Opinion; Subjects: LIBYA, 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.23-17799 (E) 270923 270923
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-seventh session,
28 August–1 September 2023
Opinion No. 41/2023 concerning Osama Muhammad Saleh al-Ghafir
al-Obeid (Libya)
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 6 June 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Libya a communication concerning Osama Muhammad
Saleh al-Ghafir al-Obeid. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State
is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
General Assembly
Distr.: General
27 September 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
2
GE.23-17799
or any other status that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
i.
Context
4.
Osama Muhammad Saleh al-Ghafir al-Obeid, born on 24 September 1971, is a
national of Libya. He is married and usually resides in Tripoli. He is an officer within the
Ministry of Defence of the Government of National Accord in Tripoli.
5.
Colonel Al-Obeid was part of a battalion tasked with securing the oil fields in the Sirte
region, under the command of the former Minister of Defence of the Government of National
Accord.
ii.
Arrest and detention
6.
On 12 July 2016, while carrying out a mission in the Sirte oil fields, Colonel Al-Obeid
was arrested by a group of soldiers from the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade, affiliated with the
Libyan National Army and controlled by General Khalifa Haftar. While the brigade was
fighting to take control of the oil fields, it arrested Colonel Al-Obeid and took him onboard
a military aircraft to an unknown destination.
7.
On 12 August 2016, after a month of unsuccessful attempts by Colonel Al-Obeid’s
family to obtain information about his fate and whereabouts, he appeared on a television
programme on the Al-Hadath television channel, which is reportedly controlled by General
Haftar and used to disseminate propaganda.
8.
Colonel Al-Obeid appeared to be speaking under duress and showing signs of extreme
fatigue, ill-treatment and torture, while he denied the legitimacy of his mission.
9.
At that time, the family of Colonel Al-Obeid did not know about his fate and
whereabouts, despite their many attempts to obtain such information through different
official channels. After the Colonel’s arrest, his family tried to get the Ministry of Defence
and the Ministry of Justice of the Government of National Accord to intervene with the
Eastern administration, but the Government refused, arguing that it had no control over
militias under General Haftar’s command.
10.
Until 15 February 2022, when the family learned from an informal source that he was
being held at the headquarters of the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade, they had no information about
the fate and whereabouts of Colonel Al-Obeid. The Tariq bin Ziyad brigade operates in the
Sidi Faraj area near Benghazi under the control of General Haftar’s son.
11.
According to the source, the detention centre, located in the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade
headquarters, is supervised by a militia leader who is himself under the command of General
Haftar.
12.
Reportedly, it was observed that Colonel Al-Obeid was being subjected to extensive
torture during interrogations by both the military leader and General Haftar. In particular, he
was electrocuted, burned with boiling water and subjected to ill-treatment and humiliation
before being forced to appear and testify on television.
13.
The family appealed to the Prosecutor General of Benghazi and to the Human Rights
Committee of the Ministry of Justice of the Government of National Accord, to no avail. In
particular, the Prosecutor General reportedly informed the family that Colonel Al-Obeid had
not been brought before him and that he was not registered as a detainee in any official prison
register.
14.
On 21 March 2022, the case of Colonel Al-Obeid was reported to the Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. In August 2022, a family member learned from
an informal source that Colonel Al-Obeid was being held in solitary confinement by the
Libyan National Army and its affiliated brigades in Gernada prison, in Shahat, in eastern
Libya.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
3
15.
The source recalls that, according to a report of Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL),
the Gernada Prison in Al-Baida, a correction and rehabilitation institution under the judicial
police during the rule of Muammar Al-Qadhafi, is currently composed of separate wings
under the oversight of different bodies: a military section under the control of the
Chief-of-Staff of the Libyan National Army and Military Governor for Derna to Bin Jawwad,
Abdel Razek al-Nazouri, a wing run by the General Intelligence Agency, commonly referred
to as the Internal Security Agency, and a section used by a Madkhali Salafi armed group.
UNSMIL highlighted a range of human rights concerns in this detention facility.2
iii.
Analysis of violations
a.
State responsibility for the arrest and incommunicado detention
16.
The source recalls that Colonel Al-Obeid was arrested and is being detained by forces
affiliated with the Libyan National Army, which is not under the de facto command and
control of the Government of National Accord, recognized by the Security Council in its
resolution 2259 (2015) as the sole legitimate Government of Libya.
17.
While the Libyan National Army and its affiliated militias, including the Tariq bin
Ziyad brigade, responsible for the arrest and current detention of Colonel Al-Obeid maintain
their own command structure and operate autonomously, the source stresses that the payment
of salaries and equipment to Libyan National Army personnel is ensured by the Government
of National Accord.3 As such, the Government of National Accord influences their behaviour
by exercising financial control over the armed groups.
18.
The source recalls that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has previously
stated that it was difficult to deny that similar cases of deprivation of liberty in Libya had, in
fact, been carried out by State actors or by armed groups acting on behalf of, or with the
support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of, the Government.4
19.
The source argues that this type of financial control is sufficient to establish in the
present case that the Libyan National Army and its affiliated militias must be considered a
State organ, whose conduct should be considered an act of that State under international law
for the purpose of article 4 of the draft articles on the responsibility of States for
internationally wrongful acts, which restates customary law.5
20.
The source notes that the positive obligation of the State to respect, protect and fulfil
fundamental human rights, including personal liberty and security, by preventing and
punishing the arbitrary deprivation of liberty by State or non-State actors remains intact
irrespective of whether the actions of the Libyan National Army and its affiliated militias can
be attributed to the Government of National Accord.6 The source recalls that, in other similar
cases, the Working Group has concluded on this basis that the Government was fully
responsible for the actions of such armed groups in international law.7
21.
The source submits that, in the present case, such a responsibility is established by the
fact that the Government of National Accord exerts financial control over the Libyan
National Army and its militias through the payment of their salaries and equipment and, ipso
facto, the power to suspend such payments.
22.
The source recalls that the Working Group has established in its earlier jurisprudence
on arbitrary detention carried out by the Libyan National Army that, at a minimum, the
Government of National Accord should have known of the actions carried out by the Libyan
2 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations Support
Mission in Libya, “Abuse behind bars: arbitrary and unlawful detention in Libya”, April 2018, pp. 4
and 12.
3 S/2022/409, paras. 28 and 29.
4 Opinion No. 62/2021, para. 32.
5 Ibid., para 33.
6 Ibid., para 34.
7 Opinion No. 11/2022, para. 32.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
4
GE.23-17799
National Army and its affiliates and should have taken measures to protect individuals, if
such actions overstepped the boundaries of legality.8
23.
The source also recalls that the Gernada prison has a military section under the control
of the Chief-of-Staff of the Libyan National Army and Military Governor for Derna to Bin
Jawwad .9
24.
According to the source, as such, forces responsible for the arrest of Colonel Al-Obeid
and those controlling the military section of the Gernada prison where he is allegedly detained
have significant links with the Government of National Accord through their affiliation with
the Libyan National Army.10
25.
In this context, the source takes note of the conclusions by the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNSMIL in 2018 that
the reliance of the transitional authorities on salary payments to and public praise for armed
groups has empowered the latter and entrenched their sense of impunity.11
26.
The source recalls that, since 2020, a joint military commission composed of five
senior officers appointed by the Government of National Accord and five senior officers
appointed by the Libyan National Army has been participating in peace talks moderated by
the Head of UNSMIL.12
27.
The source highlights that State prerogatives cannot be dissociated from State
responsibility. In the situation in Libya, while the Government of National Accord is the only
Government recognized by the Security Council, UNSMIL communicates with the two
competing administrations. Moreover, the existence of the Joint Military Commission
indicates that both administrations are engaged in reunification efforts. The centralization of
military payments in the entire country with the Government of National Accord also
indicates that the Libyan National Army are de facto organs of the State.
28.
Considering the foregoing, the source stresses that the duty to comply with
international human rights standards that are peremptory and erga omnes norms, such as the
prohibition of arbitrary detention, rests with all bodies and representatives of the State, all
officials, including judges, prosecutors, police and security officers and prison officers with
relevant responsibilities, and all other natural and legal persons.13
29.
The forces affiliated with the Libyan National Army, like the eastern judicial
administration, therefore cannot claim to be the legitimate exercise of official authority in the
eastern part of the country without accepting the responsibilities that this entails. In other
words, the eastern administration and the Libyan National Army cannot claim to exercise
State authority, including security and law enforcement, without ensuring that their civilian
and military personnel comply with peremptory and erga omnes international human rights
norms.
b.
Category I
30.
The source recalls that the International Court of Justice has established that
wrongfully to deprive human beings of their freedom and to subject them to physical
constraint in conditions of hardship is in itself manifestly incompatible with the principles of
the Charter of the United Nations, as well as with the fundamental principles enunciated in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.14 The conventional and customary prohibition
8 Ibid., para 31.
9 OHCHR and UNSMIL, “Abuse behind bars”, p. 12.
10 See opinion No. 11/2022, para. 31.
11 OHCHR and UNSMIL, “Abuse behind bars”, p. 37.
12 UNSMIL, “The 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission starts its meeting in Geneva today”, press
release, 3 February 2020. Available at https://unsmil.unmissions.org/55-libyan-joint-military-
commission-starts-its-meeting-geneva-today.
13 Opinions No. 1/2016, para. 43; No. 91/2017, para. 102; No. 94/2017, para. 73; No. 40/2018, para. 49;
and No. 61/2018.
14 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran),
Judgments, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3, para. 91. See also opinions No. 10/2013, para. 23; No. 22/2014,
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
5
of arbitrary detention has been authoritatively recognized as a peremptory norm of
international law by the Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 11 of its general comment
No. 29 (2001) on derogations from provisions of the Covenant during a state of emergency,
as well as by the Working Group, in paragraphs 51 and 75 of its deliberation No. 9 15
concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary
international law.16
31.
According to the source, Colonel Al-Obeid was arrested on 12 July 2016 by military
personnel of the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade affiliated with the Libyan National Army, while he
was on an official mission to secure the oil fields in the Sirte region. The mission had been
ordered by the only officially recognized Government, the Government of National Accord,
and Colonel Al-Obeid was acting under the command of the Minister of Defence of the
Government.
32.
The source alleges that the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade therefore had no authority to arrest
Colonel Al-Obeid, who was exercising public power prerogatives on behalf of the
Government of National Accord. Moreover, the source argues that the arrest of Colonel
Al-Obeid cannot be considered an in flagrante delicto situation, as he was carrying out an
official mission.
33.
The source notes that, given the circumstances of Colonel Al-Obeid’s arrest, his
position within the Government of National Accord and his mission, as well as the conditions
in which he is being held, the situation can only be described as one of unlawful arrest,
imprisonment and torture of a State agent by an armed group under the control of a rival
administration, as a form of retaliation (see sect. d below).
34.
The source recalls that, since his arrest, Colonel Al-Obeid has been continuously
deprived of all contact with the outside world, has not been registered in any official prison
register and has not been brought before the Prosecutor General of Benghazi, who is typically
the competent authority to hear the cases of detainees held by the Libyan National Army and
its affiliated militias.
35.
The source notes that, after Colonel Al-Obeid appeared in the propaganda video of
12 August 2016, showing visible signs of torture and ill-treatment, he remained unaccounted
for until 15 February 2022. During this period of more than four years, he remained in a state
of enforced disappearance. His family did not know his fate and whereabouts, despite
numerous attempts to obtain such information through various official channels.
36.
On 15 February 2022, the family of Colonel Al-Obeid reportedly learned through
unofficial channels that he was still being held by the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade at its
headquarters near Benghazi and that he was being subjected to various forms of severe torture
and ill-treatment in detention.
37.
The source recalls that the General Prosecutor of Benghazi informed the family that
Colonel Al-Obeid had not been brought before him and that he was not registered as a
detainee in any official prison register.
38.
However, the source also recalls that, according to OHCHR and UNSMIL, the
military wing of the Gernada prison in Al-Baida is under the control of the Chief-of-Staff of
the Libyan National Army and Military Governor for Derna to Bin Jawwad.17
39.
Although the family has received information that Colonel Al-Obeid is detained in
Gernada, they are reportedly still not allowed to communicate with him.
para. 18; No. 37/2014, para. 32; No. 63/2017, para. 51; No. 30/2018, para. 40; and No 61/2018; and
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, paras. 75–85, and Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, p. 729,
paras. 107–142.
15 A/HRC/22/44, sect. III.
16 Opinions No. 24/2010, para. 28; No. 10/2013, para. 32; No. 15/2011, para. 20; No. 16/2011, para. 12;
No. 63/2017, para. 51; and No. 61/2018.
17 OHCHR and UNSMIL, “Abuse behind bars”, pp. 4 and 12.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
6
GE.23-17799
40.
The source notes that, in similar cases, the Working Group has highlighted that
enforced disappearances are prohibited by international law and constitute a particularly
aggravated form of arbitrary detention.18 The source argues that such practices constitute a
violation of the victim’s right to life, liberty and security (arts. 6 (1), 7, 9 and 10 of the
Covenant), as well as a denial of his right to be recognized as a person before the law, which
is a foundational guarantee for rights holders to access all the rights enshrined in the Covenant
(art. 16 of the Covenant). Furthermore, such fundamental guarantees in detention, including
the right to habeas corpus, constitute erga omnes obligations of any detaining authority,
regardless of the status of the detained person, military or civilian.
41.
The source recalls that no jurisdiction should allow for individuals to be deprived of
their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods and held outside the reach of law,
without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus.
42.
Since 12 July 2016, Colonel Al-Obeid has been detained by General Haftar’s militia
in several successive locations without any legal procedure nor official registration with the
competent judicial authorities.
43.
In the light of the foregoing, the source submits that the deprivation of liberty of
Colonel Al-Obeid cannot be grounded in law and violates the obligations articles 6, 7, 9, 10
and 16 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the source argues that his detention must be considered
arbitrary under category I of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working
Group when considering cases submitted to it.
c.
Category III
44.
Although Colonel Al-Obeid has not been yet brought before any competent judicial
authority, the source submits that any eventual trial would be manifestly unfair.
45.
The source recalls that, on 12 August 2016, i.e. a month after his arrest, and while he
was forcibly disappeared, Colonel Al-Obeid appeared on a television programme broadcast
on the Al-Hadath television channel, which is controlled by General Haftar and used for the
dissemination of propaganda. Colonel Al-Obeid reportedly showed signs of extreme fatigue,
mistreatment and torture and appeared to be speaking under duress to disavow the legitimacy
of his mission.
46.
The source argues that Colonel Al-Obeid is detained without any access to a judicial
authority and to the outside world and a fortiori to legal assistance. The source notes that, in
such conditions, there can be no prospect for a fair trial before a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law and that therefore the deprivation of liberty of Colonel
Al-Obeid must be considered arbitrary under category III.
d.
Category V
47.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of Colonel Al-Obeid constitutes a
violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on his status as an official
of the Government of National Accord and aims towards and results in ignoring the equality
of human rights.
48.
The source argues that, while characterizing the deprivation of liberty of Colonel
Al-Obeid, consideration should be given to his position within the Government of National
Accord and the fact that he was seized as a government official by the Libyan National Army,
which challenges the legitimacy of the Government of National Accord.
49.
It is reported that, while the Libyan National Army and the Government of National
Accord are engaged in negotiations, General Haftar, the commander of the forces affiliated
with the Libyan National Army that are responsible for the arrest and incommunicado
detention of Colonel Al-Obeid has repeatedly expressed hostility towards the Government of
National Accord and in particular its officials.
18 Opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 13/2020 and No 11/2022. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
7
50.
In this regard, the source refers to the report of the Secretary-General on UNSMIL of
9 December 2022, in which he reported that in statements during visits to Ghat and Birak al-
Shati on 19 and 26 September, General Haftar criticized the country’s political class over
alleged incompetence and inability to address the problems of the Libyan people. He called
upon the population to revolt against the political class, promising the support of the Libyan
National Army. On 17 October, General Haftar attended a Libyan National Army military
parade in Sabha, where he further criticized the Government of National Unity for alleged
corruption and reiterated his call for a popular uprising.19
51.
According to the source, the reasons for the arrest and subsequent disappearance,
torture and solitary confinement of Colonel Al-Obeid by the Libyan National Army-affiliated
militias are, at the least, in retribution for his official role within the Government of National
Accord.
52.
The source recalls that, after his arrest, Colonel Al-Obeid was subjected to severe
torture, including electrocution, burns by boiling water and other degrading and humiliating
treatment, to punish him for his role in the mission of the Ministry of Defence of the
Government of National Accord to take control of the Sirte oil fields.
53.
On 12 August 2016, one month after his arrest and during his enforced
disappearance, Colonel Al-Obeid appeared on a television programme broadcast by the
Al-Hadath television channel, which is controlled by General Haftar and used for the
dissemination of propaganda. He appeared to be speaking under duress to deny the legitimacy
of his mission and the Government of National Accord, showing signs of extreme fatigue,
ill-treatment and torture.
54.
The source argues that the current secret detention and removal from the protection
of the law of Colonel Al-Obeid by forces affiliated with the Libyan National Army arises
from his position as a military officer of the Government of National Accord, denying him
equal access to the protection of the law.
55.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of Colonel Al-Obeid therefore
constitutes a violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on his status
as a government official, which aims towards and results in ignoring his equal access to
fundamental rights and guarantees in detention, making his detention arbitrary under
category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
56.
On 6 June 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 7 August 2023, detailed information about the current situation
of Colonel Al-Obeid and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as
well as its compatibility with the obligations of Libya under international human rights law,
in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working Group
called upon the Government of Libya to ensure Colonel Al-Obeid’s physical and mental
integrity.
57.
The Working Group regrets that it received no reply from the Government, nor did
the Government seek an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work.20
The Working Group notes that it has not received a reply from the Government in response
to its communications since 200621 and invites the Government to engage with the Working
Group constructively by taking the opportunity to respond to communications.
19 S/2022/932, para. 33.
20 A/HRC/36/38.
21 See opinions No. 18/2006, No. 16/2007, No. 1/2010, No. 6/2011, No. 60/2012, No. 41/2013,
No. 3/2016, No. 4/2016, No. 6/2017, No. 39/2018, No. 18/2019, No. 85/2019, No. 13/2020,
No. 62/2021 and No. 11/2022.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
8
GE.23-17799
2.
Discussion
58.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
59.
In determining whether the detention of Colonel Al-Obeid 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.22 In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
60.
The Working Group wishes to reaffirm that States have the obligation to respect,
protect and fulfil all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the liberty of person,
and that any national law allowing for deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented
in conformity with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Covenant and other applicable international and regional instruments.23
Consequently, even if the detention is in conformity with national legislation, regulations and
practices, the Working Group is entitled and obliged to assess the circumstances of the
detention and the law itself to determine whether such detention is also consistent with the
relevant provisions of international human rights law.24
61.
As a preliminary matter, the Working Group notes that Colonel Al-Obeid was arrested
and deprived of liberty by the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade, which is affiliated with the Libyan
National Army. Although the Libyan National Army and its affiliated militias, including the
Tariq bin Ziyad brigade, maintain their own command structure and operate autonomously
from the Government of National Accord, the only Government recognized by the Security
Council,25 it has been reported by the source, without any rebuttal from the Government, that
the payment of salaries and equipment to personnel of the Libyan National Army is ensured
by the Government of National Accord. In this regard, the Working Group recalls its past
jurisprudence on detentions carried out by the Libyan National Army, whereby it expressed
that, at a minimum, the Government of National Accord should have known of the actions
carried out by the Libyan National Army and its affiliates and should have taken measures to
protect individuals if such actions overstepped the boundaries of legality.26
62.
Moreover, the Working Group recalls that the positive obligations of the State to
prevent and punish crime and to uphold its human rights duties remain intact irrespective of
whether the actions of the Libyan National Army can be attributed to the Government of
National Accord.27 The Working Group therefore concludes that the Government of Libya,
i.e. the Government of National Accord, is fully responsible for the actions of those militias
affiliated with the Libyan National Army that carried out the arrest and subsequent detention
of Colonel Al-Obeid. In doing so, the Working Group recalls the conclusions of OHCHR and
UNSMIL in 2018 that the reliance of the transitional authorities on salary payments to and
public praise for armed groups has empowered the latter and entrenched their sense of
impunity.28
a.
Category I
63.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis.
22 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
23 General Assembly resolution 72/180, fifth preambular paragraph; Commission on Human Rights
resolutions 1991/42, para. 2, and 1997/50, para. 15; and Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4,
para. 1 (a), and 10/9.
24 See opinions No. 1/1998, para.13; No. 82/2018, para.25; No. 36/2019, para.33; No. 42/2019, para.43;
No. 51/2019, para.53; No. 56/2019, para.74; No. 76/2019, para.36; No. 6/2020, para.36; No. 13/2020,
para.39; No. 14/2020, para.45; and No. 32/2020, para. 29.
25 See Security Council resolution 2259 (2015).
26 A/HRC/2011/11, para. 31.
27 Ibid., para. 32. See also opinion No. 62/2021, para. 34.
28 OHCHR and UNSMIL, “Abuse behind bars”, p. 37.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
9
64.
The source submits, and the Government has not rebutted, that Colonel Al-Obeid was
arrested on 12 July 2016 by a group of soldiers from the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade affiliated
with the Libyan National Army and controlled by General Haftar. Colonel Al-Obeid was
taken onboard a military aircraft to an unknown destination. This was done without providing
him with any warrant of arrest or informing him of the reasons for his arrest at the time of
his arrest.
65.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is considered arbitrary under category I if
it lacks legal basis. As it has previously indicated, for a deprivation of liberty 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.29 This is typically30 done
through an arrest warrant or arrest order or equivalent document.31 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 Colonel
Al-Obeid, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
66.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that the authorities inform the person detained
of the reasons for his arrest, at the time of arrest, and of the charges against him or her
promptly.32
67.
The source alleges that, following his arrest, Colonel Al-Obeid was not promptly
informed of the reasons for his arrest. The Government has chosen not to rebut those
allegations and has provided no valid exceptional grounds to justify a departure from
prescribed requirements under international law. The Working Group considers that the
authorities’ failure to inform Colonel Al-Obeid of the reasons for his arrest, at the time of his
arrest, was contrary to articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article
9 (2) of the Covenant and principle 10 of the Body of Principles, and therefore renders his
arrest devoid of any legal basis.33
68.
The source submits that, following the arrest of Colonel Al-Obeid on 12 July 2016,
his family did not know about his fate and whereabouts until 15 February 2022, when they
learned from an informal source that he was being held at the headquarters of the Tariq bin
Ziyad brigade. On only one previous occasion, on 12 August 2016, when he appeared in
broadcast television, did his family have an indication of his fate and whereabouts. The
source indicated that Colonel Al-Obeid’s case was reported to the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on 21 March 2022 and that it was later learned that
Colonel Al-Obeid was in fact being held in solitary confinement by the Libyan National
Army and its affiliated brigades in Gernada prison, in Shahat, eastern Libya. The source notes
that Colonel Al-Obeid has been held incommunicado since his arrest on 12 July 2016,
without access to his lawyers and family or any legal procedure or official registration with
the competent judicial authorities. The Government has chosen not to contest those
allegations, although it was provided with the opportunity to do so.
69.
In this context, the Working Group considers that Colonel Al-Obeid was subjected to
enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention following his arrest on 12 July 2016,
29 In cases of in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will not be typically available.
30 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 21; see also opinions No. 88/2017,
para. 27; 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39; and Arab Charter on Human Rights, art. 14 (1).
31 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27; and opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59.
32 See, for example, opinion No. 10/2015, para. 34. See also opinions No. 32/2019, para. 29;
No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51;
No. 51/2019, para. 57; No. 56/2019, para. 78; No. 65/2019, para. 60; No. 71/2019, para. 71;
No. 82/2019, para. 74; No. 6/2020, para. 41; No. 13/2020, para. 48; No. 14/2020, para. 51;
No. 31/2020, para. 42; No. 33/2020, para. 55; and No. 34/2020, para. 47.
33 Opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 16/2020, para. 60; and No. 46/2020,
para. 40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
10
GE.23-17799
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.34
70.
The Working Group recalls that deprivation of liberty that entails a wilful refusal to
disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention
lacks any valid legal basis under any circumstances. It is also inherently arbitrary, as it places
the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant and
article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government’s failure to provide
notification of the arrest and the location of detention to Colonel Al-Obeid’s family is also
contrary to principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles. Furthermore, the Working Group has
repeatedly asserted that holding persons at secret, undisclosed locations and in circumstances
undisclosed to the person’s family violates their right to contest the legality of their detention
before a court or tribunal under article 9 (3)35 and (4) of the Covenant.36 Judicial oversight of
any detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty37 and is critical to ensuring that the
detention has a legitimate basis.
71.
In the circumstances surrounding the incarceration of Colonel Al-Obeid at an
undisclosed location, the Working Group concludes that he was unable to challenge the
legality of his detention before a court, in violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant,
and that he was placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of the
Covenant and article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As he was unable to
challenge the legality of his detention, his 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.
72.
According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention should be the exception,
rather than the norm, and should be ordered for the shortest time possible.38 In other words,
liberty is acknowledged under article 9 (3) of the Covenant as the core consideration, with
detention merely as an exception.39 Detention pending trial must therefore be based on an
individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to
prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.40 Following his arrest,
Colonel Al-Obeid was reportedly held in various detention facilities without being brought
before a competent judicial authority. To date, over seven years later, it appears that no
charges have been brought against him and no proceedings have commenced. Noting that the
Government has not contested those allegations or provided any information indicating that
Colonel Al-Obeid’s detention is based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable
and necessary, the Working Group finds a further violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
73.
Consequently, the Working Group finds that the Government failed to establish a legal
basis for Colonel Al-Obeid’s detention. His detention is therefore arbitrary under category I.
b.
Category III
74.
The source alleges that the non-observance of international norms relating to the right
of Colonel Al-Obeid to a fair trial was of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an
arbitrary character under category III and contends that, although Colonel Al-Obeid has not
yet been brought before any competent judicial authority, any eventual trial would be
manifestly unfair.
75.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that Colonel Al-Obeid
remains detained without any access to a judicial authority and to the outside world, and a
fortiori, to legal assistance. In such conditions, the source argues there can be no prospect for
any fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
34 See opinions No. 5/2020; No. 6/2020; No. 11/2020 and No. 13/2020. See also Human Rights
Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
35 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.
36 See opinions No. 45/2017, No. 46/2017, No. 35/2018, No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019 and No. 45/2019.
37 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
38 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
39 Ibid., para. 54.
40 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
11
76.
As noted above, Colonel Al-Obeid was taken to an unknown location and secretly
detained incommunicado following his arrest. 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 such access must be provided without
delay.41 The Working Group considers that the failure to provide Colonel Al-Obeid with
access to his lawyers from the outset of his detention was in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of
the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was contrary
to principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and
Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings before a
Court, principles 11, 15 and 17 (1) of the Body of Principles and rules 43 (3) and 58 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela
Rules). Giving prompt and regular access to family members, as well as lawyers, is an
essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and protection against arbitrary
detention and infringement of personal security.42 In this regard, the Committee against
Torture has made it clear that incommunicado detention creates conditions that lead to
violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment,43 and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment has consistently argued that the use of incommunicado
detention is unlawful.44 The Working Group considers that these violations substantially
undermined and compromised Colonel Al-Obeid’s capacity to defend himself in any judicial
proceedings.
77.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s uncontested allegations that Colonel
Al-Obeid has been detained since 12 July 2016 without being afforded the right to be tried
within a reasonable time frame and without undue delay. The Government has offered no
justification for the delay, despite having been given the opportunity to do so. The right to be
tried within a reasonable time frame and without undue delay is one of the fair trial guarantees
embodied in articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant. The reasonableness of any delay in
bringing a case to trial must be assessed given 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 handled by the authorities.45 In the light of the fact that Colonel Al-Obeid has
been detained for over seven years without ever having been brought to trial, the Working
Group finds a violation of his rights under articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.
78.
As the Working Group noted above, Colonel Al-Obeid was forced to appear in a
television programme and deny the legitimacy of the official mission that he was carrying
out before being arrested, while reportedly showing signs of extreme fatigue, ill-treatment
and torture during the broadcast. As the Working Group has indicated before, confessions
made in the absence of legal representation are not admissible as evidence in criminal
proceedings.46 The admission into evidence of a statement allegedly obtained through torture
or ill-treatment renders the entire proceedings unfair, regardless of whether other evidence
available supports the verdict.47
79.
The Working Group is concerned about the source’s allegations of torture against
Colonel Al-Obeid. In the Working Group’s view, not only is torture a grave violation of
human rights per se, but it also undermines the ability of persons to defend themselves and
hinders their exercise of the right to a fair trial, especially in the light of the right to be
presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant and the right not to be compelled to
41 A/HRC/30/37, principle 9. See also Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on
the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 34.
42 Opinions No. 43/2012, para. 51; No. 34/2015, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (i); No. 32/2019,
para. 43; No. 59/2019, para. 70; and No. 73/2019, para. 91.
43 For example, A/54/44, para 182 (a).
44 For example A/54/426, para. 42; and A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para. 156.
45 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 37; and general comment No. 32
(2007), para. 35.
46 A/HRC/45/16, para 53. See also opinions No. 1/2014, para. 22; No. 14/2019, para. 71; No. 59/2019,
para. 70; and No. 73/2019, para. 91; and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e).
47 Opinions No. 43/2012, para. 51; No. 34/2015, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (i); No. 32/2019,
para. 43; No. 59/2019, para. 70; and No. 73/2019, para. 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
12
GE.23-17799
confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. In this context, the Working Group
shall refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment for further consideration.
80.
Given foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a
fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Colonel Al-Obeid’s deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
c.
Category V
81.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of Colonel Al-Obeid constitutes a
violation of international law for reasons of discrimination. According to the source, Colonel
Al-Obeid was arrested and detained in retribution for his official role within the Government
of National Accord.
82.
The source contends that the commander of the Libyan National Army and its
affiliated forces responsible for the arrest and subsequent detention of Colonel Al-Obeid has
repeatedly expressed hostility towards the Government of National Accord and that Colonel
Al-Obeid was detained because of his role as an official of the Government of National
Accord. The Government has chosen not to refute those allegations, although it was given an
opportunity to do so.
83.
The Working Group notes that any deprivation of liberty 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 constitutes a
violation of international law and falls under category V.
84.
The Working Group recalls that article 2 (1) of the Covenant prohibits any difference
of treatment between individuals based, inter alia, on political opinion. In its general
comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, the Human Rights Committee
indicated that arrest or detention on discriminatory grounds, in violation of articles 2 (1), 3
or 26 of the Covenant, was also in principle arbitrary.48 The same applies to the treatment of
detainees, which should not be discriminatory, in accordance with principle 5 of the Body of
Principles.
85.
In the present case, the Working Group takes note of the source’s uncontested
allegations that, while carrying out a mission in the Sirte oil fields, Colonel Al-Obeid was
arrested by a group of soldiers from the Tariq bin Ziyad brigade affiliated with the Libyan
National Army. The Working Group recalls the allegations by the source whereby Colonel
Al-Obeid was forced to appear in a television programme on the Al-Hadath television
channel and deny the legitimacy of his mission, while reportedly showing signs of extreme
fatigue, ill-treatment and torture.
86.
The Working Group considers that the facts submitted by the source indicate that
Colonel Al-Obeid’s deprivation of liberty and targeting by the Libyan National
Army-affiliated militia were on account of his political views as an officer under the
command of the former Minister of Defence of the Government of National Accord. Noting
that the Government has provided no information demonstrating that Colonel Al-Obeid was
arrested and detained on the basis of suspicion or commission of any crimes or offences, the
Working Group finds that Colonel Al-Obeid was targeted because of his political opinion
and position as an officer of the Ministry of Defence within the Government of National
Accord, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. His detention is therefore arbitrary under category V.
d.
Concluding remarks
87.
The Working Group is concerned that Colonel Al-Obeid was and continues to be
arbitrarily deprived of his liberty without having been charged with or tried for a crime. The
48 See also opinion No. 42/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
GE.23-17799
13
Working Group reiterates that the duty to comply with international human rights standards
rests with all State organs, officers and agents, as well as all other natural and legal persons.
3.
Disposition
88.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Osama Muhammad Saleh al-Ghafir al-Obeid, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 16 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
89.
The Working Group requests the Government of Libya to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Colonel Al-Obeid 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.
90.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Colonel Al-Obeid immediately and accord
him 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
Colonel Al-Obeid.
91.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Colonel
Al-Obeid and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
92.
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 for further consideration.
93.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
94.
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 Colonel Al-Obeid has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Colonel
Al-Obeid;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Colonel
Al-Obeid’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Libya with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
95.
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.
96.
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
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/41
14
GE.23-17799
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
97.
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.49
[Adopted on 29 August 2023]
49 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.