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.23-06734 (E) 270423 130623
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-sixth session, 27 March–5 April 2023
Opinion No. 12/2023 concerning Safwan Ahmed Hassan Thabet and
Seif Eldin Safwan Ahmed Thabet (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 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 4 January 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Safwan Ahmed Hassan
Thabet and Seif Eldin Safwan Ahmed Thabet. The Government replied to the communication
on 6 March 2023. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
General Assembly
Distr.: General
28 April 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
2
GE.23-06734
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Safwan Ahmed Hassan Thabet is an Egyptian national, born in 1946. His national
identity number is [withheld]. He usually resides in Giza, Egypt. Mr. Safwan Thabet is the
founder and former chairman of Juhayna Food Industries.
5.
Seif Eldin Safwan Ahmed Thabet is an Egyptian national, born in 1981. His national
identity number is [withheld]. He usually resides in Giza, Egypt. Mr. Seif Thabet is the eldest
son of Mr. Safwan Thabet and has been the Chief Executive Officer of Juhayna Food
Industries since 2016.
Context
6.
According to the source, Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were arrested as part
of a crackdown on successful businesses, whereby the authorities use terrorism laws to add
the names of business owners to terrorist lists and to justify the freeze and seizure of their
assets.
7.
The two individuals reportedly own the largest producer of dairy and juice products
in Egypt, Juhayna Food Industries, founded in 1983. For years, the company had the largest
share of the country’s dairy market and it currently has a capitalization of approximately
1 billion Egyptian pounds ($63.9 million).
8.
According to the source, in August 2015, the Committee to Assess the Financial
Assets of the Muslim Brotherhood froze Mr. Safwan Thabet’s personal assets but excluded
those of Juhayna Food Industries. The Committee claimed that Mr. Safwan Thabet was an
active member of the Muslim Brotherhood, not merely a supporter. In February 2016, with
no court hearing or official charges, the Committee reportedly froze 7.2 per cent of the shares
of Juhayna Food Industries that it said Mr. Safwan Thabet indirectly owned. However, the
Government could not seize all of the company’s assets because Mr. Safwan Thabet held the
majority of his shares through Pharaoh Investments Limited, a fund incorporated abroad, in
which Mr. Safwan Thabet’s family held a majority of shares.
9.
The source reports that the Committee to Assess the Financial Assets of the Muslim
Brotherhood is an administrative entity, created in 2013, that is responsible for decisions that
pave the way for the unlawful seizure of assets of individuals and companies, which, the
authorities claim, regardless of evidence, are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
10.
On 3 August 2021, the Government of Egypt announced the opening of the first phase
of the food and logistics industrial city known as “Silo Foods” in Sadat City. Reportedly, Silo
Foods is the most recent State-run enterprise launched by the National Service Products
Organization as a component of the country’s military economy. The source notes that the
Government branding of Silo Foods is remarkably similar to that of Juhayna Food Industries.
For instance, the slogan of Silo Foods reads “The World Has a New Taste”, while the slogan
of Juhayna Food Industries reads “The World Has a Beautiful Taste”. Reportedly, for months
prior to Mr. Safwan Thabet’s arrest, the President of Egypt had publicly instructed the
Government to develop government-owned dairy industry facilities. Following his arrest,
Mr. Safwan Thabet resigned as the company’s Chairperson and was replaced by the
company’s Saudi partner and shareholder.
a.
Arrest and detention
Safwan Ahmed Hassan Thabet
11.
According to the source, Mr. Safwan Thabet was first arrested on 2 December 2020,
when 50 armed policemen in four armoured vehicles, led by an officer from the State Security
Authority, broke into his home in Cairo. Allegedly, he was not shown an arrest warrant or
provided with any explanation for his arrest.
12.
Mr. Safwan Thabet was reportedly subjected to enforced disappearance for four days,
until 6 December 2020, when he was brought before the Supreme State Security Prosecution.
He was reportedly interrogated on charges of joining and financing a terrorist group based
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
3
on an investigative report provided by the State Security Authority that neither Mr. Safwan
Thabet nor his lawyer were allowed to examine. The source alleges that despite failing to
provide sufficient evidence to support the accusations, the Prosecution ordered Mr. Safwan
Thabet into pretrial detention.
13.
Reportedly, Mr. Safwan Thabet has been detained in solitary confinement at Tora El
Mazraa Prison since 6 December 2020 and that his detention has been renewed almost
automatically, without sufficient reasoning being provided, either by the Prosecution or by
the Court.
14.
The source explains that Mr. Safwan Thabet suffers from stomach ulcers, high
cholesterol, fatty liver, a double-knee replacement and shoulder injuries. It is reported that
since his arrest, the prison administration has refused to deliver his medicine regularly or to
provide him with adequate medical care. On 21 July 2022, the source received information
that his health had significantly deteriorated due to his health and the denial of medical
treatment.
15.
The source further claims that the Ministry of the Interior rejected Mr. Safwan
Thabet’s family visitation request many times: he was granted a first family visit on 4 August
2021. According to the source, his family has not been authorized to deliver him any of the
necessities of life, clothes, medication or food. Reportedly, visits have taken place under
close prison observation, through a barrier, with no privacy. It is alleged that, on 11 October
2022, a relative was granted a short visit in the Badr Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre,
to which Mr. Safwan Thabet was transferred at some point between August and September
2022. The source alleges that it appeared clear that his physical and cognitive function had
deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention, including his lengthy stay in solitary
confinement. It is reported that the lights in his cell remain on at all hours of the day and
night, that he is denied time and access to exercise and that his personal belongings, including
his Qur’an, have been confiscated.
16.
Since being moved to the Badr Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, Mr. Safwan
Thabet has reportedly remained in solitary confinement. Ventilation in his cell remains on,
even on cold days, and, without proper medical attention, his physical and psychological
health continue to deteriorate. Mr. Safwan has reportedly requested blood pressure
monitoring equipment, along with medicines necessary to alleviate the pain in his shoulders
and to mitigate pre-existing medical conditions. However, these requests have been denied.
In addition, he is unable to access the commissary to purchase adequate food or clothing,
which is an increasing concern as temperatures become colder. He is also subjected to 24-
hour video surveillance, by means of an in-cell closed-circuit television camera, and family
visits, which are strictly monitored, remain limited to 10 minutes. Finally, the source reports
that although Mr. Safwan Thabet’s pretrial detention exceeded the permissible legal limit of
two years on 2 December 2022, no release order was issued, nor was any evidence presented
to merit a referral to trial.
Seif Eldin Safwan Ahmed Thabet
17.
On 31 January 2021, Mr. Seif Thabet was reportedly ordered to report to the
headquarters of the State Security Authority in Madinat Nasr, Cairo. The source alleges that
he was not allowed to bring a lawyer to the meeting and that security and intelligence officials
ordered him to hand over the entirety of his family’s shares in Juhayna Food Industries,
threatening that he would face a fate similar to that of his father if he did not comply. Mr. Seif
Thabet refused, however, to give up his family shares. The officials, in return, did not offer
him compensation in any form.
18.
On 2 February 2021, Mr. Seif Thabet was again ordered to report to the headquarters
of the State Security Authority. Reportedly, he was subjected to enforced disappearance; the
authorities refused to reveal his fate or whereabouts until 6 February 2021.
19.
Reportedly, it was later discovered that he had been taken to the offices of the Supreme
State Security Prosecution on 6 February 2021, where a Prosecutor accused him of joining
and financing a terrorist group. However, such allegations were based on secret investigations
of the National Security Agency that he was allegedly not allowed to examine. On
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
4
GE.23-06734
14 February 2021, his family finally managed to locate him inside the notorious Tora
maximum security 1 prison, known as Al-Aqrab prison or Scorpion prison.
20.
The source explains that detainees at Al-Aqrab prison are “living in tombs” and are
deprived of visits from their family and lawyers for months, even years. It is alleged that
Mr. Seif Thabet has been held in solitary confinement in an insect-infested cell, sleeping on
blankets on the floor, denied access to sanitary facilities and deprived of adequate food, water,
climate-appropriate clothing and any personal items. The source claims that while Mr. Seif
Thabet was detained in Al-Aqrab prison, no one checked on him for up to 24 hours, wardens
had orders not to speak to him and he was not allowed the opportunity to read or write to
maintain his mental sanity. In addition, Mr. Seif Thabet was reportedly subjected to physical
assault and psychological torture.
21.
According to the source, Mr. Seif Thabet’s family was initially denied visitation rights
and was subsequently allowed to see him only rarely. Reportedly, between 2 February and
4 April 2021, his family made at least 12 attempts to visit him in prison, all of which were
denied. On 16 August 2021, Mr. Seif Thabet received a visit from a relative, during which
he informed the visitor that all inmates had been moved from Tora maximum security prison
1 to Tora maximum security prison 2. While he was held at the new location along with other
inmates in neighbouring cells and had access to a small window, he complained that the other
inmates were violent criminals and that his cell was infested with rats and weasels.
Subsequently, on 11 October 2022, he was granted a short family visit at the Badr
Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, to which he had been transferred at some point
between August and September 2022. On that occasion, Mr. Seif Thabet reported that he
continued to be held in solitary confinement and that the lights in his cell remained on at all
hours of the day and night.
22.
Since being moved to the Badr Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, Mr. Seif
Thabet remains in solitary confinement. The conditions of his detention have reportedly
improved as he now has regular contact with guards and is housed in an above-ground cell
where he can hear other prisoners around him. However, he is unable to access the
commissary to purchase adequate food or clothing, which is an increasing concern as the
temperatures become colder. Furthermore, he is subjected to 24-hour video surveillance, by
means of an in-cell closed-circuit television camera, and family visits, which are strictly
monitored, remain limited to 10 minutes.
b.
Company harassment
23.
According to the source, in January 2017, without due process, a court added
Mr. Safwan Thabet and 1,500 other individuals to a list of terrorists. Although, in July 2018,
the Court of Cassation had struck down that designation, another court had added Mr. Safwan
Thabet to the list in April 2018. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of
Cassation on 11 March 2021. As a result, Mr. Safwan Thabet is subject to a travel ban and
an assets freeze.
24.
Moreover, it has been reported that, in May 2021, a representative of Juhayna Food
Industries announced that the traffic police had placed a checkpoint in front of the company’s
main factory, taking measures which the company considered arbitrary, including revoking
the vehicle licenses of dozens of its delivery drivers, as well as its company executives and
private contractors. The sources complains that such measures were aimed at disrupting the
company’s supply chain, damaging its ability to compete and preparing the market for the
entry of State-affiliated competitors.
25.
Reportedly, shares in Juhayna Food Industries dropped sharply in early trading in
February 2021 after the arrest of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet. Furthermore, the
company faced punitive measures on the Egyptian stock market for failing to submit financial
statements for the 2020 fiscal year before the deadline. This led to the demotion of the
company listing on the stock market exchange.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
5
c.
Family actions
26.
According to the source, on 6 February 2021, Mr. Seif Thabet’s family submitted a
complaint to the Public Prosecutor regarding his enforced disappearance. Reportedly, they
received no response.
27.
Furthermore, on 24 February 2022, the family submitted urgent requests to the
Prosecutor General for a humanitarian release of both individuals However, no reply was
received. The family also alerted the National Council for Human Rights of the requests and
the deplorable prison conditions, asking for an investigation and the Council’s support for
their release. Although the National Council promised to examine the cases, no formal
response or investigation followed.
28.
It has also been alleged that the family submitted applications on behalf of each
individual to the Presidential Pardon Committee, but no reply was received.
29.
With regard to the alleged harassment of the company, the source reports that Juhayna
Food Industries filed several complaints with the judicial authorities concerning the
suspension and the refusal of dozens of vehicle licenses, which had put the company at risk
of financial losses.
d.
Reprisals against family members
30.
According to the source, authorities threatened Mr. Safwan Thabet in order to harm
the rest of his family. On 2 October 2021, the authorities allegedly sought to file charges of
“spreading false news” and “joining a terrorist group” against a relative of Mr. Safwan
Thabet’s after the individual posted complaints on social media about the abusive detention
of both individuals. The relative was reportedly interrogated by the State Security
Prosecution for over 10 hours and was then ordered to be released pending proceedings. The
source alleges that the family initially refrained from speaking publicly and that, during the
interrogation, the relative was threatened with detention and instructed by authorities not to
post anything or talk to journalists.
31.
On 18 March 2022, the above-mentioned relative died after being hospitalized. It is
reported that the unfair detention and ill-treatment of the two individuals had exacerbated the
condition of the relative. Reportedly, both men were allowed to visit their relative at the
hospital a week before his death and to attend the funeral prayers. Afterwards, they were
immediately returned to their detention facilities. In addition, the authorities briefly detained
a relative of the family who was taking photos of the funeral, although he was subsequently
released without further charges.
32.
Finally, the source reports that the State Security Authority issued informal orders to
cancel the funeral and the reception, which forced the family to uninvite family and friends.
According to the source, the issuance of unofficial orders that do not comply with legal
procedures and are not formally registered is a well-known practice of the State Security
Authority.
e.
Legal analysis
33.
The source argues that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet have been detained
arbitrarily under categories I and III of the working methods of the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention.
i.
Category I
(i)
Legality of the arrest
34.
The source recalls that article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
prohibits arbitrary arrest. The source also refers to general comment No. 35 (2014) of the
Human Rights Council, according to which any person “shall be informed, at the time of
arrest, of the reasons for the arrest” and that such “requirement applies broadly to any
deprivation of liberty”. According to the source, the right of individuals 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
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
6
GE.23-06734
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. Furthermore, the source recalls article 54 of the Egyptian Constitution, which provides
that: “Personal freedom is a natural right which is safeguarded and cannot be infringed upon.
Except in cases of in flagrante delicto, citizens may only be apprehended, searched, arrested,
or have their freedoms restricted by a causal judicial warrant necessitated by an investigation”.
35.
For these reasons, the source concludes that the right to liberty of Mr. Safwan Thabet
and Mr. Seif Thabet was violated when they were arrested without being shown an arrest
warrant and without being provided with any legal explanation for their arrest. Furthermore,
the source indicates that the Supreme State Security Prosecution failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support the charges of joining and financing a terrorist group under articles 3, 12
and 13 of the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2015.
(ii)
Enforced disappearance
36.
The source recalls that the prohibition of enforced disappearance is non-derogable,
even under states of emergency. The source claims that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif
Thabet were both subjected to enforced disappearance for four days.
37.
According to the source, the enforced disappearances of both men violate articles 17
and 18 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, which state that detention should only be carried out in officially recognized
locations, 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.
38.
The source also submits that the detention of both men in secret and undisclosed
locations and in conditions unknown to their family prevented them from challenging the
lawfulness of their detention, hence violating their rights to an effective remedy under article
8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
Furthermore, the source recalls that the Supreme State Security Prosecution ignored the
complaints of the two individuals about their illegal arrest and enforced disappearance and
failed to investigate the actual date of arrest in order to legitimize unfair procedures.
ii.
Category III
39.
The source argues that the detention of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet is
arbitrary insofar as they were both placed in prolonged and excessive pretrial detention, they
were denied access to effective legal counsel and subjected to torture and ill-treatment, their
right to health was violated and they were partly denied family visits.
(i)
Right to be brought promptly before an independent, objective and impartial
authority
40.
The source argues that the prolonged pretrial detention of Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet, as well as the lack of a prompt judicial review to acknowledge the necessity
of their detention, constitute a violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge.
Further, the source claims that the judicial authorities did not comply with the international
standards of independence, objectivity and impartiality as the lack of any legal basis to
prolong the detention of the two men should have led to their release.
41.
In this regard, the source underlines that under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, persons
held on a criminal accusation must be brought “promptly” before a judge or another officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power and are entitled to trial within a reasonable time
or to release.2 The source recalls Human Rights Council general comment No. 35 (2014),
according to which it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that judicial control
be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the
issues being dealt with. In particular, the Committee stated that public prosecutors shall not
be entitled to exercise judicial power as such. It is further observed that, according to the
2 The source explains that, according to the Human Rights Committee, “promptly” needs to be
understood as not exceeding a few days, with 48 hours generally considered as appropriate.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
7
Committee, the necessity of pretrial detention needs to be determined based on an individual
assessment and alternatives to it must be considered. Hence, should pretrial detention be
considered necessary, a periodic re-examination must be carried out to assess if there are still
necessary and reasonable grounds for it.
42.
The source also recalls articles 142 and 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
according to which pretrial detention can be renewed for a 15-day period by an investigating
judge or a prosecutor for a maximum of 150 days in total. Once such a limit has been reached,
renewal of pretrial detention can take place in 45-day increments but must be reviewed by a
judge. Article 143 also provides that the extension of pretrial detention is only permissible if
it is in the interest of an investigation, namely when it has not yet been concluded.
Furthermore, article 134 of the Code establishes that for pretrial detention to be legal, credible
evidence must be presented.
43.
Furthermore, the source explains that the competent domestic courts in cases of
terrorism-related accusations are the Terrorism Circuit Courts. The source argues that the
domestic framework is flawed insofar as it allows prosecutors of the Supreme State Security
Prosecution to exercise judicial powers to issue pretrial detention decisions despite the
prosecutors being insufficiently independent, objective and impartial.3 It is submitted that in
the case at hand, the Supreme State Security Prosecution is continuing to keep Mr. Safwan
Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet in detention by requesting judges to renew their pretrial detention.
The source adds that while the Supreme State Security Prosecution has the power to release
both men at any given moment, it regularly chooses not to.
44.
As a result, the source concludes that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet are
being held in pretrial detention, contrary to their right to a fair trial before a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal.
(ii)
Right to access effective legal assistance
45.
According to the source, Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were denied the
right to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers while in
detention.
46.
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 provides that
detainees should not be denied the right to communicate with the outside world, in particular
their family or counsel, for more than a matter of days. The Human Rights Committee, in its
general comment No. 32 (2014), further specifies that the right to promptly access legal
representation includes the right for lawyers to communicate privately with their clients and
to attend investigations without interference or restrictions.
47.
Furthermore, it is noted that under the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,4 the
competent authorities have the duty to ensure lawyers access to appropriate information, files
and documents 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
source argues that the right to an effective counsel is fundamentally related to the principle
of equality of arms, as enshrined under article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which includes the right to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and
present one’s defence with counsel.
48.
The source also recalls article 14 (3) (b) and (c) of the Covenant, according to which
everyone shall be entitled to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their
defence, to communicate with the counsel of their own choosing and to be tried without
undue delay. The source further notes that article 54 of the Constitution of Egypt prohibits
the interrogation of detainees in the absence of their lawyer.
49.
In this regard, the source argues that, having been subjected to enforced disappearance,
Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were prevented from immediately seeking legal
counsel. Furthermore, it concludes that the unlawful automatic renewal of their pretrial
3 Opinion No. 14/2020.
4 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, para. 21.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
8
GE.23-06734
detention, their inability to carry out private meetings with their lawyers and the fact that
judges prevented defence counsel from speaking to their clients during hearings, often
denying them the right to present a defence, violate the essence of the right to access and
communicate freely with legal counsel and to prepare one’s defence under article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.
(iii)
Right to family visits
50.
The source submits that the rights of detainees to communicate with the outside world
and to be visited by their families are fundamental safeguards against attempts by the
authorities to exercise human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment.
51.
It is recalled that, under article 17 (2) (d) of the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, detained and imprisoned people
have the right to communicate and be visited by their families, regardless of the offence they
are suspected or accused of. The source considers that principle 19 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment only allows
this right to be subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions appropriate to pursue a
legitimate aim. In addition, the source notes that under article 54 of the Constitution of Egypt,
those whose freedom has been restricted shall be allowed to immediately contact their family.
52.
In this regard, the source claims that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were
entirely denied their rights to contact or to be visited by their family upon or following their
arrest.
53.
The source argues that after Mr. Seif Thabet failed to reappear following his
interrogation on 2 February 2021, his family attempted to locate him by visiting the police
station and Tora maximum security prison. On 14 February 2021, prison guards reportedly
accepted a package of food for him, which the family understood as a sign he was being held
there, although prison officials did not confirm his whereabouts. Reportedly, during the
period from 2 February to 4 April 2021, the family made at least 12 attempts to visit Mr. Seif
Thabet in Tora maximum security prison, all of which were denied. It was reported that the
family waited up to eight hours before being denied the right to visit.
54.
On 5 April 2021, a relative was granted a visit with him, which was his first contact
with his family in 62 days. The visit lasted eight minutes, was monitored and took place
through a glass window using a telephone.
55.
After that visit, the family made 16 further attempts to visit. The last of these attempts
was granted on 22 May 2021. The visit reportedly took place through a glass and was
monitored by prison guards. On 26 May, Mr. Seif was permitted a visit from a relative, which
lasted 10 minutes, was monitored by prison guards and was conducted by telephone. After
this date, the family made 16 other attempts to visit him, including during the Eid al-Fitr
holiday, all of which were denied, including the delivery of food and medication.
56.
On 4 August 2021, Mr. Safwan Thabet was reportedly granted his first visit since
April. The visit was monitored by prison officials and took place through a barrier.
57.
The source submits that the family was regularly denied visits throughout the
following months. It reports that any visit granted to either man is heavily monitored and that
the denial of visits is a form of reprisal in response to the family’s activity on social media or
in public.
(iv)
Right to be free from torture and ill-treatment
58.
According to the source, Mr. Seif Thabet faced psychological torture in solitary
confinement. Allegedly, while detained in Al-Aqrab prison, his cell was located far from
other cells and no one checked on him for up to 24 hours, he was detained in complete
isolation and was denied the ability to read or write to maintain his sanity. Further, his
wardens were ordered not to speak to him.
59.
The source argues that the authorities have expanded the use of prolonged and
unspecified solitary confinement against political prisoners. Specifically, it is reported that
solitary confinement has become a pattern of detention to further punish victims of arbitrary
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
9
detention, exceeding the maximum permitted period of 30 days. Hence, the source explains,
detainees are held in solitary confinement and are subjected to non-official measures, such
as limiting food and water and holding the detainees in dark and narrow spaces, designed to
aggravate the conditions of their detention and to prevent them from having contact with the
outside world. The source submits that such pattern is in direct violation of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which
define international standards for the treatment of prisoners.
60.
The source further submits that the Committee against Torture has highlighted the
absolute nature of the right to be free from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment, and
that this right cannot be restricted, including by threats of terrorism or other violent crimes.
The source stresses that the prohibition against torture applies irrespective of the offence
alleged.5 Further, the source argues that any act that could cause severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, and that is inflicted intentionally amounts to a violation of the
obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which the source notes has been ratified by Egypt.
61.
In the light of the deteriorating mental and physical conditions of Mr. Seif Thabet, the
source concludes that his prolonged solitary confinement violates the prohibition of torture
and ill-treatment.
(v)
Right to health
62.
Mr. Safwan Thabet reportedly suffers from stomach ulcers, high cholesterol, fatty
liver, a double knee replacement and shoulder injuries. The source is concerned that his health
is worsening due to the refusal of prison authorities to deliver his medicine regularly and to
provide him with adequate medical care in prison.
63.
According to the source, the present case is part of a systematic pattern, whereby the
authorities violate the right of political prisoners to access medical care, putting their lives at
serious risk of death or irreparable damage.
64.
In this regard, the source claims that every detainee has the right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health, as provided 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 Nelson Mandela Rules. It
stresses that this right extends not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also to
underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water and sanitation.6 Moreover, it
submits that sick detainees whose health conditions require specialized treatment should be
transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals and that failure to provide access to
adequate health care violates the right to health.
65.
In the light of the alleged deteriorating health condition of Mr. Safwan Thabet and the
refusal of the authorities to allow him to undergo a medical examination and to access proper
medical care and treatment, the source concludes that his right to access adequate health care
has been violated.
66.
For the reasons mentioned above, the source concludes that the detention of Mr.
Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet is arbitrary under category III.
Response from the Government
67.
On 4 January 2023 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 6 March 2023, detailed information about the current situation
of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their
continued detention, as well as its compatibility with obligations of Egypt under international
human rights law, in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the
5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (2016), para. 3.
6 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CPT), “Third general report on the CPT’s activities”, document CPT/Inf (93) 12, 4 June
1993, para. 53.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
10
GE.23-06734
Working Group called upon the Government of Egypt to ensure their physical and mental
integrity.
68.
On 6 March 2023, the Government submitted a reply explaining that Mr. Safwan
Thabet and his son, Mr. Seif El-Din, in Case No. [withheld] 2020, were charged by the
Supreme State Security Prosecution with joining a terrorist group established contrary to the
provisions of the law, aiming to disrupt the provisions of the Constitution and the law, harm
the public interest, incite riots and get involved in committing acts aimed at financing the
activities of members of that group. The two individuals were investigated before the Public
Prosecutor and subjected to all legal procedures before judicial authorities, in the presence of
their lawyers, in accordance with the relevant legal guarantees. They were released on 21
January 2023. The Government notes that the aforementioned case has not yet been referred
to the competent court and is still under investigation.
69.
In implementation of the ruling issued in Case No. [withheld] 2013 by the South Cairo
Court of First Instance, banning the activities of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and seizing
all of its real estate, liquid and movable funds, whether owned or leased to it, and all real
estate, movables and funds owned by the people belonging to it, a decision was issued on 12
August 2015 by the executing judge of the South Cairo Court of First Instance, which included
the freezing and prohibition from disposal of the funds of Mr. Safwan Thabet, his personal
accounts in banks, the National Postal Authority and deposits registered in his name. On 22
June 2016, the executing judge of the above court issued a decision to seize Mr. Safwan
Thabet’s share in Juhayna Food Industries and to limit it to 7.204 per cent of the company’s
shares, noting that no temporary order was issued regarding the company.
70.
On 10 September 2018, in implementation of article 16 of Law No. 22 (2018)
regulating the procedures for seizing, inventorying, managing and disposing of the funds of
terrorist groups and terrorists,7 the aforementioned decisions were presented to the Judge
of Temporary Affairs, who issued Temporary Order No. 1 of 2018 to freeze and prevent the
disposal of funds and personal accounts in banks, the National Postal Authority and deposits
registered in the name of Mr. Safwan Thabet.
71.
On 28 February 2023, the Cairo Criminal Court issued its decision regarding request
No. [withheld] of 2023 of the office of the Public Prosecutor regarding Case No. [withheld]
of 2018 of the Supreme State Security Prosecution, removing the name of Mr. Safwan Thabet
from the terrorist lists, with the publication of the decision in the Egyptian Gazette and the
consequent cancellation of any temporary decisions regarding the banning of Mr. Safwan
Thabet from travelling, the seizing of his money or preventing him from disposing of it.
Therefore, the Government argues that the allegations contained in this regard are untrue.
72.
Regarding the alleged denial of visits and deterioration of the health condition of
Mr. Safwan Thabet, the Government contends that it is established from the records of the
Badr Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre that Mr. Safwan Thabet and his son were in
good health from the beginning of their imprisonment until their release. Their general
condition and vital signs were good and at normal rates. All aspects of regular and other
requested health care were provided to them, as is the case for all inmates.
73.
The Government adds that both individuals received regular visits during their
imprisonment, the most recent of which, by a family member, took place on 14 January 2023,
just before they were released.
74.
In conclusion, the Government points out that the unsubstantiated suggestions about
the existence of economic reasons to prosecute the two individuals in connection with the
economic activities of the State are untrue, taking into account the facts and procedures that
have been described to hold them accountable for specific legal violations. The Government
also affirms that it is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of all citizens, without discrimination, as all the measures taken above
were taken by an independent and impartial body and that judicial and legal procedures
7 Article 16 of Law No. 22 (2018) regulating the procedures for seizing, inventorying, managing and
disposing of the funds of terrorist groups and terrorists stipulates that all decisions prior to the
implementation of the law should be presented to the Committee, which may reconsider them in
accordance with the procedures and conditions stipulated.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
11
comply with national and international law. The Government also affirms its continued fight
against terrorist organizations within the limits set under the Constitution and in law, in
accordance with the fundamental principles of a democratic State.
Further comments from the source
75.
On 6 March 2023, the Government’s reply was sent to the source for further comments,
which the source submitted on 24 March 2023.
76.
On 21 March 2023, the source confirmed that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet
have been released and that Mr. Safwan Thabet’s name has been removed from the terrorist
lists. However, the source also stated that no further information was provided to the lawyers
for the two men and that the Government had not informed them as to whether their release
is subject to any conditions.
77.
In its further comments, the source observes that the Government has failed to
sufficiently rebut the allegations related to the lack of an arrest warrant, the enforced
disappearance of both individuals, their detention in solitary confinement in substandard
conditions, the denial of and restrictions on family visitations, the inability of both individuals
to examine the evidence against them, the psychological and physical ill-treatment endured
by Mr. Seif Thabet, the lack of adequate medical care provided to Mr. Safwan Thabet, the
almost automatic renewal of Mr. Safwan Thabet’s pretrial detention without justification and
the allegations of reprisals against the two individuals and their family members.
78.
The source also notes that the Government has not informed the lawyers for the two
individuals or their families that their case is still under investigation and no information has
been provided regarding their current legal status.
79.
The source reiterates its initial allegations and underlines that Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet were supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood when it was a political party,
prior to it being declared a terrorist group. It adds that, while the Government states that they
were charged with terrorism-related charges, including joining a terrorist group and financing
it, no evidence of any link to terrorism was brought to light during the three years of
investigation presumably conducted by the authorities.
Discussion
80.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
81.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif
Thabet is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its
jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case
for breach of the 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.8
82.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were released
on 21 January 2023. In accordance with paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, the Working
Group “reserves the right to render an opinion, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not the
deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the person concerned”. In
the present case, the Working Group opines that the allegations made by the source are
extremely serious and notes that their case is ongoing and that it has received no information
regarding the conditions of their release. Therefore, the Working Group shall proceed to
deliver the opinion.
83.
The source has argued that the detention of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet
is arbitrary under categories I and III of the Working Group. The Working Group shall
proceed to examine the allegations in turn.
8 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
12
GE.23-06734
i.
Category I
84.
The source has argued that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were detained
without an arrest warrant. Mr. Safwan Thabet was reportedly arrested on 2 December 2020
and not informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him until 6 December
2020. In the case of Mr. Seif Thabet, he was allegedly arrested on 2 February 2021 and not
presented with any reasons for the arrest or charges until 6 February 2021. In its reply, the
Government does not address these specific allegations and merely states that Mr. Safwan
Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were investigated before the Public Prosecutor and subjected to
all legal procedures before judicial authorities, in the presence of their lawyers. The Working
Group reiterates that mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been
followed are not sufficient to rebut the prima facie allegations presented by the source.9
85.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is considered arbitrary under category I if
it lacks legal basis. As it has previously stated, for a deprivation of liberty case to have a legal
basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must
invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.10 This is typically11 done
through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).12 In addition, 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. The Working Group finds that this was denied to Mr. Safwan
Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
86.
Moreover, following their respective arrests, both Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif
Thabet were subjected to enforced disappearance for four consecutive days as the authorities
refused to reveal their fate or whereabouts, despite the numerous efforts of their family
members to obtain such information. These allegations were also put to the Government,
which chose not to address them. The Working Group therefore finds that the two individuals
were subjected to de facto enforced disappearance following their respective arrests on
2 December 2020 and 2 February 2021 until they appeared before the Supreme State Security
Prosecution four days later, in breach of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Enforced
disappearances are prohibited by international law and constitute a particularly aggravated
form of arbitrary detention.13 Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet. were thus also placed
outside the protection of the law, in violation of their right to be recognized as persons before
the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the
Covenant.
87.
Moreover, the Working Group recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that
anyone who is arrested is not only informed of the reasons for arrest but also promptly
informed of any charges against them. The right to be promptly informed of charges concerns
notice of criminal charges and, as noted by the Human Rights Committee in its general
comment No. 35 (2014), this right “applies in connection with ordinary criminal prosecutions
and also in connection with military prosecutions or other special regimes directed at criminal
punishment”.14
88.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were arrested
without a warrant, were subsequently subjected to enforced disappearance for four days and
were only notified of the charges against them when they were presented before the Supreme
9 Ibid.
10 In cases of in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will not be typically available.
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 21; see also opinions No. 30/2018,
para. 39; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 88/2017, para. 27; see also art. 14 (1) of the Arab Charter on
Human Rights.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27, and opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58–59.
13 See opinions No. 5/2020; No. 6/2020; No. 11/2020; No. 13/2020; No. 77/2020; No. 38/2021; and
No. 25/2022: see also general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No, 35 (2014), para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
13
State Security Prosecution on 6 December 2020 and 6 February 2021, respectively. The
Government has chosen not to address these allegations in its reply. The Working Group
therefore concludes that there has been a breach of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
89.
Further, as the Working Group has consistently argued,15 in order to establish that a
detention is indeed legal, that anyone detained has the right to challenge the legality of his or
her detention before a court, as envisaged by article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The Working
Group wishes to recall that 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, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.16
This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of
deprivation of liberty17 and to “all situations of deprivation of liberty, including not only to
detention for purposes of criminal proceedings but also to situations of detention under
administrative and other fields of law, including military detention, security detention,
detention under counter-terrorism measures, involuntary confinement in medical or
psychiatric facilities, migration detention, detention for extradition, arbitrary arrests, house
arrest, solitary confinement, detention for vagrancy or drug addiction, and detention of
children for educational purposes”.18 The Working Group finds that Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet were denied the right to challenge the legality of their detention, in violation
of article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
90.
The Working Group further considers that judicial oversight of detention is a
fundamental safeguard of personal liberty19 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a
legal basis. Given that Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet were not able to challenge
their continued detention, their right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was also violated.
91.
Finally, the Working Group notes that both Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet
remained in pretrial detention in excess of three and two years, respectively. In both cases,
the authority that imposed pretrial detention was the prosecutor of the Supreme State Security
Prosecution and their pretrial detention was the subject of near automatic renewal: the source
has argued that the provisions of domestic law regarding pretrial detention and its renewal
were violated in both cases (see paras. 13 and 43 above). Although the Government had an
opportunity to rebut these allegations, it has chosen not to address them.
92.
The Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that
pretrial detention shall be the exception and not the rule and that it should be ordered for as
short a time as possible.20 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it shall not be the general
rule that persons awaiting trial shall be 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.21
93.
Moreover, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on
a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee
has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee
“promptly” before a judge following his or her arrest and any longer delay must remain
absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.22 In the present case, the two
individuals do not appear to have been brought before a judicial authority within 48 hours of
15 See, for example, opinions No. 1/2017; No. 6/2017; No. 8/2017; No. 30/2017; No. 2/2018;
No. 4/2018; No. 42/2018; No. 43/2018; and No. 79/2018.
16 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3.
17 Ibid., para. 11.
18 Ibid., annex, para. 47 (a).
19 Ibid., para. 3.
20 Opinions No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 1/2020, para. 53; No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 49/2014, para. 23;
and No. 28/2014, para. 43; see also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),
para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
21 A/HRC/19/57, para. 54.
22 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33, and CAT/C/GAB/CO/1,
para. 10.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
14
GE.23-06734
their arrest. Rather, they were arrested, subjected to enforced disappearance for four days and
pretrial detention was imposed by the prosecution. In view of Human Rights Committee
general comment No. 35 (2014), the Working Group considers that such prosecuting
authorities cannot be considered as independent, objective and impartial officers ensuring the
proper exercise of judicial power.23 The failure for the authorities to bring Mr. Safwan Thabet
and Mr. Seif Thabet before such judicial authority violates article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
94.
Moreover, the Working Group observes, with grave concern, that the requirement of
periodic review of pretrial detention, as required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant, did not take
place. In this regard, the Working Group reiterates its concern expressed previously24 over
the practice of the Supreme State Security Prosecution of nominally ordering preventive
detention pending further investigation but in practice enabling indefinite detention without
prospect of trial.
95.
Noting all the above, the Working Group considers that the pretrial detention of
Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet, which should be the exception rather than the rule,
lacked a legal basis as it was not based on an individualized determination that it was
reasonable and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes
specified in law as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime,
and as there was no consideration of alternatives, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other
conditions, which would render detention unnecessary in the particular case.25 Therefore, the
Government acted contrary to article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9 of the Covenant and principles 11, 37 and 38 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
96.
Consequently, the Working Group considers that the arrest and subsequent detention
of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet lacked legal basis and were therefore arbitrary
under category I.
ii.
Category III
97.
The Working Group has already established above that the pretrial detention of
Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet was arbitrary. The two individuals were thus
detained for over three and two years, respectively. While the Working Group was informed
that both individuals were released on 21 January 2023, it notes the statement of the
Government that their case has not yet been referred to the competent court and is still under
investigation. As a preliminary matter, the Working Group wishes to record its concern at
the source’s allegation that none of this information has been communicated to the two
individuals’ lawyers or families.
98.
The Working Group recalls that the right to be tried without undue delay enshrined in
article 14 3 (c) of the Covenant is not only designed to avoid keeping persons too long in a
state of uncertainty about their fate and, if held in detention during the period of the trial, to
ensure that such deprivation of liberty does not last longer than necessary in the
circumstances of the specific case, but also to serve the interests of justice.26 However, what
is reasonable has to be assessed in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the
complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the manner in which the matter was
dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities.
99.
In the present case, the Working Group has not been presented with any indication
that the actions of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet could have caused a delay with
the commencement of the trial proceedings and therefore concludes that there has been a
breach of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3)
(c) of the Covenant.
100.
Moreover, Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet have been denied the right to
promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers while in detention.
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.
24 Opinion No. 14/2020, paras. 52–53.
25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; see also A/HRC/19/57,
paras. 48–58.
26 Human Rights Committee, general comment No, 32 (2007), para. 35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
15
The Government has chosen not to address this allegation directly and merely stated that both
individuals were “subjected to all legal procedures before judicial authorities in the presence
of their lawyers, in accordance with legal guarantees”. The allegations of the source, however,
concern the promptness of access to legal assistance, an aspect which has not been addressed
by the Government. The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have
the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention,
including immediately after their apprehension, and that such access must be provided
without delay.27 The right to legal assistance is essential to the right to a fair trial as it serves
to ensure that the principle of equality of arms is duly observed.28 In the present case, the
Government has thus violated articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant.
101.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that the violations of the
rights of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet to a fair trial were of such gravity as to
render their detention arbitrary under category III. The Working Group refers the case to the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism for further action.
iii.
Concluding remarks
102.
The Working Group is disturbed by the allegations that both Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet were kept in solitary confinement from August 2022 until their release. In
the case of Mr. Seif Thabet, this reportedly resulted in the serious deterioration of his physical
and mental health, while the pre-existing health conditions of Mr. Safwan Thabet were
exacerbated by this treatment. Both individuals were also reportedly denied regular contact
with their families and, when allowed, family visits were for exceptionally short periods.
Although the Government argues that the records of the Badr Correctional and Rehabilitation
Centre show that both were in good health throughout their detention, it does not address the
allegations of solitary confinement. The Government also states that they were able to receive
regular visits.
103.
The Working Group feels obliged to 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 for the inherent dignity of the human person.
104.
According to rule 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the imposition of solitary
confinement must be accompanied by certain safeguards. Solitary confinement must only be
used in exceptional cases, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible, subject to
independent review and authorized by a competent authority. These conditions do not appear
to have been observed in the present case. Prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15
consecutive days is prohibited under rules 43 (1) (b) and 44 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
Moreover, principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that detainees shall have the right to be visited
by and to correspond with, in particular, members of their family and shall be given adequate
opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and
restrictions, as specified by law or lawful regulations. The Working Group also recalls that
denial of medical assistance constitutes a violation of the Nelson Mandela Rules, in particular
rules 24, 25, 27 and 30.
105.
Further, the Working Group is concerned at the source’s allegations that the
Committee to Assess the Financial Assets of the Muslim Brotherhood froze 7.2 per cent of
the shares of Juhayna Food Industries that it said Mr. Safwan Thabet indirectly owned,
without a court hearing or official charges, and that Mr. Seif Thabet was ordered by the
authorities to hand over the entirety of his family’s shares in Juhayna Food Industries, under
the threat that he would otherwise face a fate similar to that of his father. While the
Government argues that Mr. Safwan Thabet’s shares were frozen in implementation of a
2013 ruling of the South Cairo Court of First Instance, it does not address the specific
27 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–52; A/HRC/30/37, principle 9 and guideline 8; see also Basic Principles on
the Role of Lawyers, paras. 16–22.
28 See, for example, opinion No. 35/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
16
GE.23-06734
allegations that he was not afforded a court hearing and that no official charges were brought
against him before the freezing of his assets was ordered. Further, the Government does not
address the allegations made in relation to Mr. Seif Thabet. In this regard, the Working Group
wishes to remind the Government that article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights guarantees the right of anyone not to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.
106.
Finally, the Working Group wishes to record its concern at the uncontested allegations
over the harassment and reprisals against the family members of Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet, as well as the allegation that their conditions of detention eventually
exacerbated a relative’s medical condition, leading to that individual’s death.
107.
The Working Group notes that the present opinion is only one of many opinions in
recent years in which it has found the Government to be in violation of its international human
rights obligations.29 It 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. 30 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.31 The Working Group has alluded
to this possibility in its past cases concerning Egypt.
Disposition
108.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Safwan Ahmed Hassan Thabet and Seif Eldin Safwan
Ahmed Thabet, being in contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14 and 16 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
109.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet without delay and to 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.
110.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to unconditionally release Mr. Safwan Thabet and
Mr. Seif Thabet 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 Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet.
111.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
112.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism for appropriate action.
113.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
29 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, 14/2020; No. 80/2020, No. 45/2021, No. 79/2021,
No. 83/2021, No. 23/2022, No. 34/2022 and No. 60/2022.
30 Opinion No. 47/2018, para. 85, and opinion No. 14/2020, para. 74.
31 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30; see also, for example, opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 51/2017, para. 57;
and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/12
GE.23-06734
17
Follow-up procedure
114.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet have been released
unconditionally and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Safwan
Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Mr. Safwan Thabet and Mr. Seif Thabet 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.
115.
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.
116.
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.
117.
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.32
[Adopted on 29 March 2023]
32 See Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.