arrest.
Currently, she is allowed visits once per week, but she is not allowed to exchange letters. She
has also been totally prohibited from speaking with other detainees in prison.
28.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim has been detained in inhumane conditions, in
a small and overcrowded cell, infested with insects and lacking ventilation. In addition, she
has been denied her right to meet with or contact her lawyer, as he has not been allowed to
visit her.
29.
On 24 June 2019, Ms. Abdelhalim’s family submitted several official complaints to
the Public Prosecutor, the Attorney General and the Minister of Interior. They have received
no response.
i.
Category I
30.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s arrest and detention
are arbitrary, falling within category I of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the
Working Group when considering cases submitted to it, as there is no legal basis or
justification for them. The prohibition of arbitrary arrest under article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is a protection of the right to liberty provided for under article
3.
31.
In its general comment No. 35 (2014), the Human Rights Committee stated that any
person was to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and that that
requirement applied broadly to the reasons for any deprivation of liberty.2 Principle 10 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment states that anyone who is arrested is to be informed at the time of his or her
arrest of the reason for the arrest and promptly informed of any charges against him or her.
Article 14 (3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Egypt, emphasizes that
2 Para. 24.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
5
anyone who is arrested should be clearly informed of the reasons behind the arrest and of any
charges against him or her.
32.
The source alleges that, by examining the details of their cases, it is evident that Ms.
Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy were arrested without being shown an arrest warrant or being
provided with a legal explanation of the reasons behind their arrests; therefore, their right to
liberty was violated.
33.
In addition, the right not to suffer enforced disappearance is considered one of the
non-derogable rights, even in a state of emergency. 3 According to the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, people deprived
of liberty must be held only in a place of detention that is officially recognized (art. 17 (2)
(c)). States must ensure that no one is held secretly in detention (art. 17 (1)) and provide the
detainee’s family and lawyer with accurate information on the detention (art. 18).
34.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim was forcibly disappeared for five days, before
she appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution, preventing her family from
knowing her fate and whereabouts.
35.
Moreover, the cases of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy allegedly show a pattern
of systematic violation of rights practised by the authorities, which consists of subjecting
individuals to prolonged arbitrary detention on baseless charges to deprive them of their
liberty indefinitely.
36.
Reportedly, after being granted a release in the Hope Coalition case, Ms. Abdelhamid
was accused in a new case, involving fabricated charges, including organizing a secret cell
from prison and communicating with the leaders of a foreign terrorist group. Ms. Abdelhamid
was accused of these crimes allegedly committed while she was in detention at the Al-
Qanater women’s prison, which confirms their baselessness.
37.
Mr. El-Elaimy has allegedly been accused in several cases, involving fabricated
charges, based solely on his political activism and freedom of expression, including the Hope
Coalition case. Reportedly, the authorities have been systematically accusing political
prisoners in several cases, so that, if they are granted release in one, they will continue to be
detained in one or more other cases.
38.
The source claims that the cases of Ms. Abdelhamid and Mr. El-Elaimy are both
illustrative of a systematic practice that has come to be known as the rotation of cases.
Through this practice, the authorities accuse political prisoners in several cases, or directly
after their release, they are accused in a new case (or cases) to keep them in indefinite
detention. In most of the new cases, the charges are a revived version of the charges in the
previous cases.
ii.
Category II
39.
The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy’s detention is arbitrary, falling within category
II, because it is derived directly from his political work and freedom of expression.
40.
Article 25 of the Covenant states that every citizen has the right and the opportunity
to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic
elections. According to the Human Rights Committee, as stated in its general comment No.
25 (1996), the conduct of public affairs relates to the exercise of political power, in particular
the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers.4
41.
The source alleges that details of Mr. El-Elaimy’s Hope Coalition case reveal that his
arrest and detention, along with those of other political figures and activists in June 2019, are
linked to their involvement in establishing a peaceful political party to run for parliamentary
election. This is a violation of their right to participate in public affairs, protected by article
25 of the Covenant.
3 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 1 (2);
and A/HRC/13/42, para. 50.
4 Para. 5.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
6
42.
Moreover, article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers. In addition, article 19 of the Covenant
guarantees the right of freedom of expression to everyone.
43.
In this respect, the Human Rights Committee established that restrictions on this right
must not be overbroad. The Committee observed, in its general comment No. 27 (1999), that
restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality, be appropriate to
achieve their protective function, be the least intrusive instrument among those that might
achieve the desired result and be proportionate to the interest to be protected. The principle
of proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions but also
by the administrative and judicial authorities in applying the law. The principle of
proportionality must also take account of the form of expression at issue, as well as the means
of its dissemination. For instance, the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited
expression is particularly high in the circumstances of public debate in a democratic society
concerning figures in the public and political domain.5
44.
The source argues that the conviction in one of the cases, for which Mr. El-Elaimy
was sentenced to one year in prison, is in violation of his freedom of expression, as it is
directly related to his television interview with BBC News Arabic in 2017, in which he spoke
about the human rights violations committed by the Egyptian authorities.
iii.
Category III
45.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s detention are arbitrary
under category III, given that they have allegedly been denied their right to a fair trial with
guarantees of due process.
46.
Principle 15 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that communication of the detained or
imprisoned person with the outside world, and in particular his or her family or counsel, is
not to be denied for more than a matter of days. In its general comment No. 32 (2007), the
Human Rights Committee provided that a detainee had the right to have prompt access to
legal counsel, 6 which means that a lawyer is to be granted the right to have private
communication and meetings with the detainee and to attend all the hearings and other
evidence collection procedures without interference or restrictions.
47.
The detainee should also have access to an effective counsel, which means, according
to principle 21 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, it is the duty of the competent
authorities to ensure lawyers have access to appropriate information, files and documents in
their possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal
assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time.
The effectiveness of the legal counsel is related to the principle of equality of arms, as
enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which draws on the
right of detainees to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present their
defence, with legal counsel.
48.
In the cases of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy, the source alleges that the right to
prompt and effective legal counsel has been totally denied by the authorities. They have been
completely prevented from communicating with their lawyers during their detention.
49.
According to the source, the Supreme State Security Prosecution is a special branch
of the Public Prosecution that has more powers when it comes to detaining suspects.7 When
indicted, defendants are referred to one of three categories of special courts: emergency State
security courts, terrorism circuits or military courts.
5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011).
6 Para. 34.
7 Amnesty International, Permanent State of Exception: Abuses by the Supreme State Security
Prosecution (2019).
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
7
50.
The source claims that special courts should not be created to displace the jurisdiction
of ordinary courts.8 They should not examine offences that fall within the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts. In addition, when special courts exist, they must be independent and
impartial and respect fair trial standards.9 The Covenant and regional human rights treaties
do not expressly prohibit the establishment of special or specialized courts. However, they
require all courts to be competent, independent and impartial. 10 The Human Rights
Committee, in its general comment No. 13 (1984) on the rights contained in article 14 of the
Covenant, raised concerns about the nature of military or special courts, stating that quite
often the reason for the establishment of such courts was to enable exceptional procedures to
be applied that did not comply with normal standards of justice.
51.
For the source, the reason for the exceptional character of the special courts is that fair
trial rights are more likely to be violated before the special courts. Human rights bodies have
raised concerns about procedures in such courts, which are inconsistent with fair trial rights,
including the right to a trial before an independent, impartial court, the exclusion of evidence
obtained by torture or other ill-treatment and the right to appeal to a higher tribunal.11
52.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases have been
investigated by the Supreme State Security Prosecution. This is a form of special prosecution
that refers cases to special security-related courts, where standards of fair trial, regard for
evidence and due process have been violated to allow injustices, through which the
Government allegedly aims to intimidate its opponents and prevent them from enjoying their
rights and freedoms.
53.
The source further claims that the rights of any detainee to communicate with the
outside world and be visited by family are fundamental safeguards against any attempts by
the authorities to engage in human rights violations against the detainee, including torture or
any other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
54.
According to article 17 (2) (d) of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, detained and imprisoned persons have the right
to communicate with and be visited by their families. The right to receive visits applies to all
detainees, regardless of the offence of which they are suspected or accused.12 Under principle
19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment, this right can be subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions that
are appropriate to a legitimate aim.
55.
The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy has been allowed visits by his family only
occasionally, under severe restrictions, with no legitimate aim.
56.
In addition, the source argues that Ms. Abdelhalim was subjected to torture and other
ill-treatment during the time she was subjected to enforced disappearance. She was detained
in a dark room, while violently threatened with rape, electrocution and bodily harm, to coerce
her to incriminate herself. These practices violate her right to be free from any act that could
cause severe suffering, whether physical or mental, and that is inflicted intentionally on a
person. This is reported as a violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.13
57.
According to the source, the right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or
punishment is absolute. This applies in all circumstances, and it may never be restricted,
including during times of war or states of emergency. No exceptional circumstances
whatsoever, including threats of terrorism or other violent crime, may be invoked to justify
8 Principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; and sections A (4) (e) and L
(c) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
9 Commission on Human Rights, resolution 2005/30.
10 Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and article 14 of the Covenant.
11 A/63/223, paras. 24, 27 and 32; and A/HRC/13/37/Add.2, paras. 32–35.
12 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Marc Romulus v. Haiti, Case No. 1992, Resolution,
27 May 1977.
13 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i).
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
8
torture or other ill-treatment. Such prohibition applies irrespective of the offence allegedly
committed by the accused person.14
58.
Every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health. 15 This right extends not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also to
underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water and sanitation.16 Moreover,
sick prisoners whose health conditions require specialist treatment are to be transferred to
specialized institutions or to civil hospitals.17 The failure to provide access to adequate health
care has been held to violate the rights to health.18
59.
The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy’s case shows an intentional practice maintained
by the authorities to deny him his right to access medical care, which puts his life at serious
risk of death or irreparable harm. Mr. El-Elaimy’s health is reportedly at grave risk due to
the intentional restrictions set by the prison authorities that prevent him from having a
medical examination and accessing treatment inside or outside the prison.
Response from the Government
60.
On 13 August 2021, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 12 October 2021, detailed information about the
situation of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim and to clarify the legal provisions justifying
their continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of Egypt under
international human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the
State. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government of Egypt to ensure their
physical and mental integrity.
61.
The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply nor did it
request an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work19.
Discussion
62.
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.
63.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim was
arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to
deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood
to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.20 In the present case, the
Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the
source.
64.
The source claims that the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy constitutes
arbitrary deprivation of their liberty, falling within categories I, II and III of the arbitrary
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i).
15 Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; article 16 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
general comment No. 14 (2000), paras. 34, 4, 11, 43 and 44; rules 25 and 27 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
16 Council of Europe, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), “Third general report on the CPT’s activities”, document CPT/Inf
(93) 12, 4 June 1993, para. 53.
17 First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), para. 22.
18 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Media Rights Agenda and Constitutional Rights
Project v. Nigeria, Cases No. 105/93, No. 128/94, No. 130/94 and No. 152/96, Decision, 31 October
1998; and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, International Pen, Constitutional
Rights Project, Interights on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria,
Cases No. 137/94, No. 139/94, No. 154/96 and No. 161/97, Decision, 31 October 1998.
19 A/HRC/36/38.
20 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
9
detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to
it.
Category I
65.
In support of the claim that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s arrest and
detention are arbitrary under category I, the source submits that there is no legal basis or
justification, as they were arrested without being shown an arrest warrant or being provided
with a legal explanation for their arrests, violating their right to liberty.
66.
From the information received from the source, when Mr. El-Elaimy was arrested, on
25 June 2019, by a number of national security agents in plain clothes, there was no indication
that an arrest warrant was shown or that he was provided with a legal explanation of the
reasons behind his arrest. Similarly, when plain clothed and uniformed security officers
stormed Ms. Abdelhalim’s place of residence and violently searched the house before
arresting her, they did not show her an arrest warrant or provide a legal explanation for her
arrest.
67.
International law concerning the right to personal liberty allows restrictions to this
right and includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant in cases that do not involve
arrests made in flagrante delicto, to ensure the objectivity of the arrest process. It is also
required that the decision on whether the arrest is warranted be taken by an outside authority,
that is, a competent, independent and impartial judiciary. This is procedurally inherent in the
right to personal liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation under articles
3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
Additionally, the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 35 (2014), stated
that any person is to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and that
that requirement applied broadly to the reasons for any deprivation of liberty.21
68.
The Working Group finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of
liberty, the authorities should have informed Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy of the
reasons at the time of the arrest, as well as promptly informed them of the charges. Their
failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle
10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment. It also renders their arrest devoid of any legal basis.
69.
The source’s claim is that Ms. Abdelhalim was forcibly disappeared for five days,
before she appeared before the prosecution, preventing her family from knowing her fate and
whereabouts. The Working Group therefore considers that Ms. Abdelhalim was subjected to
enforced disappearance during the five days. As the Human Rights Committee has held,
enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.22
Such deprivation of liberty, entailing a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention, lacks any valid legal basis under any
circumstance and is inherently arbitrary, as it places the person outside the protection of the
law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.23 The Working
Group refers the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances.
21 Para. 24.
22 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
23 See article 1 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which
condemns any act of enforced disappearance as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United
Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms
proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in
international instruments in this field, as well as opinions No. 82/2018, para. 28; No. 18/2019, para.
33; No. 22/2019, para. 67; No. 26/2019, para. 88; No. 28/2019, para. 61; No. 29/2019, para. 54; No.
36/2019, para. 35; No. 41/2019, para. 32; No. 42/2019, para. 48; No. 51/2019, para. 58; No. 56/2019,
para. 79; No. 6/2020, para. 43; No. 11/2020, para. 41; No. 13/2020, para. 52; No. 31/2020, para. 43;
No. 32/2020, para. 35; No. 33/2020, paras. 58 and 73; and No. 34/2020, para. 49. See also article 22
of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
10
70.
The right not to suffer enforced disappearance is considered a non-derogable right,
even in a state of emergency.24 According to the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, people deprived of liberty must be held only
in a place of detention that is officially recognized (art. 17 (2) (c)). States must ensure that
no one is held secretly in detention (art. 17 (1)) and are to provide the detainee’s family and
lawyer with accurate information on the detention (art. 18).
71.
Following his appearance before the Supreme State Security Prosecution, Mr. El-
Elaimy underwent pretrial detention in Tora prison for 15 days, and the detention was
periodically renewed pending investigations. Since completing his one-year sentence in one
case, Mr. El-Elaimy has been in pretrial detention at Tora prison in another case pending
investigations. His detention continues to be renewed approximately every 45 days.
72.
Equally, Ms. Abdelhalim’s pretrial detention in the Al-Qanater women’s prison was
periodically renewed for one year and 8 months following her arrest until, on 8 February
2021, when it was ordered that she be released in that case. Since her reappearance before
the Supreme State Security Prosecution on 9 February 2021 in a new case, Ms. Abdelhalim’s
pretrial detention in the Al-Qanater women’s prison has been continually renewed for 15-day
periods pending investigations.
73.
Both Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim have endured pretrial detention for varying
periods. The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
pretrial detention is to be the exception rather than the norm and is to be ordered for the
shortest time possible.25 In other words, liberty is protected under article 9 (3) of the Covenant
as the core consideration, with detention as an exception. Detention pending trial must
therefore be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for
such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.
74.
With regard to Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim, the Working Group finds that the
Government has violated articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9 of the Covenant, and principles 11, 37 and 38 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
75.
The Working Group therefore concludes that the detention of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms.
Abdelhalim lacks a legal basis and is therefore arbitrary, falling under category I.
Category II
76.
The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy’s and Ms. Abdelhalim’s detention is arbitrary
in accordance with category II, because it is derived directly from political work and freedom
of expression. The two were originally charged under the case known as the Hope Coalition
case of the Supreme State Security Prosecution. In that case, the arrests and detention of the
two, along with other political figures and activists, are linked to their involvement in
establishing a peaceful political party to run for parliamentary election.
77.
After being granted a release in the Hope Coalition case, both Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms.
Abdelhalim were accused under new cases in the phenomenon called case rotation. The new
cases include, in the case of Ms. Abdelhalim, allegedly organizing a secret cell from inside
prison and communicating with leaders of a foreign terrorist group and, in the case of Mr.
El-Elaimy, fabricated charges based solely on his political activism and the exercise of his
freedom of expression.
78.
The Working Group is satisfied with the source’s explanation that deprivation of
liberty of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim results from the exercise of universally
recognized human rights, in particular the right to freedoms of opinion, expression and
peaceful assembly. Freedoms of opinion and expression and of peaceful assembly are
fundamental human rights enshrined in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.26 The Government must respect,
protect and fulfil the right to hold and express opinions, including those that are not in
24 A/HRC/13/42, para. 50.
25 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
26 Yong Joo-Kang v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/78/D/878/1999), annex, para. 7.2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
11
accordance with its official policy, and to think and manifest personal convictions at odds
with its official ideology, under the peremptory norms of customary international law.27
79.
The Human Rights Committee has stated that restrictions on freedom of expression
must not be overbroad and must conform to the principle of proportionality, be appropriate
to achieve their protective function, be the least intrusive instrument among those that might
achieve their protective function and be proportionate to the interest to be protected.28 It is
worth noting that the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is
particularly high in the circumstances of public debate in a democratic society concerning
figures in the public and political domain.
80.
Furthermore, article 25 of the Covenant states that every citizen is to have the right
and the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to vote and to be elected
at genuine periodic elections. According to the Human Rights Committee, in its general
comment No. 25 (1996), the conduct of public affairs relates to the exercise of political
power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers.29
81.
Consequently, the Working Group is of the opinion that the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim, being motivated by the Government’s intention to
prevent freedom of expression and the right to participate in public affairs, protected by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, falls under category II violations.
Category III
82.
With regard to the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy being arbitrary
under category III, the source submits that the two have been denied their right to a fair trial
and due process guarantees. In particular, the source notes that Mr. El-Elaimy’s right to
promptly have recourse to effective legal counsel has been totally denied by the authorities.
Both have been completely prevented from communicating with their lawyers during their
detention and were not tried before impartial and independent tribunals. Family visitation
was severely restricted in the case of Mr. El-Elaimy, and Ms. Abdelhalim was subjected to
torture and other ill-treatment during her enforced disappearance. As has been noted, these
allegations have not been rebutted by the Government.
83.
Given its findings that the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy is arbitrary
under category I, the Working Group considers that there was total or partial non-observance
of the international norms associated with the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant international instruments to which the States
concerned are a party.
84.
In addition, and in relation to the right to counsel, the source alleges that Mr. El-
Elaimy was denied his right to contact or meet with his lawyer, as the lawyer has not been
allowed to visit him in prison. His lawyer has not been permitted to have access to copies of
the arrest record, the record of the investigations carried out by the Security Services, the
charges or official legal documents pertaining to Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases.
85.
As the Working Group has stated, principle 9 and guideline 8 of 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, persons deprived of their
liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their
detention, including immediately after apprehension, and must be promptly informed of this
right upon apprehension. Access to legal counsel should not be unlawfully or unreasonably
restricted.30
86.
A detainee should also have access to effective counsel, which, according to principle
21 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, means that it is the duty of the competent
authorities to ensure lawyers access to appropriate information, files and documents in their
27 Opinions No. 94/2017, para. 59; No. 88/2017, para. 32; No. 83/2017, para. 80; and No. 76/2017, para.
62.
28 General comment No. 34 (2011).
29 Para. 5
30 A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 12–15 and 67–71.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
12
possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance
to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time. The
effectiveness of legal counsel is related to the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in
article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which draws on the right of
detainees to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present their defence,
with legal counsel, at the trial.
87.
In the view of the Working Group, the Government failed to respect Mr. El-Elaimy’s
right to legal assistance at all times. The Working Group emphasizes that legal assistance
should be available at all stages of criminal proceedings, namely, during pretrial, trial, retrial
and appellate stages, to ensure compliance with fair trial guarantees. Any denial of access to
lawyers is therefore a breach of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. This violation substantially
undermined and compromised Mr. El-Elaimy’s capacity to defend himself in the judicial
proceedings.
88.
The Working Group notes the denial of Mr. El-Elaimy’s right to be visited by his
family, contrary to principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and rules 43 (3) and 58 of the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela
Rules). Giving regular access to family members, as well as lawyers, is an essential and
necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture, as well as protection against arbitrary
detention and infringement of personal security.31 Principle 15 of the Body of Principles
provides that communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world,
and in particular his or her family or counsel, is not to be denied for more than a matter of
days.
89.
Regarding trial by special courts, the Working Group notes that special courts may
not be created to displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.32 They should not examine
offences that fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In addition, when special courts
exist, they must be independent and impartial and respect fair trial standards.33 All courts,
whether regular or special, must be competent, independent and impartial.34 The Human
Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 13 (1984) regarding the rights contained in
article 14 of the Covenant, raised concerns about the nature of military or special courts,
stating that quite often the reason for the establishment of such courts was to enable
exceptional procedures to be applied that did not comply with normal standards of justice.
90.
The source claims that the Supreme State Security Prosecution is a special branch of
the Public Prosecution that has more powers when it comes to detaining suspects. When
indicted, defendants are referred to one of three categories of special courts: emergency State
security courts, terrorism circuits or military courts. The Working Group agrees that special
courts should not examine offences that fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
91.
The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases have been
investigated by the Supreme State Security Prosecution. This is a form of special prosecution
that refers cases to special security-related courts, where standards of fair trial, regard for
evidence and due process have been violated to allow injustices, through which the
Government allegedly aims to intimidate its opponents and prevent them from enjoying their
freedoms and rights.
92.
Ms. Abdelhalim was under enforced disappearance for five days at the national
security premises in Shubra Al-Khaimah, during which time she was allegedly kept in a dark
room and continuously threated with being beaten and electrocuted and subjected to forms
31 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 74; No. 30/2018, para. 47; No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 39/2018, para. 41;
No. 47/2018, para. 71; No. 22/2019, para. 71; No. 36/2019, para. 56; No. 44/2019, paras. 74–75; No.
45/2019, para. 76; No. 56/2019, para. 83; No. 65/2019, para. 68; No. 6/2020, para. 54; No. 11/2020,
para. 54; No. 31/2020, para. 51; No. 32/2020, para. 59; No. 33/2020, para. 87; and No. 34/2020, para.
57.
32 Principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; and sections A (4) (e) and L
(c) of Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
33 Commission on Human Rights, resolution 2005/30.
34 Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and article 14 of the Covenant.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
13
of torture and other inhuman treatment, which was allegedly a violation of the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.35 The right
to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute. It applies in all
circumstances and it may never be restricted, including during times of war or states of
emergency. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of terrorism or other
violent crime, may be invoked to justify torture or other ill-treatment. Such prohibition
applies irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person.36
93.
The Working Group has repeatedly asserted that enforced disappearance violates the
right to contest the legality of a detention before a court or tribunal.37 Judicial oversight of
any detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty38 and is critical in ensuring that
detention has a legitimate basis. The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the
allegation of torture during Ms. Abdelhalim’s enforced disappearance.
94.
The source also claims that Mr. El-Elaimy was intentionally denied the right to access
medical care, which put his life at serious risk or risked irreparable damage to his health. Mr.
El-Elaimy is reportedly at a grave risk, due to the intentional restrictions by the prison
authorities that prevent his access to a medical examination and treatment inside or outside
the prison, at his family’s expense.
95.
The Working Group reiterates that every detainee has the right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health.39 This right extends not only to timely and
appropriate health care, but also to underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food,
water and sanitation.40 Moreover, sick prisoners whose health conditions require specialist
treatment are to be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals.41 The failure to
provide access to adequate health care has been held to violate the right to health.42
96.
The Working Group considers that, in the deprivation of Mr. El-Elaimy’s and Ms.
Abdelhalim’s liberty, there were multiple violations of the international norms relating to the
right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Covenant, to such an extent as to give to the detention an arbitrary character under category
III.
Category V
97.
The source has not specifically made claims that the detention of Mr. El-Elaimy and
Ms. Abdelhalim also constituted a category V violation. The Working Group has, however,
made its assessment on the facts presented.
98.
The Working Group considers that Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim were targeted
because of their peaceful activities in the course of exercising their freedom of expression
35 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i).
36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i).
37 Opinions No. 16/2020, No. 15/2020, No. 45/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 9/2019, No. 35/2018, No.
46/2017 and No. 45/2017.
38 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; A/HRC/30/37, para. 3; and
CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, para. 24.
39 Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; article 16 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
general comment No. 14 (2000), paras. 34, 4, 11, 43 and 44; and rules 25 and 27 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules.
40 Council of Europe, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), “Third general report on the CPT’s activities”, document CPT/Inf
(93) 12, 4 June 1993, para. 53.
41 First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), para. 22.
42 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Media Rights Agenda and Constitutional Rights
Project v. Nigeria, Cases No. 105/93, No. 128/94, No. 130/94 and No. 152/96, Decision, 31 October
1998; and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, International Pen, Constitutional
Rights Project, Interights on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria,
Cases No. 137/94, No. 139/94, No. 154/96 and No. 161/97, Decision, 31 October 1998.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
14
and association and the right to participate in the governance of their country within the
framework of the Hope Coalition, which entailed joining with other activists in criticizing
the State. In the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that
Mr. El-Elaimy’s and Ms. Abdelhalim’s detention had resulted from the peaceful exercise of
their rights under international law. When a detention results from the active exercise of civil
and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation
of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.43
99.
The Working Group finds that Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim were deprived of
their liberty on discriminatory grounds, that is, owing to their status as opposition of the
Government, and on the basis of their political or other opinion. Their deprivation of liberty
violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and
26 of the Covenant and was arbitrary according to category V.
Disposition
100.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Zyad El-Elaimy and Louaya Sabri Alshahat Abdelhalim,
being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 6, 9, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 25 and 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I, II, III and V.
101.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim 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 Covenant.
102.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim
immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in
accordance with international law. In the current context of the global COVID-19 pandemic
and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the
Government to take urgent action to ensure the immediate unconditional release of Mr. El-
Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim.
103.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. El-
Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for
the violation of their rights.
104.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
for appropriate action.
105.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
106.
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. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim have been released and, if so, on
what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. El-Elaimy
and Ms. Abdelhalim;
43 Opinions No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 13/2018, para. 34; and No. 88/2017, para. 43.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79
15
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. El-
Elaimy’s and Ms. Abdelhalim’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 Egypt with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
107.
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.
108.
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.
109.
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.44
[Adopted on 19 November 2021]
44 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.