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.22-15435(E)
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. 34/2022 concerning Omar Abdel Aziz Mohammed Abdel
Aziz, Khaled Mohamed Abdel Raouf Sahloob, Hossam Abdel Razek
Abdel Salam Khalil and Mohammed Abdel Aziz Farag Ali (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 5 November 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Omar Abdel Aziz
Mohammed Abdel Aziz, Khaled Mohamed Abdel Raouf Sahloob, Hossam Abdel Razek
Abdel Salam Khalil and Mohammed Abdel Aziz Farag Ali. 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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
General Assembly
Distr.: General
28 September 2022
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
2
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Omar Abdel Aziz Mohammed Abdel Aziz is an Egyptian national who was born in
1998 and ordinarily resides in Cairo. At the time of his arrest, he was a student at the Islamic
studies faculty at Al-Azhar University, and he is single.
5.
Khaled Mohamed Abdel Raouf Sahloob is an Egyptian national born in 1992. He used
to live in the city of Mahalla al-Kubra, Egypt. Mr. Sahloob is a photojournalist and is single.
6.
Hossam Abdel Razek Abdel Salam Khalil is an Egyptian national who was born in
1981 and usually resides in Giza Governorate, Egypt. Mr. Khalil is an engineer and a member
and the head of the Human Development Affairs Department of the Freedom and Justice
Party. He is married and has three children.
7.
Mohammed Abdel Aziz Farag Ali is an Egyptian national born on 25 January 1966.
He usually resides in Qalyubia Governorate. Mr. Ali used to work for a company and is
married with children.
a.
Context
8.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Aziz, Mr. Sahloob, Mr. Khalil and Mr. Ali were
arrested as part of a large-scale crackdown on peaceful dissidents carried out by the
Government of Egypt. The source alleges that since the President, Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, took
power in 2013, standards of fair trial and due process have not been respected and accusations
against peaceful dissidents have been based on weak or absent evidence.
b.
Arrest and detention
i.
Omar Abdel Aziz Mohammed Abdel Aziz
9.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Aziz was first arrested on 27 November 2014,
when he was still a minor. He was arrested by security forces while he was at the house of
one of his friends. Mr. Abdel Aziz was detained on remand for almost two years, before his
case was referred to a court. He was then allegedly sentenced to three years in prison on
politically motivated charges, before being released in 2017, three months before the end of
his third year in prison.
10.
Reportedly, Mr. Abdel Aziz was arrested a second time, on 21 July 2018, at 12 noon.
The source reports that Mr. Abdel Aziz was arrested at a checkpoint by several national
security agents in plainclothes, while he was using public transport. It is alleged that Mr.
Abdel Aziz was taken to an unknown location and subjected to enforced disappearance for
one month.
11.
Mr. Abdel Aziz was reportedly brought for the first time before the military
prosecution on 22 August 2018 and was charged, in a military case, with joining an outlawed
group that aimed to disrupt the rule of law, participating in a criminal arrangement to damage
public and military property and kill military personnel, and joining an armed gang, with the
aim of disturbing national security. He was also charged with possessing firearms without
authorization, and using violence against persons, intimidating them, and inflicting material
and moral harm on them.
12.
The source explains that, on 22 March 2020, after almost one and a half years in
pretrial detention, Mr. Abdel Aziz was sentenced to 10 years in prison. An appeal was filed
on his behalf and the sentence was reduced to three years, which he had already served. The
source claims that, instead of being released, he was subjected to another two months of
enforced disappearance, before being charged, in a new case, with joining a banned
organization.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
3
13.
According to the source, Mr. Abdel Aziz was subjected to torture during his enforced
disappearance, in order to coerce him into making a confession incriminating himself. The
source stresses that although Mr. Abdel Aziz informed the judges about the torture during
one of his court hearings, no action was taken.
14.
Finally, the source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz’s family has not been authorized to
visit him since his arrest, or to deliver him any kind of basic necessities, clothes, medication
or food. Additionally, the source alleges that Mr. Abdel Aziz has not been allowed to meet
with his lawyer in prison and that the latter has only been permitted to attend Mr. Abdel
Aziz’s hearings.
ii.
Khaled Mohamed Abdel Raouf Sahloob
15.
According to the source, Mr. Sahloob was arrested on 2 January 2014, at a police
checkpoint in Mokattam, Cairo. He was arrested by police officers, both uniformed and plain-
clothed, after they found that he was carrying a professional camera. The source reports that
the police officers did not show Mr. Sahloob an arrest warrant or provide any legal
explanation for his arrest. Mr. Sahloob was then reportedly taken to an unknown location and
subjected to enforced disappearance for two weeks. It is alleged that he was taken to the
National Security Agency premises in Lazoghly.
16.
The source reports that shortly after Mr. Sahloob’s arrest, numerous official
complaints were submitted to the Attorney General and the Minister of the Interior on Mr.
Sahloob’s behalf, enquiring about his disappearance. Reportedly, none of these complaints
have been answered.
17.
On 18 January 2014, Mr. Sahloob appeared before the prosecution, charged (case
number withheld) with joining and financing an illegal group with the objective of disrupting
the provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law through terrorist means, possessing
political pamphlets, and spreading fake news. Reportedly, the case is known by the media as
the “Marriott terror cell” case and involves a number of Al Jazeera journalists.
18.
The source states that Mr. Sahloob was then ordered to be held for 15 days in pretrial
detention, pending investigations. His detention was continuously renewed over a period of
six months, until the Criminal Court sentenced him to seven years in prison, on 24 June 2014.
The source indicates that Mr. Sahloob’s lawyer appealed the ruling and, on 29 August 2015,
the Court amended Mr. Sahloob’s sentence to three years in prison.
19.
However, the source reports that on 13 August 2014, Mr. Sahloob was charged in a
second case (case number withheld), with joining an illegal group with the objective of
disrupting the rule of law and the Constitution and possessing political pamphlets. The case
is known as the “Helwan Brigades case”. The source indicates that, following the completion
of his three-year sentence relating to the first case (number withheld), Mr. Sahloob was not
released, but instead remains detained in Al-Aqrab Maximum Security Prison, pending trial
in the second case (number withheld).
20.
The source reports that Mr. Sahloob was subjected to severe torture during his
enforced disappearance at the National Security Agency premises in Lazoghly. Mr. Sahloob
was allegedly suspended by his hands for long periods of time, and beaten and burned with
cigarettes all over his body, in order to coerce him into incriminating himself.
21.
The source notes that as a result of the torture, Mr. Sahloob suffered a dislocated
shoulder and collarbone fractures. In addition, his alleged ill-treatment and poor conditions
of detention have caused Mr. Sahloob to suffer severe bodily pain, including back pain,
abdominal pain, and pain in both knees, which prevent him from moving. Although his
lawyer presented forensic evidence of the torture, the Court reportedly disregarded it and did
not order an investigation.
22.
The source explains that, to protest against his poor detention conditions and inability
to receive family visits, Mr. Sahloob undertook several hunger strikes, the last of which lasted
for 200 days and resulted in severe weight loss. The source raises grave concerns about Mr.
Sahloob’s health condition and reports that his lawyer submitted several demands to the
Court to allow him to undergo medical examination and treatment. Reportedly, the prison
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
4
authorities rejected each of these demands and Mr. Sahloob was only examined once by a
prison general practitioner who merely prescribed him painkillers.
23.
Finally, the source claims that Mr. Sahloob’s family was not able to visit him until
three months after his arrest. After that, they were permitted one visit a month, until April
2016, when visits were banned completely. Additionally, the source reports that Mr. Sahloob
was not authorized to receive visits from his lawyer, and that the latter was only allowed to
attend his client’s court hearings.
iii.
Hossam Abdel Razek Abdel Salam Khalil
24.
According to the source, Mr. Khalil was arrested on 18 February 2015 at around
9 p.m. at Al-Hindi Mosque Square, near his place of residence. Mr. Khalil was arrested by
plain-clothed national security agents and investigative officers, without a warrant or a legal
explanation for his arrest. The source reports that Mr. Khalil was then taken by car to an
unknown location and subjected to enforced disappearance for a week.
25.
The source notes that on 24 February 2015, official complaints were submitted to the
Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor on Mr. Khalil’s behalf, enquiring about his
disappearance. Reportedly, none of the complaints were answered.
26.
On 1 March 2015, Mr. Khalil appeared before the prosecution in Al Agouza Police
Station, charged (case number withheld) with joining a terrorist group, demonstrating in front
of Al Agouza Police Station and blocking the road, possessing a camera to record the protest,
and possessing non-firearm weapons.
27.
It is reported that Mr. Khalil remained in pretrial detention until a court sentenced him
to 15 years in prison, on 26 May 2016. The court rejected Mr. Khalil’s appeal, thereby making
his sentence final. Mr. Khalil is currently serving his sentence at Wadi al-Natrun Prison 440.
28.
The source claims that Mr. Khalil remained blindfolded with his hands tied behind his
back for the entire period of his alleged enforced disappearance. It is reported that he was
also subjected to severe beatings and was electrocuted all over his body, especially on his
private parts. The source notes that, although his body displayed clear signs of torture, the
prosecutor did not report on the alleged ill-treatment or refer Mr. Khalil to a doctor.
29.
The source asserts that Mr. Khalil was subjected to further torture following his first
appearance before the prosecution, during which he denied having been coerced to confess.
The source explains that Mr. Khalil was beaten and electrocuted by security forces.
According to the source, his alleged ill-treatment and torture, as well as the reportedly poor
detention conditions, have severely affected Mr. Khalil’s health, who suffers from varicose
veins in the testicles and permanent bleeding from his private parts. Mr. Khalil also allegedly
suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, spinal arthritis and cataracts.
30.
Despite his health deteriorating, the source reports that Mr. Khalil was only examined
by the prison general practitioner in May 2015 and in March 2020. He was denied medical
treatment on the basis of an order by the chief of investigations. Reportedly, several requests
were submitted to the prison authorities and the court to allow Mr. Khalil to be examined by
a specialist. The last two requests were submitted on 12 January 2021 and 7 February 2021.
On 28 December 2020, a demand for a presidential pardon, based on Mr. Khalil’s health, was
also submitted. Reportedly, none of these requests have been answered.
31.
Mr. Khalil allegedly suffers from extremely poor detention conditions. In particular,
the source reports that, as a result of various complaints submitted on his behalf, Mr. Khalil
has been placed in a special disciplining cell where he does not have a bathroom and is banned
from receiving visitors. Additionally, the source notes that Mr. Khalil’s lawyer has been
entirely prevented from visiting his client in prison and has only been allowed to attend his
court hearings.
iv.
Mohammed Abdel Aziz Farag Ali
32.
According to the source, Mr. Ali was arrested on 25 August 2015 at around 3 a.m.
Reportedly, national security agents, and police officers – both uniformed and plain-clothed –
arrested Mr. Ali at his home and searched the house. The source reports that they took four
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
5
mobile phones and two laptops, and blindfolded and arrested Mr. Ali without showing an
arrest warrant or providing a legal explanation for his arrest. Mr. Ali was then allegedly taken
to an unknown location and subjected to enforced disappearance for four months. It is
claimed that he was taken to the National Security Agency premises in Lazoghly.
33.
The source states that numerous official complaints were submitted to the Public
Prosecutor and the Minister of the Interior on Mr. Ali’s behalf, enquiring about his
disappearance. Reportedly, none of these complaints were answered.
34.
On 25 November 2015, Mr. Ali appeared for the first time before the prosecution in
Shubra al-Khaymah Police Station. He was charged in military case No. 4994/2015 with
joining an illegal group, attempting to overthrow the regime, and possessing weapons and
ammunition, and in case No. 28304/2015 on similar charges.
35.
The source notes that the court found Mr. Ali innocent in the first case but sentenced
him to 10 years in prison in the second. The sentence became final after the court rejected his
appeal. Mr. Ali is currently serving his sentence in Wadi al-Natrun Prison 440.
36.
The source alleges that during his enforced disappearance, Mr. Ali was subjected to
ill-treatment and severe torture in order to coerce him into incriminating himself. He was
reportedly beaten and electrocuted all over his body, especially on his private parts, and
remained blindfolded, handcuffed and hung up by his arms throughout his disappearance.
The source notes that although during a court hearing Mr. Ali informed the judges of the
torture, no investigation was ordered.
37.
Furthermore, the source explains that since Mr. Ali has been detained, he has started
suffering from diabetes, issues related to his blood pressure and spinal cord compression.
Although his health condition has rapidly deteriorated, he has reportedly only been examined
by a general practitioner and has merely been given painkillers. Furthermore, the source
observes that Mr. Ali has been detained in poor conditions, in a very small and overcrowded
cell, with no ventilation, water or sanitary facilities.
38.
Finally, it is reported that Mr. Ali’s family has been allowed to visit him once a month,
and to deliver him food and basic necessities during the visits. However, very strict
restrictions have allegedly been imposed and his family have not been authorized to deliver
any medication.
c.
Legal analysis
39.
The source argues that Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali have been
detained arbitrarily under categories I and III of the methods of work of the Working Group.
i.
Category I
40.
The source alleges that the detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali
is arbitrary in so far as it violates their right to liberty. The source challenges the legality of
their arrest, their enforced disappearance, and Mr. Sahloob’s prolonged detention.
Legality of the arrest
41.
The source recalls that article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
prohibits arbitrary arrests, as a safeguard of the right to liberty guaranteed under article 3 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to the source, individuals’ right to be
informed, at the time of their arrest, of the reason for their arrest, and to be promptly informed
of any charges brought against them, is also protected under principle 10 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
and article 14 (3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which the source notes has been
ratified by Egypt. The source further specifies that this right was reiterated by the Human
Rights Committee in its general comment No. 35 (2014).
42.
For these reasons, the source concludes that the right to liberty of Messrs. Abdel Aziz,
Sahloob, Khalil and Ali was violated when they were arrested without being shown an arrest
warrant and without being provided any legal explanation for their arrest.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
6
Enforced disappearance
43.
The source recalls that the prohibition of enforced disappearance is non-derogable,
even in a state of emergency. The source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Ali were
forcibly disappeared for one month and four months respectively, while Mr. Sahloob and Mr.
Khalil were forcibly disappeared for two weeks and one week respectively.
44.
According to the source, the enforced disappearances of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob,
Khalil and Ali constitute a violation of articles 17 and 18 of the International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in which it is stated that
detention should only be carried out in officially recognized locations and that States must
ensure that no one is detained secretly and that the detainee’s family and lawyer are provided
with accurate information about the detention.
Prolonged arbitrary detention
45.
The source argues that Mr. Sahloob’s detention is arbitrary in that it is void of legal
basis and political in nature. It is alleged that Mr. Sahloob’s detention is part of a systematic
pattern whereby the Egyptian authorities detain political prisoners in multiple separate cases
to ensure that they remain in pretrial detention.
46.
The source reports that Mr. Sahloob was not released even though he completed his
three-year sentence in the first case. Instead, he was detained again, pending investigation in
the second case, which reportedly deals with an incident that occurred months after Mr.
Sahloob’s detention, while he was in detention. Accordingly, the source concludes that
Mr. Sahloob was detained for political ends, in violation of his right to liberty protected by
article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
47.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the source concludes that the detention of Messrs.
Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali is arbitrary under category I.
ii.
Category III
48.
The source argues that the detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali
is arbitrary in so far as Messrs. Abdel Aziz and Ali were both tried before a military court,
all four individuals were denied access to effective legal counsel and subjected to torture and
ill-treatment, their right to health was violated, and they were either partly or entirely denied
family visits.
Right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
49.
The source denounces the fact that referring civilians to trial before military courts for
crimes unrelated to the military has become a norm in Egypt to deter the political opposition.
The source argues that this constitutes a violation of article 14 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
50.
In this regard, the source underlines that the Basic Principles on the Independence of
the Judiciary protect individuals’ right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using
established legal procedures. These principles also specify that tribunals not using duly
established procedures should not displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts or tribunals.
Furthermore, it is noted that article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
which the source recalls has been ratified by Egypt, requires States to guarantee courts’
independence.
51.
The source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Ali were tried before a military court
even though they were both civilians, contrary to their right to a fair trial before a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
7
Right to access to effective legal counsel
52.
According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali were denied
the right to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers in
detention.
53.
In this regard, the source indicates that principle 15 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that a detainee
should not be denied the right to communicate with the outside world, particularly with the
detainee’s family or counsel, for more than a matter of days. The Human Rights Committee,
in its general comment No. 32 (2007), further specifies that the right to promptly access legal
representation includes the right for the lawyer to privately communicate with their client
and to attend investigations without interference or restrictions.
54.
Furthermore, it is noted that under principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers, the competent authorities have the duty to ensure that lawyers have access to case
files in sufficient time to be able to provide effective legal assistance. The source argues that
the right to effective counsel is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms,
enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principle of
equality of arms includes the right to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and
present one’s defence with one’s counsel.
55.
Accordingly, the source argues that the denial of the right of Messrs. Abdel Aziz,
Sahloob, Khalil and Ali to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their
lawyers constitutes a violation of their right to effective assistance by counsel and of the
principle of equality of arms.
Right to family visits
56.
The source recalls that the right to communicate with the outside world and be visited
by one’s family is a fundamental safeguard against human rights violations, including torture,
ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
57.
Under article 17 (2) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance, individuals detained and imprisoned have the right to
communicate with and be visited by their families, regardless of the offence that they are
suspected or accused of. Principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment specifies that this right is subject
only to reasonable conditions and restrictions that are appropriate to pursue a legitimate aim.
58.
In this regard, the source claims that Messrs. Abel Aziz and Sahloob were entirely
denied their rights to be visited by their families, while Messrs. Khalil and Ali were only
allowed family visits once a month. The source alleges that these restrictions on family visits
were not implemented to pursue a legitimate aim and thereby violate the detainees’ right to
communicate with the outside world and receive family visits.
Right to be free from torture and ill-treatment
59.
According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali were subjected
to torture and ill-treatment, especially during the time that they were disappeared.
Specifically, the source notes that all four detainees were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten
and electrocuted, which caused them severe bodily pain and deterioration of their health. The
source alleges that the ill-treatment was carried out to coerce them into incriminating
themselves. It is observed that, even though they reported such torture, no action was taken
by the prosecution or the judges.
60.
The source argues that these practices violate the four individuals’ right to be free
from torture, ill-treatment and degrading punishment, under article 1 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Furthermore, the source adds that the Committee against Torture has specified the absolute
nature of this right, which cannot be restricted, including in times of war or states of
emergency, and cannot be justified, including by threats of terrorism or other violent crime.
The source stresses that the prohibition against torture applies irrespective of the offence
alleged.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
8
Right to health
61.
The source alleges that the lives of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali are
at grave risk due to the prison authorities intentionally preventing them from accessing
medical examinations and treatment in prison.
62.
In this regard, the source claims that the right to attain the highest standard of physical
and mental health is protected under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, article 16 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
and rules 25 and 27 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). The source stresses that this right includes access to
timely and appropriate health care, but also to underlying determinants of health, such as
adequate food, water and sanitation. It is further observed that sick prisoners whose health
requires specialist treatment must be transferred to specialized institutions or civil hospitals
and that the failure to provide access to adequate health care violates the right to health.
63.
In light of the alleged deteriorating health condition of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob,
Khalil and Ali, and the Egyptian authorities’ refusal to allow them to access proper medical
examinations and treatment, the source concludes that their right to access adequate health
care has been violated.
64.
For the reasons mentioned above, the source concludes that the detention of Messrs.
Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali is arbitrary under category III.
Response from the Government
65.
On 5 November 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 4 January 2022, detailed information about the
current situation of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali 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.
66.
Regrettably, the Government of Egypt has not responded to this communication, nor
did it request an extension of the time limit for its reply in accordance with paragraph 16 of
the Working Group’s methods of work.
Discussion
67.
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.
68.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob,
Khalil and Ali 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.2 In
the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible
allegations made by the source.
69.
The Working Group wishes to reaffirm that States have the obligation to respect,
protect and fulfil all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including liberty of person,
and that any national law allowing deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented
in conformity with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Covenant and other applicable international and regional instruments.3
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 General Assembly resolution 72/180, preambular para. 5; and Human Rights Council resolutions
41/2, preambular para. 2, and 41/17, preambular para. 1. See also Commission on Human Rights
resolutions 1991/42, para. 2, and 1997/50, para. 15; Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4,
para. 1 (a), and 10/9, para. 4 (b); and opinions No. 41/2014, para. 24; No. 42/2019, para. 43;
No. 13/2020, para. 39; and No. 32/2020, para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
9
Consequently, even if the detention is in conformity with national legislation, regulations and
practices, the Working Group is entitled and indeed obliged to assess the circumstances of
the detention and the law itself to determine whether such detention is also consistent with
the relevant provisions of international human rights law.4
70.
The source has argued that the detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and
Ali is arbitrary under categories I and III. The Working Group will proceed to examine the
allegations in turn.
Category I
Arrests without warrants
71.
The source alleges that when Mr. Abdel Aziz was first arrested by security forces at
his friends’ house on 27 November 2014, no arrest warrant was shown to him. Likewise, no
arrest warrant was shown when he was arrested the second time on 21 July 2018 by several
security agents at a checkpoint while he was on public transport. Similarly, Mr. Sahloob was
reportedly not shown any arrest warrant when he was arrested on 2 January 2014 at a police
checkpoint after police officers found that he was carrying a professional camera. Equally,
Mr. Khalil was not shown any arrest warrant when he was arrested by security agents on
18 February 2015 at Al-Hindi Mosque Square, near his place of residence. Neither was an
arrest warrant shown to Mr. Ali when he was arrested on 25 August 2015 at his home. In
addition, the source submits that none of the four individuals were provided with the reasons
for their arrest at the time of their respective arrests. Although the Government had the
opportunity to rebut these allegations, it chose not to do so.
72.
International human rights law on detention recognizes that the right to be presented
with an arrest warrant to ensure the exercise of effective control by a competent, independent
and impartial judicial authority is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of
person and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant, as well as under principles 2, 4
and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.5
73.
Furthermore, article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that anyone who is arrested not
only be informed of the reasons for the arrest but also be promptly informed of the charges
against them. As explained by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 35
(2014), the obligation encapsulated in article 9 (2) has two elements: information about the
reasons for the arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest6 and information about the
charges must be provided promptly thereafter.
74.
The Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible case – which
was not rebutted by the Government – that Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali were
not presented with an arrest warrant at the time of their respective arrests, and were not
explained the reasons for their arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.7
The Working Group therefore considers that the authorities failed to establish a legal basis
for the arrest and detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali.
Pretrial detention as an exceptional measure
75.
The source submits that the four individuals’ right to be released pending trial was
violated, contrary to article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The source recalls that principles 38 and
4 Opinions No. 1/1998, para. 13; No. 82/2018, para. 25; No. 76/2019, para. 36; No. 14/2020, para. 45;
and No. 32/2020, para. 29.
5 The Working Group has maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without
a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See, for example, decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6–7; and
No. 44/1993, paras. 6–7. For more recent jurisprudence, see opinions No. 21/2017, para. 46;
No. 68/2018, para. 39; and No. 34/2020, para. 46. See also art. 14 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human
Rights.
6 See para. 27.
7 Opinion No. 36/2018, paras. 39–40 (in which it was found that failure to present an arrest warrant to
an individual who had presented himself at a police station violated art. 9 (1) of the Covenant).
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
10
39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment further confirm that, except in special cases, a criminal detainee is entitled
to release pending trial. The source notes that each one of the four individuals was detained
for a long period pending trial.
76.
The Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that
pretrial detention should be the exception and not the rule, and that it should be ordered for
as short a time as possible.8 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it must not be the
general rule that persons awaiting trial are detained, but release may be subject to guarantees
to appear for trial and at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. It follows that liberty is
recognized as a principle and detention as an exception in the interests of justice.9 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.10
77.
In the present case, despite having had the opportunity to do so, the Government chose
not to explain the reasons that warranted the pretrial detention of these four individuals and
how the imposition of pretrial detention in each of the cases of these four individuals
complied with the requirements of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Working Group
therefore finds that the imposition of pretrial detention on Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob,
Khalil and Ali was arbitrary and in breach of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, and therefore
lacked a legal basis.
78.
By not releasing the four individuals pending trial, the Government violated article
9 (3) of the Covenant and principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
Enforced disappearance and prolonged pretrial detention
79.
The source has indicated that following his first arrest, Mr. Abdel Aziz was detained
on remand for almost two years before his case was referred to a court for trial. Following
his second arrest, Mr. Abdel Aziz was reportedly taken to an unknown location and subjected
to enforced disappearance for one month. Under fresh charges that were served on him in
August 2018, Mr. Abdel Aziz reportedly spent almost one and a half years in pretrial
detention. His appeal against his sentence of 10 years in prison was successful and the
sentence was reduced to three years, which he had already served. However, instead of being
released, he was reportedly subjected to another two months of enforced disappearance,
before being charged, in a new case, with joining a banned organization.
80.
As regards Mr. Sahloob, the source alleges that following his arrest on 2 January 2014,
he was subjected to enforced disappearance for two weeks in an unknown location. The
source reports that he was likely taken to the National Security Agency premises in Lazoghly.
When he appeared before the prosecutor on 18 January 2014, he was joined to a new case,
the “Marriott terror cell” case, which allegedly involves a number of Al Jazeera journalists.
He was ordered to be detained for 15 days in pretrial detention, pending investigations. His
detention was renewed continuously over a period of six months, until the Criminal Court
sentenced him to seven years in prison on 24 June 2014. The sentence was reduced to three
years on appeal but he was not released after having completed the three-year term. Instead,
he was reportedly charged under another case known as the “Helwan Brigades case”, and
remains detained in Al-Aqrab Maximum Security Prison, pending trial in this second case.
81.
Regarding Mr. Khalil, the source reports that following his arrest on 18 February
2015, he was subjected to enforced disappearance for a week in an unknown location. Official
complaints submitted to the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor on Mr. Khalil’s
behalf regarding his disappearance reportedly went unanswered. It is reported that Mr. Khalil
8 Opinions No. 28/2014, para. 43; No. 49/2014, para. 23; No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 1/2020, para. 53;
and No. 8/2020, para. 54. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),
para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 54.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
11
remained in pretrial detention until the court sentenced him to 15 years in prison on 26 May
2016.
82.
Concerning Mr. Ali, the source reports that following his arrest on 25 August 2015,
he was subjected to enforced disappearance for four months in an unknown location. In
addition, Mr. Ali was reportedly detained on remand for long periods of time before his case
was referred to a court. According to the source, numerous official complaints were
submitted to the Public Prosecutor and the Minister of the Interior on Mr. Ali’s behalf,
enquiring about his disappearance. These were reportedly not answered.
83.
These allegations were put to the Government, which chose not to address them.
84.
The Working Group notes that enforced disappearances are prohibited by
international law and constitute a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.11 In fact,
the Working Group has consistently asserted that holding persons at secret, undisclosed
locations and in circumstances concealed from their families violates their right to contest
the legality of their detention before a court or tribunal under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
Judicial oversight of any detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty and is critical in
ensuring that the detention has a legitimate basis.
85.
The Working Group also notes that article 10 of the Declaration on the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance provides that individuals deprived of their liberty
must be held in a place of detention that is officially recognized, and that States must ensure
that no one is held secretly in detention.
86.
In the circumstances attending the incarceration of the four individuals at an unknown
location for varying periods, the Working Group finds that they were unable to challenge the
legality of their detentions before a court. Consequently, their rights to an effective remedy
under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant
were violated. The Working Group also recalls that 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 family or counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter of days”. The four
individuals who are the subject of the current communication were each kept at a location
unknown to their families and lawyers. This entailed a wilful refusal to disclose their fate or
whereabouts or to acknowledge their detention. Such a course of action lacks any valid legal
basis under any circumstance. It is also inherently arbitrary, as it places detainees outside the
protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 16 of the Covenant. The Working Group refers this matter to the Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
87.
Furthermore, in regard to Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Sahloob, the Working Group notes
that despite having served the entirety of their reduced sentence, the authorities failed to
release them; they both remained in detention and new charges were brought against them.
Such a practice of repeat pretrial detention on charges that are very similar to the previous
ones is akin to “revolving door” pretrial detention, which is entirely incompatible with article
9 (3) of the Covenant. The Working Group thus considers that the rights of Mr. Abdel Aziz
and Mr. Sahloob under article 9 (3) of the Covenant were further violated. In addition, the
Working Group finds that their rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant were violated in so
far as both individuals were not released despite having completed their sentences, and were
therefore detained without any legal basis.
88.
For the reasons enumerated above, the Working Group finds that the arrests and
detentions of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali lack a legal basis and are therefore
arbitrary under category I.
11 See opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020 and No. 13/2020. See also Human Rights
Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
12
Category III
89.
As regards category III, the source alleges numerous violations of the right of the four
individuals to a fair trial, protected by article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.
Right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
90.
The source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Ali were tried before a military court
even though they are both civilians, contrary to their right under article 14 of the Covenant
to a fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
91.
The Working Group recalls that fair trial rights apply in trials before all courts,
including special or specialized courts and military courts. The Working Group, in its
practice, has consistently found that the trial of civilians by military courts is in violation of
the Covenant and customary international law, and that under international law, military
tribunals can only be competent to try military personnel for military offences.12 Furthermore,
in accordance with 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, special courts shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction
of ordinary courts, and therefore should not examine offences falling under the jurisdiction
of ordinary courts. When special courts exist, they must be independent and impartial, and
must respect fair trial standards. Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights, which has been ratified by Egypt, also requires States to guarantee courts’
independence.
92.
In the present case, the Working Group notes that while the Government had the
opportunity to explain the involvement of a military court in the cases of Mr. Abdel Aziz and
Mr. Ali, it failed to do so. The Working Group agrees with the source that the use of special
courts makes it more likely that fair trial rights will be violated before such courts. This is
why human rights bodies have raised concerns about procedures before special courts, which
are inconsistent with fair trial rights – including the right to a trial before an independent and
impartial court, the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment and the
right to appeal to a higher tribunal.
93.
For the reasons enumerated above, the Working Group finds that the trial of Mr. Abdel
Aziz and Mr. Ali before a military court violated their right to a trial before a competent,
independent and impartial court, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant.
Right to access to effective legal counsel
94.
According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali were denied
the right to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers in
detention. The source submits that Mr. Abdel Aziz, Mr. Sahloob and Mr. Khalil were denied
the right to receive visits from their lawyers, and that the lawyers were only permitted to
attend their respective clients’ hearings. The source also contends that Mr. Ali was denied
the right to communicate with his lawyer in detention. The Government has chosen not to
rebut any of these allegations, despite having an opportunity to do so.
95.
As the Working Group has stated in 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 the moment of apprehension, they must be promptly
informed of this right upon apprehension, and access to legal counsel should not be
unlawfully or unreasonably restricted.13 As the Human Rights Committee stated in its general
comment No. 32 (2007), a detainee has the right to have “prompt access” to legal counsel,
12 A/HRC/27/48, paras. 66–70. See also opinions No. 44/2016, No. 30/2017, No. 28/2018, No. 32/2018,
No. 66/2019 and No. 48/2020.
13 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
13
which means that a lawyer is granted the right to have private communication and meetings
with the detainee and to attend all the investigations without interference or restrictions.14
96.
Every detainee should also have access to “effective counsel”. According to principle
2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, this means that the authorities have the duty
to ensure lawyers’ 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, and that such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time. The
effectiveness of legal counsel is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, as
enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and which draws on
the right of detainees to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present their
defence with the counsel for when the trial takes place.
97.
The Working Group finds that the denial of the right of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob,
Khalil and Ali to communicate with their lawyers constitutes a violation of their right to
effective assistance of counsel and of the equality of arms principle, in violation of articles
10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) of the Covenant.
Right to be free from torture and ill-treatment
98.
According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali were subjected
to torture and ill-treatment, especially during the time that they were enforcedly disappeared,
in order to coerce them into incriminating themselves. Specifically, the source notes that the
four detainees were subjected to treatment including being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten
and electrocuted, and that such treatment caused them severe bodily pain and deterioration
of their health. Allegedly, although they reported such treatment, no action was taken by the
prosecution or the judges. The Government has chosen not to rebut these allegations, despite
having an opportunity to do so.
99.
Detainees should be protected from any practices that violate their right to be free
from any acts which could cause severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental and
which are inflicted intentionally on a person. This has been clearly stated in the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According
to the Committee against Torture, the right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or
punishment is absolute. This applies in all circumstances and 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.
100.
Moreover, the source claims that the four individuals’ lawyers reported the acts of
torture and ill-treatment when their clients appeared before a judge. Nevertheless, no action
was taken. The Working Group considers that the courts should have ordered a separate and
independent investigation into the alleged torture and ill-treatment. The failure by the judge
to intervene when the allegations of torture or ill-treatment were made to him amounts to a
violation of the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal under article 10 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,15 article 14 of the Covenant and articles 12, 13
and 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment. The Working Group also reiterates that the admission into evidence of a
statement allegedly obtained through torture or ill-treatment renders the entire proceedings
unfair, regardless of whether other evidence was available to support the verdict, and would
constitute a violation of the right not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.16
14 See para. 34.
15 Opinions No. 46/2017, para. 25; No. 53/2018, para. 77 (b); No. 30/2018, para. 49; No. 31/2020,
para. 56; and No. 62/2020, para. 88. See also A/HRC/29/26/Add.2, paras. 53 and 109.
16 Opinions No. 43/2012, para. 51; No. 34/2015, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (i); No. 73/2019,
para. 91; and No. 61/2020, para. 86.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
14
101.
The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.
Right to health
102.
The source alleges that the lives of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali are
at grave risk due to the prison authorities intentionally preventing them from accessing
medical examination and treatment in prison. The Government has not rebutted these
allegations, although it had the opportunity to do so.
103.
The right to attain the highest standard of physical and mental health is protected under
article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which
Egypt ratified in 1982, article 16 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and
rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. This right includes access to timely and
appropriate health care, but also to underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food,
water and sanitation. It is further observed that sick prisoners whose health requires specialist
treatment must be transferred to specialized institutions or civil hospitals, and the failure to
provide access to adequate health care violates the right to health. Poor health deprives
detainees of their ability to adequately prepare their defence, in violation of article 14 of the
Covenant. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the right
of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
for appropriate action.
104.
All circumstances considered, the Working Group thus concludes that the detention
of the four individuals violated their fair trial rights and that these violations were of such
gravity as to render their detention arbitrary under category III.
Concluding remarks
105.
The Working Group expresses its grave concern that when Mr. Abdel Aziz was first
arrested on 27 November 2014, he was still a minor, and yet the authorities made no attempt
to treat him in a manner prescribed by international law and consistent with his status as a
minor, throughout the arrest, detention and trial.
106.
The Working Group is also deeply disturbed at the treatment to which all four
individuals were subjected, including the detention conditions in which they are reportedly
held – an allegation which the Government has chosen not to deny. In particular, the Working
Group expresses grave concern regarding the unrebutted allegation that, as a result of various
complaints filed on his behalf, Mr. Khalil was placed in a special disciplining cell where he
does not have a bathroom, and is banned from receiving visitors. The Working Group wishes
to remind the Government that prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive
days is prohibited under rules 43 (1) (b) and 44 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Working
Group is also obliged to remind the Government of Egypt of its duty to treat all persons
deprived of their liberty with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person, in accordance with article 10 of the Covenant and rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
107.
The Working Group is further concerned about the limited contact that Messrs. Abdel
Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali have had with their families. The source has reported, and the
Government has not denied, that Messrs. Abel Aziz and Sahloob were entirely denied their
rights to be visited by their families, while Messrs. Khalil and Ali were only allowed family
visits once a month. The Working Group feels obliged to remind the Government that the
right to communicate with the outside world and be visited by one’s family is a fundamental
safeguard against human rights violations, including torture, ill-treatment and enforced
disappearance. The Working Group recalls that 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 family or counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter of days”. The
denial of family contact may also amount to a violation of principle 19 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
108.
The Working Group notes that the present opinion is only one of many opinions in
recent years in which the Working Group has found the Government to be in violation of its
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
15
international human rights obligations.17 The Working Group is concerned that this indicates
a systemic problem with arbitrary detention in Egypt, which, if it continues, may amount to
a serious violation of international law. The duty to comply with international human rights
standards rests with all State organs, officers and agents as well as all other natural and legal
persons. The Working Group recalls that, under certain circumstances, widespread or
systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of
international law may constitute crimes against humanity. The Working Group has alluded
to this possibility in its past opinions concerning Egypt.
109.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the
Government to address arbitrary detentions in Egypt. The Working Group reiterates its
requests to the Government to allow the Working Group to undertake a country visit.
Disposition
110.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Omar Abdel Aziz Mohammed Abdel Aziz, Khaled
Mohamed Abdel Raouf Sahloob, Hossam Abdel Razek Abdel Salam Khalil and
Mohammed Abdel Aziz Farag Ali, being in contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and
11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 10, 14 and 16 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I and III.
111.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali without delay and bring
it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
112.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and
Ali immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations,
in accordance with international law. In the current context of the global coronavirus disease
(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 Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali.
113.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Messrs.
Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
114.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances, for appropriate action.
115.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
116.
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:
17 See, for example, opinions No. 6/2016, No. 7/2016, No. 41/2016, No. 42/2016, No. 54/2016,
No. 60/2016, No. 30/2017, No. 78/2017, No. 83/2017, No. 26/2018, No. 27/2018, No. 47/2018,
No. 63/2018, No. 82/2018, No. 87/2018, No. 21/2019, No. 29/2019, No. 41/2019, No. 42/2019,
No. 65/2019, No. 77/2019, No. 6/2020 and No. 80/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/34
16
(a)
Whether Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali have been released and,
if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Messrs. Abdel
Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Messrs.
Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali’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.
117.
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.
118.
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.
119.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.18
[Adopted on 6 April 2022]
18 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.