Opinion; Subjects: ALGERIA, 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.22-11848 (E) 300922 031022
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-third session, 30 March–8 April 2022
Opinion No. 15/2022 concerning Kamira Nait Sid (Algeria)
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 9 December 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Algeria a communication concerning Kamira Nait Sid. The
Government replied to the communication on 26 January 2022. 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/2022/15
General Assembly
Distr.: General
28 July 2022
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
2
GE.22-11848
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Kamira Nait Sid, an Algerian national born in 1968, is the manager of a company that
makes traditional Kabyle dresses in Draâ Ben Khedda, near Tizi Ouzou, in the Kabylia
region. She is also the Co-President of the Amazigh World Congress and a defender of the
rights of indigenous peoples. She usually resides in Tizi Ouzou in Algeria.
5.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is known for defending the rights of the
Amazigh people in her city of residence and throughout the Kabylia region. She is known
and recognized in Algeria and abroad, especially by indigenous peoples. She has participated
in numerous international meetings, particularly on human rights and climate change.
a.
Arrest and detention
6.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid was abducted from her home in Draâ Ben
Khedda by unidentified men in civilian clothes in the afternoon of 24 August 2021. She was
driven in an unmarked car, escorted by two other vehicles, to an unknown location in Algiers.
She was not seen again until 1 September 2021, when she was brought before the prosecutor
and then before the judge of the Sidi M’Hamed Court in Algiers. Her relatives, friends,
colleagues and lawyer heard no news of her for seven days. The source deduces that Ms. Nait
Sid was held in incommunicado detention by the Algerian security services from 24 August
to 1 September 2021, during which time she had no contact with the outside world.
7.
To date, neither Ms. Nait Sid’s family nor her lawyers know who abducted her, where
she was detained, what her detention conditions were like or what state of health she was in
between 24 August and 1 September 2021. According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid may have
been abducted by the Algerian Investigation and Intervention Brigade.
8.
The source states that it does not know whether an arrest warrant was shown to Ms.
Nait Sid at the time of her arrest and specifies that the decision to arrest her was taken by the
public prosecutor attached to the Sidi M’Hamed Court, on the basis of articles 51, 51 bis, and
51 bis 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9.
On 1 September 2021, the investigating judge of the Sidi M’Hamed Court decided to
place Ms. Nait Sid in pretrial detention in the administrative prison in Kolea. She was held
in a shared cell with nine other women. Some of her cellmates were Islamists whose
ideologies were contrary to her principles and values, while others were persons who had
already been convicted.
10.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is being prosecuted on extremely serious,
politically motivated charges in an attempt to silence any dissenting voices and intimidate
civil society. The sentences for the eight charges against her range from 10 years’ to life
imprisonment. As Ms. Nait Sid is accused of belonging to a terrorist organization, her pretrial
detention may last for a period of up to four months, renewable five times.
11.
Ms. Nait Sid has been charged with the following serious and ordinary offences:
belonging to a subversive terrorist organization; advocating acts of terrorism and sabotage;
using information and communications technology to recruit and mobilize people for an
association or group whose purpose or activities fall under the section of the Criminal Code
relating to terrorist or subversive acts, or organizing such an association or group, supporting
its activities and disseminating its ideas; conspiring to carry out the criminal acts referred to
in article 77 of the Criminal Code; receiving foreign funding for propaganda purposes with
the aim of undermining the security of the State, the stability of its institutions and their
functioning; disseminating, in a premeditated manner, false information and misleading news
likely to undermine public safety and order; inciting unlawful assembly; and offences related
to racism and hate speech. These charges are based on articles 87 bis, 87 bis 4, 87 bis 12, 95,
96 bis and 97 of the Criminal Code and article 31 of Act No. 20-05 of 28 April 2020 on
Preventing and Combating Discrimination and Hate Speech.
12.
The source states that Ms. Nait Sid is separated from her lawyers by a soundproof
glass partition when she meets with them. They are forced to use signs and gestures to
communicate as the prison telephone is likely to have been tapped by prison staff. Meetings
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
3
between Ms. Nait Sid and her family take place under similar conditions. The source claims
that these restrictions and Ms. Nait Sid’s fear of reprisals prevent her from complaining or
confiding in her lawyers or family, particularly regarding the conditions of her solitary
confinement and detention.
13.
Ms. Nait Sid’s lawyers have filed appeals to demonstrate that the charge of terrorism
against her is unfounded and her detention is arbitrary. They have also sought to secure her
provisional release under judicial supervision. These appeals have gone unanswered.
14.
The source states that Ms. Nait Sid is ill and suffers from arthritis but the prison
authorities do not allow her to receive medication or even clothing from the outside. The
prison authorities ignore the fact that she is a vegetarian and prevent her relatives from
bringing her meals. She is therefore physically fatigued and is always in low spirits.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid can see her family for 15 minutes every two weeks.
The source has not received any information about her trial since 24 August 2021.
15.
Ms. Nait Sid has been detained in Kolea prison since 1 September 2021 and has yet
to appear before the investigating judge. No trial date has been set even though she is facing
two trials: one before the criminal chamber and the other before the counter-terrorism section.
The Sidi M’Hamed Court has rejected all the requests for release submitted by her lawyers.
b.
Legal analysis
16.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid’s detention is arbitrary because it is contrary to
national and international law.
17.
Firstly, Ms. Nait Sid is being denied the rights and protections guaranteed under
articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Covenant.
18.
Furthermore, Ms. Nait Sid was held incommunicado in a secret location for seven
days without being able to inform her family or her lawyer, in violation of article 51 bis 1 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which they should have been informed within the first
few hours of her alleged abduction.
19.
The source also claims that Ms. Nait Sid’s detention is contrary to the principle of the
presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 41 of the Algerian Constitution and article
14 (2) of the Covenant.
20.
The source notes that, under article 44 of the Constitution, pretrial detention is
intended to be an exceptional measure, the duration and extension of which must be governed
by law. In addition, article 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that pretrial
detention is an exceptional measure that may be ordered or maintained only when judicial
supervision is deemed insufficient and when: the accused person does not have a fixed
address or cannot provide sufficient guarantees that he or she will appear in court; the charges
are extremely serious; pretrial detention is the only way to preserve material proof or
evidence or to prevent intimidation of witnesses or victims or collusion between defendants
and their accomplices that might jeopardize the establishment of the truth; detention is
necessary to protect the defendant or to prevent the commission or recurrence of an offence;
or the defendant chooses not to comply with the obligations arising from a judicial
supervision order.
21.
In this connection, the source states that Ms. Nait Sid is a defender of the rights of the
Amazigh people who is known and recognized in Algeria and abroad. It also states that she
has always responded to summonses issued by the police and the judiciary and can provide
all the necessary guarantees that she will appear in court. The source concludes that it was
therefore not necessary to imprison her and that, at the very most, it would have been
sufficient to detain her under judicial supervision.
22.
The source claims that Algerian judges make excessive and improper use of pretrial
detention, which is intended to be an exceptional measure under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, as confirmed in a statement issued by the National Advisory Commission for the
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
4
GE.22-11848
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.2 The source notes that, under article 9 (3) of the
Covenant, “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before
a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons
awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear
for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for
execution of the judgement.” The source also notes that the Human Rights Committee has
recommended that the Government of Algeria ensure that police custody never exceeds 48
hours in any case and that it devise non-custodial measures to be used as an alternative to
pretrial detention.3
23.
The source recalls that, in 2018, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its concern
about article 87 bis of the Criminal Code as this article defines the crime of terrorism in
overly broad and vague terms that would allow for the prosecution of actions that might
constitute exercise of the freedom of expression or peaceful assembly.4
24.
Furthermore, Ms. Nait Sid is being held without being allowed to communicate freely
and confidentially with her lawyer, in violation of principle 18 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The source
notes that the glass partition separating Ms. Nait Sid from her lawyers, the possible tapping
of the telephone provided and the risk that reprisals will be taken against her prevent her from
freely discussing her detention conditions.
25.
Lastly, the source states that holding Ms. Nait Sid in a cell with nine other women,
some of whom are Islamists or convicted persons, constitutes a form of ill-treatment and
contravenes principle 8 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
26.
The source therefore concludes that Ms. Nait Sid’s detention is arbitrary.
Response from the Government
27.
On 9 December 2021, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Ms. Nait Sid to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about her by 7
February 2022 and to guarantee her physical and mental integrity.
28.
According to the Government’s response, which was sent on 26 January 2022, Ms.
Nait Sid was arrested by the criminal investigation department after thorough investigations
had been conducted under the auspices of the public prosecutor. These investigations
revealed that Ms. Nait Sid was serving as an active member of the terrorist organization
Mouvement pour l’autodétermination de la Kabylie (MAK) in Algeria and abroad under the
cover of her work for the non-governmental organization known as the Amazigh World
Congress. The investigations also shed light on her involvement in the activities of MAK,
her relations with its members through her activity within the Amazigh World Congress, and
her use of the media and communications technology to disseminate its ideas. Ms. Nait Sid
reportedly stated that she had joined MAK in 2004 and had been appointed the National
Secretary for Women’s Affairs. The Government also notes that she had interacted with the
head of MAK on several occasions.
29.
On 1 September 2021, following the preliminary investigation overseen by the public
prosecutor, Ms. Nait Sid was brought before the office of the public prosecutor attached to
the Sidi M’Hamed Court and charged with the following ordinary and serious offences: being
involved in a subversive terrorist organization; advocating acts of terrorism; using
2 National Advisory Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Mise en œuvre
de la résolution 24/12 du Conseil des droits de l’homme intitulée: ‘Les droits de l’homme dans
l’administration de la justice, y compris la justice pour mineurs’” (Implementation of Human Rights
Council resolution 24/12 on human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice),
p. 2, available at
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/OverIncarceration/CNCPPD
H_Algeria.pdf.
3 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 36.
4 Ibid., para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
5
information and communications technology to recruit people to a terrorist organization and
disseminate its ideas; conspiring to commit the offences set out in article 77 of the Criminal
Code; undermining the integrity and unity of the country; deliberately spreading false
information and misleading news that undermine public safety and order; receiving funding
for propaganda from an outside source with the aim of undermining the security of the State,
the stability of its institutions and their normal functioning; and inciting unlawful assembly.
These charges were based on articles 87 bis, 87 bis 4, 87 bis 12, 95, 96 and 97 of the Criminal
Code and article 31 of Act No. 20-05. After Ms. Nait Sid had been examined, the
investigating judge ordered her pretrial detention on 1 September 2021.
30.
The Government recalls that, under article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
person may not be held in police custody unless he or she is suspected of having committed
a criminal offence. The criminal investigation officer must immediately inform the public
prosecutor of the arrest of any person to be taken into custody and must submit a report on
the reasons for the arrest to the public prosecutor. The Government states that Ms. Nait Sid
was arrested on the basis of this article in connection with the above-mentioned offences.
31.
According to the Government, article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides
for detention for a period of 48 hours. This period may be extended only with the written
authorization of the public prosecutor and within the time limit established by law, after
which the arrested person is to be brought before the competent judge. If these time limits
are exceeded, the criminal investigation officer concerned will face the penalties established
for arbitrary detention. In addition, article 51 bis 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires
criminal investigation officers to inform arrested persons of their right to communicate with
their families and receive visits from them and their right to a medical examination by a
doctor of their choice. The public prosecutor has the right to instruct a doctor to examine the
arrested person at any time during the period of police custody, either ex officio or at the
request of a member of the arrested person’s family or his or her lawyer.
32.
The Government also notes that, under article 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
detention in police custody must take place in facilities that guarantee human dignity and are
known in advance to the public prosecutor’s office and intended for that purpose. The
location of these facilities is also communicated to the regional public prosecutor, who may
visit them at any time to check whether the prisoner’s rights are being upheld. Places of
detention are open to receiving regular visits from national and foreign non-governmental
organizations.
33.
The Government affirms that these custody procedures are in compliance with articles
44 and 45 of the Constitution and article 9 (2) and (3) of the Covenant. In the present case, it
considers that Ms. Nait Sid’s detention is not arbitrary since it was carried out under judicial
supervision and in connection with a criminal prosecution. Moreover, neither Ms. Nait Sid
nor her lawyer has filed a complaint concerning a violation of these rights.
34.
According to the Government, Algerian law establishes procedures that enable
accused persons to appear before an investigating judge. Pretrial detention is a temporary
measure that may be used only in specific cases. Under articles 123 and 123 bis of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, investigating judges have the discretionary power to opt for any of
the measures referred to therein, taking into account: the guarantees provided by the accused
person regarding his or her appearance in court; the seriousness of the charges brought against
him or her; the impact of his or her release on the preservation of evidence; the need to protect
witnesses and victims from being intimidated and to prevent anything from hindering the
establishment of the truth; and the need to put an end to the offence or to prevent it from
being committed again. Ms. Nait Sid was placed in pretrial detention on the basis of these
considerations.
35.
In addition, the Government notes that, under articles 123 bis and 127 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, Ms. Nait Sid had the right to appeal against the detention order issued
by the investigating judge and to submit to the judge an application for release, which must
be considered within two days. In accordance with article 126 of the Code, the investigating
judge may release a person of his or her own motion if it appears that pretrial detention is no
longer justified. Furthermore, the public prosecutor may issue a request for release, on which
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
6
GE.22-11848
the investigating judge must rule within 48 hours. When this time period has expired, if the
investigating judge has failed to issue a ruling, the person must be released immediately.
36.
According to the Government, Ms. Nait Sid filed an appeal against the detention order
of the investigating judge and a request for provisional release. She did not file any
complaints in this regard.
37.
The Government maintains that pretrial detention is an exceptional measure regulated
by law in such a way as to ensure the right of the person concerned to be tried within a
reasonable time. In cases involving ordinary offences, article 124 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure prohibits the detention of persons residing temporarily in Algeria if the maximum
penalty established by law for the offence concerned is a prison term of 3 years or less. An
exception to this rule is made for certain serious offences. In such cases, the period of
detention is not renewable and may not exceed one month. In addition, article 125 of the
Code provides that the duration of pretrial detention may not exceed four months in cases
involving ordinary offences and cases other than those provided for in article 124.
38.
However, when it appears necessary to keep a person in police custody, the
investigating judge may, on the basis of a reasoned opinion issued by the public prosecutor,
hand down a reasoned order ruling that the accused person should be kept in pretrial
detention. This may take place twice, with each period of detention lasting four months. If
the time limits are exceeded, the investigating judge and the prison governor will face the
penalties established by law for arbitrary detention.
39.
Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to questioning, requires
investigating judges to notify accused persons of the charges against them, their right to
remain silent and their right to choose a lawyer or to have one appointed. Article 157 of the
Code states that the proceedings, and any subsequent proceedings, must be declared null and
void if these provisions are violated. The right to counsel is provided for throughout the
inquiry procedures, including those relating to the accused person’s initial appearance in
court.
40.
According to the Government, neither Ms. Nait Sid nor her lawyer has filed a
complaint concerning a violation of these rights or time limits. Consequently, the
Government considers that Algerian law is in compliance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant
and article 44 of the Constitution, which establishes the exceptional nature of pretrial
detention. Ms. Nait Sid has been detained in accordance with the laws in force and in the
course of criminal proceedings. Therefore, her detention cannot be classified as arbitrary.
41.
Glass partitions and telephones were used during meetings between prisoners and
their lawyers in accordance with a ministerial memorandum issued on 16 March 2020 with
a view to curbing the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). These measures were
lifted in accordance with a ministerial memorandum of 9 November 2021. Ms. Nait Sid has
been visited by her lawyer on 34 occasions. A partition was in place for 15 of these visits,
while 19 visits took place without one.
42.
The frequency and maximum duration (20 minutes) of family visits have also been
established by ministerial memorandums, in accordance with which Ms. Nait Sid’s family
visits, like those of other prisoners, take place every two weeks and involve the use of a glass
partition and a telephone. Since 5 September 2021, Ms. Nait Sid has received 11 visits, the
most recent of which was on 21 January 2022. Her family has been allowed to bring her
clothing on four occasions, most recently on 24 December 2021.
43.
Ms. Nait Sid’s medical records, which were consulted under the supervision of the
Chief of the Health and Social Assistance Service, show that she has undergone eight medical
examinations, the last of which took place on 15 January 2022, and that she does not suffer
from arthritis or any other chronic illness.
44.
Ms. Nait Sid receives her food in the same way that other inmates do, in accordance
with the weekly programme established and overseen by the administration and the prison
doctor. Her medical records do not mention that she follows any particular diet. The
Government notes that authorization for families to bring food into the prison during visits
has been suspended by ministerial memorandum as one of the preventive health measures
taken in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
7
45.
Lastly, prisoners are categorized according to the status of the proceedings against
them, their sex, their age and the charges against them. Women accused of terrorism and
sabotage are assigned to cells on the basis of the organization to which they belong and are
not placed with other categories of prisoners. Therefore, the fact that Ms. Nait Sid is being
held with prisoners charged with terrorism may be justified on the grounds that she herself is
facing such charges.
Further information from the source
46.
In the source’s view, the Government merely cites the law in its response without
addressing the various allegations that have been made. The source maintains that the
Government’s response is vague in that it does not refer to the facts or to any evidence.
47.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid has been chairing the Amazigh World Congress
since 2015. Under the rules of procedure of the Congress, she is forbidden from belonging
to, or campaigning for, any political organization. Ms. Nait Sid told the investigating judge
that she had been a member of MAK in 2004 and that she had resigned in 2005, the year in
which she joined the Congress. Her dealings with members of MAK and other political and
civil society organizations are solely related to human rights issues.
48.
The source notes that, under article 2 of the Criminal Code, the law may not have
retroactive effect. MAK was classified as a terrorist organization on 18 May 2021, before
which date it had been permitted to organize conferences, meetings and marches. Therefore,
the charge of terrorism brought against Ms. Nait Sid on account of her membership of MAK
prior to that date is unfounded. Furthermore, the charge is not based on any act carried out
by Ms. Nait Sid or any aggressive words spoken by her.
49.
The charges brought against Ms. Nait Sid in the present case are not based on any
specific established or documented facts and reflect only the Government’s desire to punish
her for her activism. She has been harassed by the police and the Algerian judiciary for
several years.
50.
The source notes that the Government makes no reference to Ms. Nait Sid’s detention
between 24 August and 1 September 2021 or to the manner in which she was abducted and
held in incommunicado detention for seven days.
51.
The source explains that victims and lawyers in Algeria often do not file complaints
for violations of their rights for fear of reprisals from the administration, the police or the
judiciary.
52.
The source believes that the measures taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic
cannot be used to justify any infringement of the confidentiality and privacy to which
prisoners, their families and their lawyers are entitled. It notes that other prisons around the
world have implemented health measures that enable prisoners and their lawyers to
communicate without using a telephone.
53.
The source also notes that the Government makes no mention of clothing being taken
into the prison between 5 October and 24 December 2021, thus confirming the claim that Ms.
Nait Sid’s family were prevented from bringing her clothes, at least during this period. In
addition, the source argues that prisoners are treated in a discriminatory manner since the
administration takes account of the fact that some women prisoners follow a halal diet but
disregards Ms. Nait Sid’s vegetarianism.
54.
Furthermore, the source affirms that the medical examinations cited by the
Government attest to Ms. Nait Sid’s poor state of health, which continues to deteriorate. Ms.
Nait Sid suffers from functional bowel disease and has a goitre that requires regular
monitoring. The pains in her joints have caused near paralysis in one of her arms and confirm
that she has arthritis.
55.
According to the source, the Government’s justification for placing Ms. Nait Sid in
detention together with women charged with terrorism and sabotage violates the principle of
the presumption of innocence. Ms. Nait Sid is being held alongside women who have pledged
allegiance to Da’esh and returned from combat zones in the Syrian Arab Republic. These
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
8
GE.22-11848
inmates pose a danger to Ms. Nait Sid, whose moral and philosophical beliefs are entirely
opposed to theirs.
56.
Lastly, the source notes that Ms. Nait Sid’s pretrial detention was renewed in January
2022, despite the fact that, under article 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such
detention is classified as an exceptional measure.
Discussion
57.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
58.
In determining whether Ms. Nait Sid’s deprivation of liberty is 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. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.5
59.
The Working Group will consider whether the detention of Ms. Nait Sid is arbitrary
under the relevant categories provided for in its methods of work.6
Category I
60.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid was abducted from her home on 24 August
2021 by unidentified men in civilian clothes who probably belonged to the Investigation and
Intervention Brigade. She was driven in an unmarked car, escorted by two other vehicles, to
Algiers, where she was detained in an unknown location. On 1 September 2021, she was
brought before the prosecutor and then before a judge of the Sidi M’Hamed Court. During
the intervening seven days, she had no contact with the outside world and neither her relatives
nor her lawyer knew where she was or what state she was in. According to the Government,
Ms. Nait Sid was arrested by the criminal investigation department following an investigation
into terrorist offences conducted under the supervision of the public prosecutor’s office. On
1 September 2021, she appeared before the prosecutor and the investigating judge, who
placed her in pretrial detention. The Government did not provide any information on the
place, date or time of Ms. Nait Sid’s arrest and did not state whether she had been shown an
arrest warrant or informed of the reasons for her arrest, even though such information should
be available to the Government.
61.
In the absence of this information, the Working Group considers that the allegations
that Ms. Nait Sid was abducted are credible and that the Government has not refuted them.
The abductors have not been identified but, in view of the circumstances, there is every reason
to believe that they were acting on behalf of the Government. Ms. Nait Sid was reportedly
brought before the prosecutor after being held incommunicado for seven days. In order to be
able to arrest her at the end of this period, the authorities must have been involved in her
abduction and must have known where she was. She was therefore deprived of her liberty
against her will, with the involvement of State agents who concealed her fate and
whereabouts during this period. 7 The Working Group considers that Ms. Nait Sid was
subjected to enforced disappearance between 24 August and 1 September 2021 and refers the
case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
62.
Enforced disappearances violate numerous substantive and procedural provisions of
the Covenant, including articles 9 and 14, and constitute a particularly aggravated form of
arbitrary detention.8 In particular, the abduction of Ms. Nait Sid on 24 August 2021 took
place without the legal processes being respected and with no judicial oversight, in violation
of the requirement under article 9 (1) of the Covenant that no one may be deprived of his or
her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established
by law. Although the source does not know whether Ms. Nait Sid was shown an arrest
5 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
6 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8.
7 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 21; and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 29–30.
8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17; and opinions No. 37/2021, para.
65; No. 41/2020, para. 61; and No. 11/2020, para. 41.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
9
warrant, the Working Group is convinced that the applicable procedure was not respected
during the abduction. The Government has not provided any clarification on this point.
Furthermore, Ms. Nait Sid’s abduction constitutes a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant,
which requires that anyone arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for
the arrest. As the authorities failed to comply with the applicable procedures, including the
obligation to produce an arrest warrant9 and to inform Ms. Nait Sid of the reasons for her
arrest,10 it was impossible for them to invoke any legal basis for her detention.
63.
According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge is to be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has noted,
48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly”
before a judge following arrest, and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and
be justified under the circumstances.11 The source claims that Ms. Nait Sid was not brought
before a judicial authority until 1 September 2021, seven days after her abduction. The
Government cites the applicable law on police custody, including the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and claims that Ms. Nait Sid’s detention was overseen by
the courts and that neither she nor her lawyer has complained of a violation of her rights.
However, the Government does not specifically address the source’s allegations, including
those concerning the length of time that Ms. Nait Sid spent in police custody between her
arrest and her initial appearance in court on 1 September 2021. Therefore, the Working Group
considers that the authorities have violated Ms. Nait Sid’s right to be brought promptly before
a judge, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
64.
Furthermore, the Working Group considers that, when Ms. Nait Sid appeared before
the investigating judge on 1 September 2021, she did not have a real opportunity to challenge
the lawfulness of her detention since she had been subjected to enforced disappearance and
held in incommunicado detention until the hearing and had therefore not been able to consult
her lawyer.12 Holding persons incommunicado violates their right to challenge the lawfulness
of their detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.13 Ms. Nait Sid was denied
this right and her right to an effective remedy, which is enshrined in article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant. She was also placed outside
the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 16 of the Covenant.
65.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid has been in pretrial detention since 1 September
2021. Her lawyers have submitted several petitions to the court to show that the charges of
terrorism are unfounded and have submitted requests for her provisional release, all of which
have been rejected by the Sidi M’Hamed Court. The source argues that, under national and
international law, pretrial detention should be an exceptional measure imposed only when
certain specific conditions have been met. According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is a well-
known human rights defender who has always responded to police summonses and there is
no reason for her to be kept in detention pending trial. According to the Government, Ms.
Nait Sid was placed in pretrial detention on the basis of articles 123 and 123 bis of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, which set out the factors that the investigating judge must take into
consideration in imposing the measure. She exercised her right to appeal against the detention
order and submitted a request for provisional release but did not file a complaint alleging a
violation of her rights.
9 Opinions No. 45/2019, para. 51; and No. 44/2019, para. 52 (recalling that it is not sufficient for there
to be a law that authorizes the arrest; the authorities must invoke that law and apply it through an
arrest warrant).
10 Opinions No. 4/2021, para. 83; No. 46/2020, para. 40; and No. 59/2019, para. 46 (stating that an
arrest is arbitrary if the arrested person is not informed of the reasons for the arrest).
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33; CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 35–
36; and A/HRC/10/21, para. 54 (d).
12 Opinion No. 61/2020, para. 70 (noting that the assistance of a lawyer is an essential guarantee of the
right to challenge one’s detention in court). See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No.
35 (2014), para. 46; and opinion No. 37/2021, para. 66.
13 Opinions No. 36/2020, para. 53; and No. 16/2020, para. 62. See also A/HRC/10/21, para. 54 (e).
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
10
GE.22-11848
66.
According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention must be the exception
rather than the rule and should be ordered for the shortest possible length of time.14 It must
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.15 Courts
must consider the appropriateness of imposing alternative measures such as bail. 16 In
determining whether the conditions governing pretrial detention have been met, the Working
Group focuses on whether the national courts have taken into account the particular
circumstances of the person concerned but does not check whether there are risks that would
make detention necessary.17
67.
In the case of Ms. Nait Sid, it appears that the investigating judge took into account
the conditions mentioned in articles 123 and 123 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
ordering pretrial detention, namely the risk of flight, tampering with evidence and recidivism.
However, the Government does not clearly indicate whether the investigating judge assessed
the appropriateness of imposing alternatives to detention. It notes that national law provides
for procedures to ensure that defendants appear at trial, including pretrial detention, but it
does not refer to the possibility of imposing non-custodial measures (such as bail, mandatory
reporting to the authorities, or electronic bracelets), nor does it specify whether or how, in
Ms. Nait Sid’s case, the investigating judge considered imposing one of these measures,
rather than pretrial detention. Consequently, Ms. Nait Sid’s pretrial detention is not in
compliance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant and has no legal basis.18
68.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Ms. Nait Sid’s arrest and detention have
no legal basis and are arbitrary under category I.
Category II
69.
The source claims that Ms. Nait Sid has not been afforded the right to freedom of
opinion and expression or the right of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities to enjoy their
own culture, to profess and practise their own religion and to use their own language, as
guaranteed by articles 19 and 27 of the Covenant.
70.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is facing extremely serious, politically
motivated charges that are aimed at silencing dissenting voices and intimidating civil society.
She has been charged with eight terrorist offences, punishable by penalties ranging from 10
years’ to life imprisonment. As the Co-President of the Amazigh World Congress, she is
known as a defender of Amazigh rights both in Algeria and abroad. She has participated in
numerous international meetings, particularly on human rights and climate change. The
Government maintains that Ms. Nait Sid was arrested after police investigations had been
conducted into her alleged membership of a terrorist movement and the ideas that she was
disseminating in the media and online. The investigations allegedly revealed that she was an
active member of MAK, which the Government considers to be a terrorist organization, and
that she had established links with it through her activities within the Amazigh World
Congress. Ms. Nait Sid reportedly stated that she had joined MAK in 2004 and had been
appointed the National Secretary for Women’s Affairs.
71.
Article 19 (2) of the Covenant provides that everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas
of all kinds. It protects political discourse, discussion of human rights, cultural expression
and all means of dissemination19 and guarantees the freedom to express opinions that are not
in line with government policy.20
14 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58; and opinions No. 64/2020, para. 58; and No. 62/2019, paras. 27–29.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and opinion No. 45/2016, para.
51.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
17 Opinions No. 37/2021, para. 72; and No. 46/2020, para. 62.
18 Opinions No. 64/2020, para. 58; No. 36/2020, para. 51; and No. 3/2019, para. 57.
19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 11–12.
20 Opinions No. 8/2019, para. 55; and No. 79/2017, para. 55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
11
72.
The Working Group considers that Ms. Nait Sid’s activities in defence of the Amazigh
people’s rights, including her participation in international meetings, are protected by the
right to freedom of expression guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, and that she was detained for having peacefully
exercised this right. This conclusion takes into account the fact that Ms. Nait Sid was a
member of MAK in 2004 but stepped down from her role in 2005, the year in which she
joined the Amazigh World Congress. Moreover, the Government does not mention any
activity carried out by Ms. Nait Sid, either as an alleged active member of MAK or in the
framework of the Amazigh World Congress, that could reasonably be considered to
constitute an act of terrorism. In the absence of any information demonstrating her
involvement in acts of violence instigated by MAK, there are no legitimate grounds to restrict
the exercise of her freedoms.21
73.
According to the Government, Ms. Nait Sid established links with MAK through her
association with the Amazigh World Congress and the activities that she carried out in this
connection. According to the source, any dealings that Ms. Nait Sid has with MAK or any
other political or civil society organization fall strictly within the scope of her human rights
activities. The Working Group considers that, in her capacity as Co-President of the Amazigh
World Congress, Ms. Nait Sid was peacefully exercising the right to freedom of association
guaranteed in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of the
Covenant, and that she was arrested for this reason.22 It also considers that Ms. Nait Sid, as a
member of the Amazigh minority in Algeria, was arrested for peacefully defending her23 and
other Amazighs’24 right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion
and to use their own language, as guaranteed by article 27 of the Covenant. In this regard,
the Working Group concurs with the Human Rights Committee’s view that the right
protected under article 27 of the Covenant is distinct from the right to self-determination,25
which is not at issue in this case.
74.
There is nothing to suggest – and the Government has not argued – that the restrictions
referred to in articles 19 (3) and 22 (2) of the Covenant apply in the present case. The
Government has not explained why it was necessary to prosecute Ms. Nait Sid in order to
protect a legitimate interest within the meaning of these provisions, or why charging her with
serious terrorist offences punishable by long prison sentences was a proportionate response
to the activities of which she is accused. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that
Ms. Nait Sid’s conduct or activities could reasonably be regarded as a threat to national
security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights or reputations of others.
75.
According to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups
and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others,
to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and to draw public
attention to the observance of human rights.26 Ms. Nait Sid was arrested for the exercise of
her rights under this instrument. Arresting individuals on the basis of their activities as human
rights defenders constitutes a violation of their right to equality before the law and equal
protection of the law under article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
26 of the Covenant.27
76.
The Working Group concludes that Ms. Nait Sid has been detained for exercising the
rights enshrined in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 19, 22 and 27 of the Covenant and that her deprivation of liberty is contrary to article
7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant. Therefore,
21 Opinion No. 1/2016, para. 35.
22 Opinion No. 53/2020, para. 29.
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 23 (1994), para. 1 (noting that article 27 of the
Covenant relates to a right conferred on individuals belonging to a minority group, as well as a right
exercised in community with other members of that group).
24 Ibid., para. 6.2.
25 Ibid., paras. 2 and 3.1.
26 General Assembly resolution 53/144, annex, arts. 1 and 6 (c).
27 See opinions No. 40/2021, No. 16/2020, No. 15/2020, No. 45/2019 and No. 45/2016. See also
A/HRC/48/55, paras. 46–50.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
12
GE.22-11848
her arrest and detention are arbitrary under category II. The Working Group refers the case
to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association. Given that the communication raises issues relating to the rights of the
Amazigh, it also refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special
Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
77.
The source notes that Ms. Nait Sid has been charged with several violations of article
87 bis of the Criminal Code. It recalls that, in 2018, the Human Rights Committee expressed
concern about this article and noted that it defines the crime of terrorism in overly broad and
vague terms that would allow for the prosecution of actions that might constitute exercise of
the freedom of expression or peaceful assembly, as in this instance.28 The Committee was
also concerned about the inappropriate use of counter-terrorism measures against human
rights defenders.29
78.
The principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision so
that the individual can acquire access to and understand the law and regulate his or her
conduct accordingly.30 However, article 87 bis and other provisions of the Criminal Code31
define terrorist offences in excessively broad terms, which may, as in this case, proscribe the
peaceful exercise of rights guaranteed by international law. In some circumstances, the laws
are so vague and broadly worded that it is impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty.
79.
The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
Category III
80.
Given its finding that Ms. Nait Sid’s detention is arbitrary under category II, the
Working Group emphasizes that no trial should take place. Ms. Nait Sid has been in pretrial
detention since 1 September 2021 and no trial date has yet been set, despite the fact that she
is facing two trials, one before the criminal chamber and the other before the counter-
terrorism section.
81.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is not allowed to communicate confidentially
with her lawyers in prison, in violation of principle 18 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. In the visiting
room, she is separated from her lawyers by a soundproof glass partition, forcing her to
communicate with them using signs and gestures in order to avoid using the telephone, which
prison staff could use to listen in on confidential conversations. Ms. Nait Sid is unable to
confide in her lawyers or her family, especially regarding her conditions of detention, for fear
of reprisals. The Government states that glass partitions and telephones were installed in
March 2020 to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Since November 2021, visits have taken
place without such partitions. Ms. Nait Sid has received 34 visits from her lawyer; 19 of these
visits took place without a partition, while 15 took place with one. The Working Group notes
that the Government does not deny that the prison authorities can listen in on telephone
conversations. This suggests that Ms. Nait Sid’s concerns are well founded.
82.
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 their apprehension, and
such access must be provided without delay.32 Legal consultations may be within sight but
not within hearing of the authorities, and all communications with counsel must remain
28 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 17.
29 Ibid., paras. 17–18. See also CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 4.
30 Opinion No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinion No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59.
31 See paras. 11 and 29 above.
32 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, annex), principle 9
and guideline 8; A/HRC/45/16, para. 51; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35
(2014), para. 35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
13
confidential.33 In the event of a health emergency, States must ensure that counsel can
continue to communicate with their clients in circumstances in which privileged and
confidential discussions can take place.34
83.
Ms. Nait Sid is in pretrial detention. The proceedings are therefore at an important
stage, during which it is essential that she be able to conduct full and confidential discussions
with her lawyers, particularly given the seriousness of the charges against her. Although the
majority of her discussions with counsel took place without a glass partition, almost half of
them were conducted through a partition, which would have been a considerable barrier to
communication. Ms. Nait Sid was unable to have clear, precise, and detailed discussions with
her attorneys as she was using gestures and signs. The authorities should have used other
preventive measures to counter the threat posed by COVID-19, such as secure online
communications, masks, or less severe restrictions. The Working Group considers that, in
failing to ensure the confidentiality of all Ms. Nait Sid’s meetings with her lawyers, the
authorities have violated her right to equality of arms, her right to have adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of her defence and her right to communicate with counsel of her
own choosing, under article 14 (1) and (3) (b)35 of the Covenant.
84.
The Working Group is concerned that Ms. Nait Sid is unable to discuss or complain
about her conditions of detention because she fears reprisals. The authorities must ensure that
prisoners can freely express their concerns or make complaints about their conditions of
detention, without fear of reprisals, including to their lawyers or relatives or through
independent bodies responsible for monitoring and overseeing places of detention.36
85.
Lastly, the source reports that Ms. Nait Sid is being charged with belonging to a
terrorist organization and can therefore be held in pretrial detention for a period of four
months, renewable five times.37 As the Working Group has repeatedly stated, even when
detention is carried out in conformity with national legislation, the Government must ensure
that it is also consistent with the relevant provisions of international law.38 Under articles 9
(3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be
tried within a reasonable time and without undue delay. Authorizing the pretrial detention of
terrorism suspects for a period of four months, renewable five times, may result in detention
of a duration that is incompatible with these articles and contrary to the principle of the
presumption of innocence guaranteed in article 14 (2) of the Covenant. Pretrial detention
must remain exceptional and must never be of excessive length, even for the most serious
terrorist offences.39
86.
Ms. Nait Sid has been deprived of her liberty since 24 August 2021. The Working
Group considers that the delay in bringing her to trial is unacceptable and contrary to articles
9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant. Since Ms. Nait Sid’s arrest is arbitrary under category
II, any delay in bringing her to trial is unreasonable.40
87.
The Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial are of such
gravity as to give Ms. Nait Sid’s detention an arbitrary character under category III.
Category V
88.
According to the source, Ms. Nait Sid is an Amazigh human rights defender who is
known and recognized in Algeria and abroad, especially among indigenous populations. She
is charged with having used her position as Co-President of the Amazigh World Congress to
33 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules),
rule 61 (1); Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, principle 18 (3); A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8; Human Rights
Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34; and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 36.
34 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 11 (A/HRC/45/16, annex II), paras. 20–21.
35 A/HRC/10/21, para. 54 (g).
36 A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 55.
37 In paragraph 38 above, the Government explains that pretrial detention may be ordered twice, with
each period lasting four months.
38 Opinion No. 36/2021, para. 70. See also opinions No. 50/2018, No. 37/2018 and No. 20/2018.
39 A/HRC/39/45/Add.2, para. 36.
40 Opinions No. 10/2021, para. 78; No. 16/2020, para. 77; and No. 8/2020, para. 75.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
14
GE.22-11848
establish relations with an alleged terrorist organization. Despite having been harassed by the
Algerian police and judiciary for several years, she has always answered summonses issued
by the authorities. The Government does not specifically mention any act of terrorism
committed by Ms. Nait Sid that would disprove these claims. The Working Group therefore
concludes that she was arrested and detained because she is a member of the Amazigh
community and a defender of its rights.
89.
The Working Group considers that Ms. Nait Sid was deprived of her liberty on
discriminatory grounds, that is, on the basis of her national, ethnic or social origin and her
status as a human rights defender, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.41 Her detention is therefore
arbitrary under category V, and the Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights defenders.
Concluding remarks
90.
The source alleges that Ms. Nait Sid is being held in conditions that do not meet
international standards. She is being held in a cell with nine other women, including some
who have an ideology contrary to her values and principles and others who have already been
convicted and sentenced. Although Ms. Nait Sid suffers from arthritis and her physical and
mental health are deteriorating, she is not permitted to receive medication or even clothing
from the outside. The prison authorities ignore the fact that she is a vegetarian, while allowing
other inmates to follow a halal diet. Ms. Nait Sid is allowed to receive a 15-minute visit from
her family every two weeks.
91.
According to the Government, Ms. Nait Sid’s detention with other prisoners accused
of terrorism is justified since prisoners are categorized according to the charges against them
and Ms. Nait Sid has been charged with terrorism. She is not suffering from any chronic
illness and has been examined by a physician eight times since September 2021. Her family
has been allowed to bring her clothing on four occasions. Her medical records do not indicate
that she is on a special diet, and she receives the same meals as the other inmates, in
accordance with the menus devised by the prison services. Owing to the measures imposed
to curb the spread of COVID-19, food may not be brought in from the outside. Family visits
take place through a glass partition and 20-minute phone calls are permitted every two weeks.
Since September 2021, Ms. Nait Sid has received 11 visits from her family.
92.
The Working Group recalls that, under article 10 (1) and (2) (a) of the Covenant, the
Government is required to treat all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and to
ensure that prisoners awaiting trial, who have the right to be presumed innocent, are separated
from convicted prisoners.42 In addition, rules 22 and 24–35 of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) require the
authorities to provide prisoners with the necessary health care43 and to ensure that prisoners
receive nutritious food and are able to obtain food from the outside at their own expense.
Changes made to detention regimes in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic should not
prevent inmates from obtaining food and other supplementary items through their family and
support network.44 Lastly, in accordance with rule 58 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and
principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment, prisoners should be allowed to communicate with their
family and friends45 at regular intervals. Attention46 should be paid as a priority to the special
41 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 12 (A/HRC/48/55, annex), paras. 54–56.
See also opinion No. 53/2020, para. 35; CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 19; and CERD/C/DZA/CO/20-21.
42 See also the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, principle 8.
43 See also the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), rules 5–18; and Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention, deliberation No. 12 (A/HRC/48/55, annex), para. 23 (e).
44 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 12 (A/HRC/48/55, annex), para. 79.
45 Bangkok Rules, rules 26–28.
46 Ibid., rules 54–55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
GE.22-11848
15
needs of prisoners, including the needs of women in general and women members of minority
groups or indigenous peoples.
93.
The Working Group urges the Government to immediately and unconditionally
release Ms. Nait Sid, who has been arbitrarily deprived of her liberty since 24 August 2021,
and to ensure that she receives the necessary medical care.
Disposition
94.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Kamira Nait Sid, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,
6–10, 11 (1), 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2
(1) and (3), 9, 14, 16, 19, 22, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
95.
The Working Group requests the Government of Algeria to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Ms. Nait Sid 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.
96.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, including the risk to Ms. Nait Sid’s health, the appropriate remedy would be to release
Ms. Nait Sid immediately and accord her an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law. 47 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 release of Ms. Nait
Sid.
97.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Ms. Nait
Said and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of her rights.
98.
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, the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, the Special Rapporteur on the rights
of indigenous peoples, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights defenders, for appropriate action.
99.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
100.
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 Ms. Nait Sid has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Nait Sid;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Ms. Nait
Sid’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 Algeria with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
47 See Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I).
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/15
16
GE.22-11848
101.
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.
102.
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.
103.
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.48
[Adopted on 1 April 2022]
48 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.