Opinion; Subjects: MOROCCO, 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.23-00654 (E) 151223 211223
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-fourth session,
29 August–2 September 2022
Opinion No. 50/2022, concerning Sultana Khaya and Luara Khaya
(Morocco)
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 14 October 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Morocco a communication concerning Sultana Khaya and
Luara Khaya. The Government replied to the communication on 13 December 2021. 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/2022/50
General Assembly
Distr.: General
24 January 2023
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
2
GE.23-00654
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.
Sultana Khaya and Luara Khaya, born in 1979 and 1972 respectively, are two Saharan
sisters and human rights defenders. They are both members of Saharan human rights
organizations campaigning for the independence of Western Sahara.
a.
Context
5.
Sultana Khaya is reportedly known for her commitment to peaceful resistance, and is
a member of the League for the Defence of Human Rights and the Protection of Natural
Resources, as well as the Sahrawi Organization against the Moroccan Occupation, a
collective of Saharan human rights defenders, some of whose members have reportedly been
subjected to surveillance and house arrest. As a leading peace activist for the
self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, Sultana Khaya is reportedly known to
Moroccan law enforcement agencies and has allegedly been attacked by them on five
occasions for taking part in peaceful demonstrations. In 2007, she reportedly lost her right
eye when police fired tear gas during a non-violent demonstration and physically assaulted
her. She was also reportedly banned from leaving her home several times on the basis of
“orders” allegedly issued to her.
6.
Luara Khaya is also said to be involved in the defence of human rights and the
peaceful struggle for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. She is also a
member of the League for the Defence of Human Rights and the Protection of Natural
Resources and helped organize the activities of a former music group that used to perform at
Saharan festivals wearing traditional clothes and displaying the Saharan flag.
7.
The source notes that the Khaya sisters were arrested a few days after the breakdown,
on 13 November 2020, of the ceasefire agreed between Frente Popular para la Liberación de
Saguía el-Hamra y de Río de Oro (Frente POLISARIO) and the Government of Morocco. It
alleges that there followed a campaign of repression against Saharan human rights defenders
and civil society. According to the source, the detentions of Sultana and Luara Khaya must
be seen in this context of hostility towards human rights defenders and the narrowing of civic
space in Western Sahara.
b.
Arrest and detention
8.
Sultana Khaya was reportedly arrested at around 6.30 p.m. on 19 November 2020 at
the checkpoint at the entrance to Boujdour, as she was driving back from Laayoune, where
her family lives. She was forced out of her car and taken to an isolated local police station
where she was questioned and subjected to a full body search, without a warrant. A
superintendent who was present in the room allegedly refused to accede to her requests for
him to avert his gaze. Her personal belongings were reportedly searched, and her small
Saharan flag and her mask, on which a flag was printed, are said to have been confiscated.
According to the source, the superintendent admitted to Sultana Khaya that he did not have
a warrant to search her and threatened to do “God only knows what” to her if she did not stay
at home. As Sultana Khaya left the police station, the superintendent allegedly warned that
he would arrest and torture her if she left her house. When she arrived at the family home at
around 8.15 p.m., Sultana Khaya reportedly saw 21 police vehicles and numerous officers
surrounding the property. She was allegedly pushed into the house and subsequently not
permitted to leave, except on one occasion to accompany her mother to the hospital.
9.
On the same day, at 7.55 p.m., Luara Khaya reportedly tried to leave her house but
was pushed back inside by a military officer. She then allegedly tried to open the door to
request medical assistance for her mother, but the officer beat her with his baton and pushed
her back into the house again, causing her to suffer a concussion.
10.
According to the source, the Khaya sisters were held under de facto house arrest in
their home, guarded by some 30 police and army officers, as well as plain-clothes agents.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
3
Both sisters have reportedly been subjected to serious and repeated attacks since being placed
under house arrest and have not been allowed to leave their home. While under house arrest,
the Khaya sisters reportedly continued to demonstrate peacefully by waving the Saharan flag
on the roof of the house, for which they were beaten by the police in retaliation. The
authorities reportedly placed two construction cranes in front of the house to tear down the
flag. In May 2021, police reportedly carried out two operations after the sisters had waved
the flag on the roof, ransacking the house, stealing items, destroying furniture and violently
assaulting family members present in the house. Agents also reportedly covered the faces of
Sultana and Luara Khaya with cloths until they almost suffocated.
11.
During the operation conducted on 10 May 2021, approximately 40 agents allegedly
entered the house and forcibly expelled three Saharan activists who were present there and
subsequently kidnapped them, tortured them for two hours and abandoned them in the desert.
During the operation conducted on 12 May 2021, the Khaya sisters were allegedly subjected
to violent sexual and physical assaults.
12.
The source reports that the Khaya sisters have repeatedly received death threats. In
May 2021, police reportedly poured a toxic, foul-smelling liquid into the house on an almost
daily basis, without allowing the sisters access to fresh air. In August 2021, an agent guarding
the house reportedly told Sultana Khaya that she and her sister were not allowed to open the
windows, go outside or breathe fresh air because the police wanted to kill them. The
substance is said to have caused respiratory problems and damaged Sultana Khaya’s teeth.
In addition to the regular attacks reportedly directed against them, family members of Sultana
and Luara Khaya are also said to have suffered financial restrictions including the revocation
of a university scholarship.
13.
The source reports that the Khaya sisters’ health has been deteriorating since August
2021. During an operation on 22 August 2021, the sisters were again allegedly sexually
assaulted by the police. They are also said to have regularly received rape threats from
Moroccan officers.
14.
During an operation in August 2021, Sultana Khaya was allegedly intentionally
exposed to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by officers who reportedly rubbed a cloth
soaked in an unidentified substance against her nose and mouth for 15 minutes, the time
required to contract the virus. She reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 in September
2021 and experienced symptoms identified by a doctor as corresponding to infection with the
virus. Sultana Khaya was reportedly denied medical assistance, and a nurse was allegedly
threatened with a pay cut if she treated her. On 2 October 2021, the authorities reportedly
attacked and turned away a delegation consisting of a doctor and two legal officers who had
come to provide Sultana Khaya with medical care.
15.
According to the source, Sultana and Luara Khaya have never officially been arrested,
although they have been threatened with arrest. To date, no arrest warrant has been issued for
either of them. In February 2021, a representative of the Crown Prosecutor reportedly served
a summons on Sultana Khaya. She reportedly refused it and challenged the jurisdiction of the
Moroccan courts. In June 2021, the criminal investigation police allegedly visited the Khaya
sisters’ home and asked to interview Sultana Khaya. She reportedly refused because of the
alleged practice of the criminal investigation police of interrogating Saharan human rights
defenders without the presence of a lawyer and forcing them to confess to offences they have
not committed. For the same reasons, Sultana Khaya also reportedly refused to meet members
of the National Human Rights Council. The source reports that neither of the sisters has been
permitted to go to court to challenge the arbitrary nature of their detention.
c.
Legal analysis
16.
The source argues that the de facto detention of Sultana and Luara Khaya is arbitrary
under categories I, II, III and V, as well as under international humanitarian law, in particular
the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), which it considers
applicable in this case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
4
GE.23-00654
i.
Preliminary remarks
17.
In preliminary remarks, the source states that in view of the circumstances and the
severe restrictions imposed on the Khaya sisters, their house arrest constitutes de facto
detention. The source recalls the conclusions of the Working Group that a person under house
arrest is deprived of liberty if he or she is held at a closed site without being able to leave it;
if he or she is not permitted to receive visitors, meet family members and have access to the
outside world without authorization; if any attempt to leave the site alone is met with force;
if his or her access to a telephone or the Internet is restricted or cut off; or if he or she is under
surveillance or guard at the site.
18.
The source alleges that the Khaya sisters were intentionally cut off from the outside
world and held at a closed site which they were not allowed to leave, with any attempt by
them to leave the house being brutally repressed or resulting in threats from the authorities.
Although they were initially allowed to go to the market under police escort, Luara Khaya
can no longer leave the house for fear of being kidnapped and tortured. In May 2021, the
Ministry of the Interior office in Boujdour reportedly summoned members of her immediate
family to tell them to “clean their nest” and threatened to take Luara Khaya away if she left
her home. Sultana Khaya was also threatened with torture if she left the house. On 1 and
18 December 2020, Moroccan police officers reportedly covered the windows of the house
with black plastic so that the Saharan flag inside was not visible to passers-by. The authorities
also reportedly cut off the electricity to the house in April 2021, and the Khaya sisters were
forced to sleep on the floor.
19.
According to the source, no visitors are admitted without authorization, including
members of the Khaya family. The source reports that in February 2021, the police prevented
a sister of Sultana and Luara Khaya from entering the house while her son was sleeping there.
Sultana Khaya then reportedly tried to go outside to help her sister, but heard the police order
her to be seized and went back inside. The police allegedly then permitted the third sister to
enter the house to find her son. According to the source, Moroccan police officers also refused
entry to people bringing food to the Khaya sisters. On 25 May 2021, the police reportedly
declared that members of the Khaya family must not enter the house since Sultana and Luara
Khaya were in “mandatory detention”.
20.
In particular, the source indicates that the Khaya sisters’ residence is monitored by
approximately 30 agents, a camera outside the house and intelligence vehicles parked next to
it. The source reports that the police monitored and shared Sultana Khaya’s communications,
including private exchanges with her therapist in which she gave intimate details of an alleged
rape. Furthermore, given the regular disruptions to the Internet and other telecommunications
services, Sultana Khaya suspects that the police installed a signal jammer during an operation
on 11 June 2021. In addition, the police have allegedly made attempts to steal Sultana
Khaya’s phone and on some occasions were successful. Police officers also reportedly
refused entry to a member of the Khaya family who was bringing the sisters batteries for their
cell phones. During the August 2021 operation, the authorities reportedly seized five phones
and chargers. The source notes that, without electricity, the Khaya sisters risk being left
without a working telephone and unable to contact their lawyer or family members. In
addition, the source is concerned about the two sisters’ growing vulnerability and the
impunity of law enforcement agencies, since, without a telephone, the Khaya sisters would
no longer be able to report the violations to which they are subjected.
21.
On 23 March 2020, Morocco declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19
pandemic and banned public events; anyone breaking the rules would be punished by up to
1 year’s imprisonment. The source refers to a letter sent to Amnesty International in March
2021, in which the Government denies that Sultana or Luara Khaya are under house arrest
and asserts that their detention is justified under regulations relating to the COVID-19
pandemic. The source recalls that the prohibition of arbitrary detention is a peremptory norm
of international law which is non-derogable, even during a state of emergency.2
2 Opinion No. 16/2011, para. 12; see also opinions No. 38/2012 and No. 9/2013.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
5
ii.
Category I
22.
According to the source, Sultana and Luara Khaya are being held in de facto detention
without legal basis and without having been informed of the charges against them at the time
when they were placed under house arrest. The source concludes that there has been a
violation of articles 147 and 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of article 9 (2) of the
Covenant, which guarantee the right to be informed of the issuance of an arrest warrant and
of the reasons for arrest.
23.
When Sultana Khaya was searched on 19 November 2020, the superintendent who
was present, whose name is known to the Working Group, reportedly admitted to her that
there was no legal basis for the search. Similarly, after arriving at her home, Sultana Khaya
was allegedly pushed inside without being given an explanation.
24.
According to the source, the only legal document provided by the Government is a
summons addressed to Sultana Khaya and received in February 2021, three months after she
was first placed under house arrest. Under article 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
summons must state the charges against the person concerned as set out in the arrest warrant.
The source alleges that Sultana Khaya was never presented with an arrest warrant and that,
consequently, the summons is null and void. In addition, the source argues that even if a valid
summons had been issued, Sultana Khaya’s detention is arbitrary, since under articles 68 and
139 to 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the detention of a suspect is authorized for
only 24 hours, pending examination by a pretrial judge, or for 48 hours for the purposes of
investigation. Sultana Khaya’s placement under house arrest, which exceeds these time
limits, would therefore constitute arbitrary detention under category I.
25.
With regard to Luara Khaya, the source claims that she was pushed inside her home
on 19 November 2020, without any legal basis. She was held there without being informed
of the charges against her at the time when she was placed under house arrest. She was
reportedly not shown an arrest warrant.
26.
In February 2021, while attempting to join a peaceful demonstration, the Khaya sisters
were allegedly beaten and dragged inside their house, an incident which led to a metal bolt
from the door falling onto the floor. The superintendent then reportedly declared that he
finally had the evidence needed to arrest them and admitted that he had previously had no
grounds or evidence to justify their house arrest. That evening, as the police entered the house
unannounced and the family tried to defend themselves, the superintendent allegedly claimed
that he now had what he needed to arrest them.
iii.
Category II
27.
According to the source, the detention of Sultana and Luara Khaya is a direct result
of the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,
which are protected both by articles 12 and 29 of the Moroccan Constitution and by
international law, in particular articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant and articles 19 and
20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The source argues that the rights
guaranteed by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant must be respected, even during public health
emergencies.3
28.
The source claims that Sultana Khaya’s arrest on 19 November 2020 was a
punishment for her peaceful struggle for self-determination for the people of Western Sahara
and is part of a wider campaign of abusive repression aimed at silencing Saharan activists.
The source alleges that the superintendent ordered Sultana Khaya not to talk about politics,
on pain of being tortured. She is also said to have been the subject of multiple reprisals for
her peaceful participation in pro-Saharan demonstrations in 2007, 2011, 2013, 2016 and
2018. According to the source, her detention is the consequence of her participation in
peaceful gatherings for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, in violation
of articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant.
29.
The source also alleges that the de facto detention of the Khaya sisters is a direct
consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of association, as protected by article 22
3 Opinion No. 52/2020, paras. 60 and 61.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
6
GE.23-00654
of the Covenant and by 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 (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders). As a leading human
rights defender, Sultana Khaya is said to have been detained on multiple occasions, and her
story is well documented. She is reportedly being held because of her membership of the
Sahrawi Organization against the Moroccan Occupation and the League for the Defence of
Human Rights and the Protection of Natural Resources. Five other members of the
Organization have reportedly been harassed and placed under house arrest by the authorities.
According to the source, Luara Khaya is subject to de facto detention because of her links
with her sister and with the League. In May 2021, the Moroccan authorities reportedly
summoned members of Luara Khaya’s family and demanded that they convince her to stop
demonstrating in support of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. The
authorities reportedly threatened to “clean out the nest” and “take Luara away” if her family
failed to do so. The source therefore considers that the deprivation of liberty of the Khaya
sisters constitutes arbitrary detention under category II.
iv.
Category II
30.
The source stresses that the Khaya sisters are being detained in the absence of an arrest
warrant and without having been informed of the reasons for their detention at the time that
they were placed under house arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principle
10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment. The source specifies that neither of the sisters was in the process of
committing an offence when they were pushed inside their house and forbidden to leave. The
source maintains that any arrest warrant produced since then does not remedy the arbitrary
nature of the detention, since a delay of a few hours between arrest and the presentation of a
warrant is sufficient to constitute a violation under category III.
31.
The source also claims that the Khaya sisters have been denied the right to challenge
their detention in court. Neither Sultana nor Luara Khaya have been brought before a judge
or allowed to address a judge since the beginning of their house arrest, in breach of
article 9 (4) of the Covenant and principle 11 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and of their rights to be tried
without undue delay and to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal established by
law, in accordance with article 14 (1) and (3) of the Covenant and principles 32 and 37 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
32.
Lastly, the source considers that the length of the Khaya sisters’ de facto detention
indicates that the Government presumes them guilty, depriving them of the right to the
presumption of innocence as protected by article 14 (2) of the Covenant and principle 36 (1)
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
33.
The source therefore considers that the deprivation of liberty of the Khaya sisters is
arbitrary under category III.
v.
Category V
34.
According to the source, Sultana and Luara Khaya were discriminated against on the
basis of their Saharan ethnic origin. Demonstrations in support of independence for the
people of Western Sahara are reportedly subject to brutal and discriminatory repression by
the authorities. The source disputes that this repression can be justified by the public health
measures implemented, since the Government is said to have authorized demonstrations held
in support of the recognition by the United States of America of the sovereignty of Morocco
over Western Sahara.
35.
The source also alleges that Sultana and Luara Khaya have been discriminated against
as Saharan women. In the source’s view, the interception and sharing of the recordings of
exchanges between Sultana Khaya and her therapist in which she discusses being raped is
part of a common practice of defaming female Saharan human rights defenders and
journalists.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
7
36.
Lastly, the source considers that the Khaya sisters have been discriminated against as
human rights defenders, in breach of articles 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Declaration on Human
Rights Defenders. They were allegedly targeted for supporting the right to self-determination
of the people of Western Sahara and as members of the League for the Defence of Human
Rights and the Protection of Natural Resources. Sultana Khaya was reportedly also targeted
for her membership of the Sahrawi Organization against the Moroccan Occupation. The
source claims that in the first two weeks of May 2021 alone, Moroccan authorities detained
13 Saharan human rights defenders.
Response from the Government
37.
On 14 October 2021, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Sultana and Luara Khaya to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information
about them by 13 December 2021 and to guarantee their physical and mental integrity.
38.
On 13 December 2021, the Government submitted its response, in which it refers to
its reply, dated 16 September 2021, to the joint communication from six special procedure
mandate holders, dated 10 June 2021, and requests that this reply be taken into account.4
39.
The authorities reaffirm the importance of maintaining a framework of relations with
all United Nations mechanisms, including the Working Group, on the basis of good faith,
cooperation and constructive exchanges. They are concerned, however, that the Working
Group is being used for political ends and is giving a false and distorted picture of the human
rights situation in Morocco, particularly in the southern provinces.
40.
The Government also states that it has taken measures to deal with the public health
emergency linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the resulting restrictions, particularly
on the rights to freedom of movement and to freedom of assembly, have been implemented
with a view to protecting the population while upholding fundamental rights. The measures
have reportedly been taken on the basis of Decree-Law No. 2-20-292 of 23 March 2020,
enacting special provisions for a public health-related state of emergency and measures for
its declaration, and World Health Organization standards, and are said to be compatible with
article 4 of the Covenant.
41.
The Government categorically refutes the claim that independent activists such as
Sultana and Luara Khaya are the target of increasing physical and sexual attacks, harassment,
threats and reprisals. It accuses the Frente POLISARIO of propagating false allegations
against Morocco to mobilize its sympathizers and supporters on Moroccan soil. It reaffirms
its commitment to its international human rights obligations and states that, in line with those,
in February 2021, it opened an investigation into Sultana Khaya’s allegations. She has
reportedly been summoned by the investigation services to be heard on her claims. The
Government states that Sultana Khaya has refused to respond to the summons or engage in
dialogue with the competent authorities. According to the information obtained, following
new allegations, the competent prosecutor’s office has ordered further investigations to be
conducted.
42.
The Government further submits that neither of the Khaya sisters is under arrest or
subject to any legal proceedings or house arrest.
43.
The Government states that Sultana Khaya was born in 1979 in Boujdour, in the south
of the Kingdom of Morocco, where she usually lives with her parents. According to the
Government, for more than a year she has used the family home as a breeding ground for
subversive activities and she and her relatives and accomplices have engaged in provocative
activities on a daily basis. 5 In particular, Sultana Khaya has reportedly deliberately
disregarded the public health measures in force and received groups of individuals from other
towns at her home, willingly disturbed the public order and the neighbourhood, including at
night, through the deliberate use of megaphones fixed to the terrace and windows of the
property, insulted law enforcement agents deployed locally as part of the public
4 See communication MAR 5/2021, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26478.
5 The Government refers to its reply as contained in MAR 5/2021, dated 16 September 2021, available
at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=36549.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
8
GE.23-00654
health-related state of emergency, championed public disturbances and acts endangering
public safety and incited violence.
44.
The Government reaffirms that neither Sultana nor Luara Khaya is under house arrest
or any other administrative or judicial measure and that they are not under surveillance. It
maintains that they are completely free to conduct their day-to-day activities and that they
leave their home frequently. It reports that Sultana Khaya moves freely between her parents’
home and her workplace in Boujdour and travels abroad without any restrictions.
45.
The Government points out that Sultana Khaya’s interaction with the police on
19 November 2020 took place on her return from a trip to Spain. It explains that on her arrival
in Boujdour, Sultana Khaya was subjected to a routine identity check at a police roadblock
at the northern entrance to the town; such roadblocks are located at every entrance to the
main settlements in Morocco. The Government denies that she was travelling in her personal
vehicle and contends that the other people in the vehicle were also subjected to an identity
check. It adds that all of the individuals were able to continue their journey in a perfectly
normal manner.
46.
On Sultana Khaya’s arrival at the family home, a group of people reportedly gathered
on the public highway to welcome her, in violation of the measures in place owing to the
public health-related state of emergency, leading the local authorities to ask them to respect
the rules.
47.
In addition, the Government denies that Sultana Khaya is a peaceful activist and
claims, for example, that she has appeared in public dressed in military uniform and carrying
a weapon. Furthermore, during a televised interview on 18 November 2010, she allegedly
passed off photographs of severely injured Palestinian children as photographs of “Saharan”
children who she claimed had been injured during an operation conducted by the security
forces to dismantle a camp in Gdeim Izik in November 2010.
48.
The Government explains that the investigations into the alleged attacks on Sultana
Khaya and her family, which were opened on the instructions of the competent prosecutor’s
office, are ongoing. It asserts that Sultana Khaya and her family move around freely, without
restriction, and that she expresses herself freely, including in the public square, which it
claims is proof that she is not under house arrest. It emphasizes that neither Sultana nor Luara
Khaya has been detained or prosecuted to date.
49.
According to the Government, the relatives of Sultana and Luara Khaya are free to
move around and are not subject to any restrictions, including with regard to their health. It
states that 16 members of their family were vaccinated against COVID-19 as part of the
national vaccination campaign and that the family participated in the elections held on
8 September 2021.
50.
The Government also notes that neither Sultana nor Luara Khaya has lodged any
complaint in connection with the allegations in question. Nevertheless, on 3 November 2021,
the Prosecutor General of the Laayoune Court of Appeal reportedly ordered the national
criminal investigation police to investigate the allegations made by Sultana Khaya and her
family, in particular those relating to physical and sexual assault.
51.
The Government also contests the allegations concerning Sultana Khaya’s
deteriorating health and maintains that, like any other citizen, she is in no way deprived of
health care or access to health services. It notes that no complaints in connection with these
allegations have been lodged with the relevant courts or national human rights bodies.
52.
The Government recalls that under article 23 of the Constitution, arbitrary detention
constitutes an offence of the utmost gravity and that the perpetrators thereof risk the most
severe penalties. It reiterates that Sultana and Luara Khaya have never been detained, made
subject to any legal proceedings or placed in police custody, and have therefore never been
deprived of their liberty. It asserts that the references made in the communication to the
provisions of criminal law are erroneous and that, in any case, they are not applicable in the
present case.
53.
The Government explains that article 16 of the Criminal Code requires that the
measure of house arrest must be based on a court decision, and reiterates that neither Sultana
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
9
nor Luara Khaya is subject to any such measure. It claims that the Khaya sisters deliberately
refrained from travelling outside the town of Boujdour for some time in order to give the
impression that they were under house arrest. The Government therefore maintains that the
allegation of a violation under category I is not applicable in the present case.
54.
Furthermore, the Government maintains that article 25 of the Constitution enshrines
freedom of opinion and expression in all its forms and that the legislation in force protects
that right and guarantees the exercise thereof with due respect for the privacy and reputation
of individuals and for justice, public safety and public order.
55.
The Government notes that article 12 of the Constitution states that civil society
associations and non-governmental organizations may be set up and carry out their activities
freely, within the framework of the Constitution and the law. It maintains that the situation
of the Khaya sisters does not fall into category II as they are not the subject of any legal
proceedings and can express themselves freely.
56.
The Government also maintains that the Khaya sisters have not been deprived of any
legal guarantees since they have not been the subject of any legal proceedings and have not
been detained. It notes that Sultana Khaya makes reference to the summons she received in
February 2021, to which she refused to respond, in order to claim that she was not informed
of the issuance of a warrant for her arrest. The Government asserts that the summons in
question was issued in accordance with article 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the
purpose of holding a hearing with a view to initiating proceedings, should there be a need to
do so. Sultana Khaya is said to have deliberately persisted in her refusal to respond to the
summonses.
57.
On 2 June 2021, the national criminal investigation police reportedly visited the
family home to take Sultana Khaya’s statement, including in connection with the allegations
of sexual assault. She reportedly refused to speak to the officers, arguing that her case had
been brought before the United Nations. Investigations by the prosecutor’s office are said to
be ongoing.
58.
According to the Government, the Regional Commission for Human Rights in
Laayoune visited Sultana Khaya on 13 February 2021 to take her statement and offer her
medical assistance, which she declined. On 21 and 28 May 2021, she also refused to receive
a delegation from the Regional Commission for Human Rights who had come to enquire
about her situation.
59.
A complaint was reportedly lodged against Sultana Khaya on 5 April 2021 for
violence, insults and threats directed against a public official in the exercise of his functions
and is currently the subject of a preliminary investigation being conducted under the
supervision of the Prosecutor’s Office in Laayoune.
60.
The Government also rejected the claims made under category V and denied the
existence of any link whatsoever between the Khaya sisters’ “Saharan” origin or any related
activities and the alleged restrictions on their freedom of movement. It contests the idea that
being of “Saharan origin” could constitute justification for deprivation of liberty and points
out that under article 6 of the Constitution and article 431-1 of the Criminal Code, all forms
of discrimination are punishable and that legal proceedings or detention can be carried out
only in full compliance with the law. It affirms that all forms of prosecution or detention
based on discrimination are forbidden and condemned. The Government stresses that Sultana
Khaya has never lodged a complaint of discrimination before the national courts.
Additional comments from the source
61.
The Government’s response was transmitted to the source, and the source then
submitted additional comments, in which it noted that a joint communication from six special
procedure mandate holders specifically addressed the alleged attacks on Saharan human
rights defenders. The source claims that in the communication, the mandate holders describe
how, on 19 November 2020, while returning to Boujdour from Laayoune, Sultana Khaya was
arrested at a police checkpoint and taken to a police station, where she was subjected to a full
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
10
GE.23-00654
body search by a female police officer, in the absence of a warrant, and threatened by the
police superintendent.6
62.
The source reports that, in an interview with her lawyer three weeks later, Sultana
Khaya gave a full account of the interrogation to which she had been subjected at the police
station on 19 November 2020. An acquaintance of Sultana Khaya is said to have acted as
interpreter during the interview.
63.
The source indicates that the Government has not responded to these allegations and
reiterates that the Khaya sisters have allegedly been subjected to threats and coercion. The
source adds that on 13 May 2021, the Ministry of the Interior office in Boujdour summoned
Luara Khaya’s family members and told them that she would be taken away from them if
they did not convince her and Sultana Khaya to stop protesting against their house arrest. The
police also threatened to kidnap her if she left the house.
64.
The source recalls that when a presumption of arbitrary detention is established on the
basis of elements set out in a communication, the burden of proof lies with the Government.
If the Government does not produce specific evidence to refute the allegations, the facts
presented in the communication are considered to have been established. The source argues
that the Government has not refuted the prima facie claim that the detention of Sultana and
Luara Khaya could be qualified as arbitrary house arrest under the jurisprudence of the
Working Group. It points out that the Government has not cited any independent sources to
substantiate its claims, whereas the house arrest of Sultana and Luara Khaya has been
reported by numerous independent and impartial sources.
65.
The source repeats its allegations about de facto house arrest and states that, although
the agents slightly widened the police perimeter around the house to around 45 metres in all
directions, in practice the security perimeter immediately shrinks if the Khaya sisters attempt
to leave the house. On 22 March 2022, Luara Khaya allegedly tried to leave the house and
go into the street, but an officer hit her leg and face and pushed her back towards the house.
The guards reportedly remained firmly in place and harassed anyone who tried to visit the
sisters.7 The source denies that the sisters were able to vote in the 8 September 2021 elections,
since they were under de facto house arrest.
66.
The source maintains that the Government cannot be exonerated simply because it
investigated the allegations of rape and torture. It points out that it is not necessary for
domestic remedies to have been exhausted for the Working Group to consider a case, and
that there is no reason for the Khaya sisters to have confidence in the impartiality,
independence, outcome or credibility of the investigation.8 It argues that the Government
uses its judicial institutions to silence and ostracize Saharans who support self-determination
for the people of Western Sahara.9 It asserts that national human rights institutions are not
independent or impartial in their investigations of allegations made by Saharans, in
contravention of the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion
and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles).10
67.
Lastly, with regard to the Government’s reference to Sultana Khaya wearing a military
uniform, the source states that she wore it while attending an event on 6 January 2019, at
6 See communication MAR 5/2021, p. 3.
7 Ibid., pp. 3–6.
8 See Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 1 (E/CN.4/1993/24, sect. II).
9 Opinion No. 68/2020, paras. 71, 72 and 88, and footnote 12; and opinion No. 46/2021, paras. 102 and
103.
10 See, for example, Amnesty International, “UN must monitor human rights in Western Sahara and
Sahrawi refugee camps”, 26 April 2016, available at
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/04/un-must-monitor-human-rights-in-western-sahara-
and-sahrawi-refugee-camps-2/; Human Rights Watch, “Letter to Members of the UN Security
Council: Extend MINURSO Mandate to Human Rights”, 14 April 2014, available at
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/14/letter-members-un-security-counctil-extend-minurso-mandate-
human-rights; and Alkarama, “Morocco: National Human Rights Council To Keep A Status Despite
Lack of Independence from the Executive”, 1 February 2016, available at
https://www.alkarama.org/en/articles/morocco-national-human-rights-council-keep-status-despite-
lack-independence-executive.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
11
which the Frente POLISARIO, as part of its commitment to the work of the Mine Action
Service of the United Nations, destroyed its last stockpile of anti-personnel mines under the
supervision of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.
Additional information
68.
On 4 July 2022, the source informed the Working Group that Sultana Khaya had fled
Morocco on 1 June 2022 and gone into exile in Spain, while Luara Khaya remained under
police surveillance.
Discussion
69.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
70.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Sultana Khaya and Luara Khaya
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.11
71.
Firstly, the Working Group notes fact that Sultana Khaya fled Morocco on 1 June
2022 and went into exile in Spain, while Luara Khaya remains under police surveillance.
However, in view of the source’s allegations of serious violations of the rights of Sultana and
Luara Khaya, the Working Group decides to proceed to the examination of these allegations
in accordance with paragraph 17 of its methods of work.
72.
The Working Group recalls that the handling of communications from sources and
the responses from Governments are subject only to the procedural rules set out in its methods
of work and not those contained in other international instruments that the parties might
consider applicable. The Working Group clarifies that, in its methods of work, there is no
applicable rule that impedes the consideration of a communication due to non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies in the country concerned. There is therefore no obligation to exhaust
domestic remedies before submitting a communication to the Working Group.12
73.
In addition, the Working Group wishes to recall that its working methods enable it to
take into account the information received from the Government in response to the joint
urgent appeal referred to by both parties.13
Category I
74.
The source reports two cases of deprivation of liberty: that of Sultana Khaya at the
police station on 19 November 2020, and the de facto house arrest imposed on the two Khaya
sisters, from the same date. The Government rejects the allegations made in connection with
both of the cases. It claims that on 19 November 2020, Sultana Khaya was not arrested or
taken to the police station, but that the vehicle she was travelling in was stopped at a
checkpoint for a routine identity check and that all of the passengers, including Sultana
Khaya, continued on their way after the check had been completed.
75.
While the source, in its additional comments, reiterates its initial allegations and
argues that they are supported by the joint communication from special procedure mandate
holders, the Working Group wishes to clarify that the purpose of this type of urgent
communication is to report allegations of human rights violations and to request the
Government concerned to respond. Therefore, urgent communications cannot be considered
as evidence of human rights violations or as refuting the allegations presented by the source.
In the present case, the Working Group has before it two different and irreconcilable versions
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 See, for example, opinions No. 11/2000, No. 19/2013, No. 38/2017, No. 8/2018, No. 53/2019,
No. 51/2020 and No. 25/2022.
13 See, for example, opinions No. 48/2016, No. 79/2017, No. 19/2018 and No. 83/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
12
GE.23-00654
of the facts concerning Sultana Khaya’s alleged transfer to the police station on 19 November
2020. The Working Group therefore is unable to make any findings on the matter.
76.
With regard to the second set of allegations concerning the de facto house arrest of
the Khaya sisters, the Working Group notes that, in its response, the Government merely
states that neither of the sisters was subject to house arrest or any other administrative or
judicial measure and that they were not under surveillance. However, it is not alleged that the
Khaya sisters have been placed under official house arrest. On the contrary, the source
expressly asserts that their house arrest was not the subject of any legal proceedings.
77.
Although the Government maintained that the Khaya sisters were able to move about
freely, including to go to the market, it did not respond to the source’s assertion that it was
only initially that they were able to visit the market, albeit under police escort. Furthermore,
although the Government asserted that the Khaya sisters were not subjected to any form of
surveillance, it did not respond to the source’s very specific allegations that a large number
of agents were present outside their house and that they had been threatened with violence if
they left the house and physically pushed back inside.
78.
The Working Group therefore considers that, while it is true that neither of the Khaya
sisters has been placed under official house arrest, they have nevertheless been forced to
remain in their home by the authorities, who have threatened them and used physical force
to keep them there. There appears to have been a large number of police officers outside their
house at all times, since every time they tried to leave they were forced back in, and any
outing, for example to the market, took place under police escort.
79.
The Working Group reiterates that deprivation of liberty is not only a question of legal
definition, but also of fact, and if an individual is not at liberty to leave a place or facility,
then all the appropriate safeguards that are in place to guard against arbitrary detention must
be respected.14 In this case, it finds that Sultana and Luara Khaya had been deprived of their
liberty.
80.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category I if it lacks
legal basis. As it has previously stated, for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is
not sufficient for there to be a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke
that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant.15
Indeed, international law on deprivation of liberty includes the right to be presented with an
arrest warrant, which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person
and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, under articles 3 and 9, respectively, of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4 and
10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment.16 This did not take place in the case of the Khaya sisters, and the Working
Group therefore finds a breach of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
81.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested shall be informed
of the reasons for his or her arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him
or her. The Working Group recalls in this respect that arrest within the meaning of article 9
need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law.17
82.
The right to be informed promptly of any charge concerns notice of any criminal
charges. As the Human Rights Committee noted in its general comment No. 35 (2014), that
right applies in connection with ordinary criminal prosecutions and also in connection with
military prosecutions or other special regimes directed at criminal punishment.18
14 A/HRC/36/37, para. 56; and opinion No. 22/2020, para. 62.
15 See opinions No. 46/2017, No. 66/2017, No. 75/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 35/2018, No. 79/2018,
No. 89/2020 and No. 72/2021.
16 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 13; see also Yklymova v.
Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/96/D/1460/2006), paras. 7.2 and 7.3; and Kurbanov v. Tajikistan
(CCPR/C/79/D/1096/2002), para. 7.2.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
13
83.
The Working Group notes that neither of the Khaya sisters has been given any
explanation of the reasons for their detention and that they have never been charged with any
offence, despite the fact that their detention lasted more than seven months. The Working
Group therefore finds a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
84.
Any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subjected to the
effective control of, a judicial or other authority under the law, whose status and tenure should
afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in
accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and article 9 (4) of the Covenant. According to the
United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of
Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, the right to challenge
the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right essential to the
preservation of legality in a democratic society.19 That right, which is a peremptory norm of
international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty. 20 The Working Group
considers that the Khaya sisters have been deprived of this right. Although, according to the
Government, Sultana Khaya refused to respond to the summonses of February 2021, the
Working Group notes that these did not relate to the de facto house arrest and observes that
they were issued almost four months after the house arrest began. The Working Group
therefore finds a violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
85.
The Working Group finds that the detention of Sultana and Luara Khaya is arbitrary
under category I.
Category II
86.
According to the source, the detention of Sultana and Luara Khaya is a direct
consequence of their peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and
association, as guaranteed by articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. The Government rejects
this assertion and maintains that the Khaya sisters were able to exercise these rights, including
by unfurling a flag in front of their house.
87.
The Working Group must emphasize, however, that the Khaya sisters’ ability to
exercise their freedoms to some extent, during what has been established as constituting de
facto house arrest, does not in itself mean that this de facto house arrest was not imposed as
a result of the exercise of these rights.
88.
The Government further asserts that Sultana Khaya cannot be described as a peaceful
protester given that she appeared in public wearing a military uniform and carrying a weapon.
The source does not deny that this happened but reports that it took place in 2019 as part of
efforts to destroy a stockpile of anti-personnel mines.
89.
The Working Group recalls that the freedoms of expression, assembly and association
are not absolute rights and that they can be subject to restrictions for reasons relating, in
particular, to national security and public order. In the present case, it cannot conclude that
there were no legitimate reasons to place restrictions on Sultana Khaya’s exercise of these
freedoms, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant, and it is therefore unable to
make any findings in relation to Category II. The Working Group wishes to emphasize,
however, that even if there had been reasons justifying the placing of restrictions on the
exercise of freedoms by Sultana Khaya, these restrictions should have been imposed through
legitimate judicial proceedings, of which, as evidenced in the discussion above under
category I, she has been entirely deprived.
90.
With regard to Luara Khaya, the Working Group notes that in its response, the
Government merely states that her situation does not fall within category II, without any
further explanation. The Working Group recalls the assertion made by the source that Luara
Khaya is an activist for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara and was
involved in organizing the activities of a former music group that performed at Saharan
festivals wearing traditional clothing and waving the Saharan flag. The source also claimed
19 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2 and 3.
20 Ibid., para. 11.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
14
GE.23-00654
that in May 2021, Moroccan authorities had summoned members of Luara Khaya’s
immediate family and demanded that they convince her to stop demonstrating in support of
self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. The source concluded that Luara
Khaya’s detention was a direct consequence of her exercise of protected freedoms in
connection with the aforementioned activities. These allegations were put to the Government,
which chose not to respond to them.
91.
The Working Group was not presented with any evidence that the restrictions
authorized under articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant might in any way apply to Luara
Khaya’s actions. Noting all of the above, the Working Group finds that the detention of Luara
Khaya is a consequence of her peaceful exercise of her rights to freedom of expression,
assembly and association, as protected by articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, and is
therefore arbitrary under category II.
Category III
92.
The source claims that the detention of the Khaya sisters also falls under category III.
The Government rejects this claim and points out that neither of the sisters is the subject of
legal proceedings.
93.
The Working Group has already established that the Khaya sisters were deprived of
their liberty from 19 November 2020, that they were never notified of any charges against
them and that they were never brought before a judicial authority.
94.
The Working Group recalls that article 14 of the Covenant provides that everyone is
entitled to a fair and public hearing and to be informed, in detail, of the nature and cause of
the charge against them. Article 14 (3) (a) and (c) further stipulates that the trial must take
place without undue delay. Noting that the Khaya sisters have been entirely deprived of these
rights, the Working Group finds that there has been a violation of these provisions and
considers that these violations are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an
arbitrary character under category III.
Category V
95.
The source asserts that the detention of the Khaya sisters falls under category V as it
stems from discrimination on the basis of their Saharan ethnic origin. The Government rejects
this claim, arguing that discrimination is prohibited by the Constitution.
96.
The Working Group notes that violations are routinely committed against people who,
like the Khaya sisters, campaign for the right of self-determination for the people of Western
Sahara. In this respect, it recalls its previous opinions in cases concerning Saharans and its
findings that the persons concerned had been victims of discrimination.21
97.
In the present case, the Government does not dispute the source’s assertions that, as a
result of her activism, Sultana Khaya suffered multiple reprisals in 2007, 2011, 2013, 2016
and 2018. Nor does the Government deny that five other members of the same organization
have been placed under house arrest or that members of the Khaya sisters’ family have been
summoned on various occasions and asked to ensure that Sultana and Luara end their
activism.
98.
The Working Group considers that the Khaya sisters have been deprived of their
liberty on discriminatory grounds, namely on account of their status as Saharan women and
of their political stance in support of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara, in
violation of articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. Their detention is therefore arbitrary under
category V.
99.
The Working Group wishes to emphasize that the present opinion concerns solely the
deprivation of liberty of the Khaya sisters and is adopted without prejudice to the legal status
of Western Sahara.22
21 See opinions No. 11/2017, No. 31/2018, No. 58/2018, No. 60/2018, No. 23/2019, No. 67/2019,
No. 52/2020, No. 68/2020 and No. 46/2021.
22 A/HRC/27/48/Add.5, para. 62.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
GE.23-00654
15
Concluding remarks
100.
The Working Group is deeply concerned by the allegations of serious violence,
including sexual violence, committed against the Khaya sisters. It is also concerned by the
undisputed allegations of intentional infection with COVID-19, the denial of medical care
and the spillage of toxic, foul-smelling liquid in the Khaya sisters’ home, which is said to
have had detrimental effects on their health. The Working Group is also concerned about the
fate of the three activists who were forcibly removed from the house on 10 May 2021.
101.
The Working Group must remind the Government that in accordance with article 10
of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with
respect to the inherent dignity of the human person and that denial of medical assistance
breaches the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela Rules), in particular rules 24, 25, 27 and 30. In addition, deprivation of
contact with family members breaches principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
102.
The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, and the Special Rapporteur
on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health.
Disposition
103.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
(a)
The deprivation of liberty of Sultana Khaya and Luara Khaya, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 7 and 9 to 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 2, 9, 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
(b)
The deprivation of liberty of Luara Khaya, being in contravention of articles
19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 22 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within category II.
104.
The Working Group requests the Government of Morocco to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Sultana and Luara Khaya 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.
105.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Sultana and Luara Khaya an enforceable
right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. The
Working Group also urges the Government to remove all restrictions on the freedom of
movement of Sultana and Luara Khaya, in accordance with international law.
106.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Sultana
and Luara Khaya and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of their rights.
107.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its
causes and consequences, and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
108.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/50
16
GE.23-00654
Follow-up procedure
109.
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 compensation or other reparations have been made to Sultana and
Luara Khaya;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Sultana and Luara Khaya and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Morocco with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
110.
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.
111.
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.
112.
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.23
[Adopted on 31 August 2022]
23 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.