Opinion; Subjects: ALGERIA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.24-09685 (E) 260624 260624
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-ninth session, 18–27 March 2024
Opinion No. 24/2024, concerning Mustapha Bendjama and
Raouf Farrah (Algeria)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 3 August 2022 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Algeria a communication concerning Mustapha Bendjama
and Raouf Farrah. The Government replied to the communication on 1 February 2024. 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).
* Miriam Estrada-Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
General Assembly
Distr.: General
10 June 2024
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
2
GE.24-09685
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mustapha Bendjama, born on 29 July 1990, is an Algerian journalist and
editor-in-chief of Le Provincial newspaper. He usually resides in Annaba, Algeria.
5.
Raouf Farrah, born on 17 December 1986, is a Canadian-Algerian researcher in
geopolitics, working for the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime. He
usually resides in Tunisia.
(i)
Arrest and detention
a.
Mr. Bendjama
6.
Mr. Bendjama was arrested for first time on 23 October 2019 for sharing a leaked
police report about the prosecution of two journalists, himself included, on a social network.
On 10 January 2021, he was given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined 20,000
Algerian dinars (DA) for “publishing material harmful to the national interest”, a decision
that was upheld on appeal on 27 June 2021. Mr. Bendjama lodged an appeal in cassation,
which has yet to be heard.
7.
On 3 December 2019, Mr. Bendjama was arrested for a second time for “inciting an
unarmed gathering” in connection with a demonstration related to the presidential election.
He was acquitted of the charge on 2 February 2020.
8.
After the Directorate General of National Security lodged a complaint in relation to a
post made on a social network in July 2019, Mr. Bendjama was charged with “defamation
and libel” and “contempt of a public authority”. He was acquitted in July 2021.
9.
Further to a complaint lodged by the Governor of Annaba, the authorities also accused
Mr. Bendjama of “harming the national interest” and defamation for publishing a video in
which members of the public criticized the authorities’ management of the health crisis. On
16 July 2023, Mr. Bendjama was ordered to pay DA 50,000 in damages and a fine of DA
30,000.
10.
Mr. Bendjama has been banned from leaving the country since 25 November 2019.
Although this decision was annulled in April 2022, the police continue to enforce it. In
October 2022, Mr. Bendjama received a travel ban and he lodged a complaint against the
head of the Oum Teboul border post. According to the source, since December 2021, the
authorities have stepped up the use of exit bans and do not allow the persons concerned to
challenge these measures.
11.
On 8 February 2023 at around 3 p.m., Mr. Bendjama was arrested again at his
workplace, the premises of the Le Provincial newspaper in Annaba. The previous day, he
had received several telephone calls, including from the intelligence branch of the Directorate
General of National Security, asking him for information about the departure from the
country of an activist subject to an exit ban, to which Mr. Bendjama had replied that he had
not provided the activist with any assistance. The authorities have arrested at least five
people, including Mr. Bendjama and Mr. Farrah, for allegedly helping said activist to leave
the country. Mr. Bendjama was informed that his arrest was linked to this case. Following
Mr. Bendjama’s arrest, his telephone and laptop computer were seized and he was transferred
to the research unit of the Al-Hattab gendarmerie station in Annaba. At around 7 p.m.,
gendarmerie officers with a warrant searched his home but did not seize anything.
12.
Mr. Bendjama was held in police custody for over 10 days before being brought before
the prosecutor of the Court of Constantine on 19 February 2023. He was charged with
“criminal association with the goal of committing the offence of illegal immigration” and
“migrant trafficking as part of an organized criminal conspiracy” under articles 176, 177 and
303 bis of the Criminal Code. Following an analysis of his telephone, Mr. Bendjama was
charged with “receiving funds from foreign or domestic institutions in order to undermine
public order” and “publishing information classed as secret, in part or in full, on an electronic
network or by means of information technology” under article 95 bis of the Criminal Code
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
3
and article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09 of 8 June 2021 relating to the protection of information
and administrative documents.
13.
The source notes that a sum had been allocated to conduct a field study for a
non-governmental organization (NGO), work for which Mr. Bendjama had been approached
on Mr. Farrah’s recommendation. Mr. Bendjama conducted the study on the country’s
governance.
14.
Mr. Bendjama was also accused of disclosing several classified documents relating to
a dispute between two companies: an order of committal for trial, a complaint, a copy of the
commercial register, a document showing that one of the companies had been struck off the
commercial register, an amendment to a contract between the two companies and a purchase
order sent by one of the companies to the newspaper Le Provincial.
15.
On 19 February 2023, Mr. Bendjama was brought before the prosecutor of the Court
of Constantine and then before the investigating judge of the specialized criminal justice unit
at the same court, in the presence of his lawyer. He was remanded in custody at the
Abdelhamid-Boussouf prison in Constantine, where he remains in detention.
16.
While in prison, Mr. Bendjama has been interviewed several times, with the
investigation stage lasting until 20 July 2023. The warrant of commitment was renewed by
the investigating judge pending the trial in the first case. The date for this trial was set for
3 October 2023, but has been postponed several times.
17.
In the second case, the trial was held on 22 August 2023, and the prosecutor requested
3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of DA 100,000. During the hearing, Mr. Bendjama testified
that, while in police custody, gendarmes had made him kneel and had used a screwdriver to
make him open his fist so that they could use his fingerprint to unlock his telephone.
18.
In addition, during the first three days of his custody, Mr. Bendjama was subjected to
interrogation at night, which prevented him from sleeping. He was allegedly kept handcuffed
with his hands behind his back for 72 hours. High-ranking officers from the security services
participated in the interrogation. According to the source, Mr. Bendjama’s lawyers stated
during his trial that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The judge decided that
it was too late to make such allegations, which should have been brought to the attention of
the investigating judge.
19.
Questioned by the judge about his contacts with international organizations,
Mr. Bendjama stated, among other things, that he was in contact with the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
20.
On 29 August 2023, Mr. Bendjama was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. During
the appeal proceedings, which commenced on 19 October 2023, the judge forbade him from
raising the torture allegations, considering that they had no relevance in the case. The judge
stated that the appropriate procedure for raising such allegations was to lodge a complaint
against the police officers who had committed the acts and that the two criminal cases should
not be mixed up. The judge questioned Mr. Bendjama at length about his contacts with a
foreign journalist and accused him of wishing to damage relations between Algeria and the
State whose citizenship the journalist held.
21.
In the first case, the order of committal for trial was transmitted to the prosecutor on
28 August 2023, and the trial date was set for 3 October 2023, one month and six days later.
The source points out that this contravened article 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which allows for a maximum of one month between the transmission of the order of
committal and the trial date in cases where the accused is in pretrial detention.
22.
On 3 October 2023, Mr. Bendjama’s lawyers requested his release, as the legal
deadline had passed. The request having been rejected, Mr. Bendjama went on hunger strike
the same day.
b.
Mr. Farrah
23.
Mr. Farrah was arrested on 14 February 2023 at his family home by the gendarmerie
and the criminal investigation police, who searched the residence. The authorities showed an
arrest warrant for Mr. Farrah and a relative. According to the source, Mr. Farrah’s arrest is
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
4
GE.24-09685
linked to the arrests of the aforementioned activist and Mr. Bendjama. Mr. Farrah was placed
in custody at the research unit of the Al-Hattab gendarmerie station in Annaba.
24.
On 15 February 2023, a relative of Mr. Farrah was taken into custody at the Al-Hattab
gendarmerie station. Another relative, who went to the gendarmerie station that day to see
Mr. Farrah, was questioned by gendarmes for six hours.
25.
On 18 February 2023, Mr Farrah and his relative were transferred to the
Abdelhamid-Boussouf prison in Constantine. The following day, they were brought before
the prosecutor of the Constantine specialized criminal justice unit, along with other persons
arrested in connection with the case of the activist.
26.
On the evening of 19 February 2023, following an initial hearing before the
investigating judge, Mr. Farrah and his relative were placed in pretrial detention.
27.
According to the source, Mr. Farrah was prosecuted for “receiving funds with the aim
of committing acts likely to undermine public order” and for “publishing classified
information or documents on an electronic network” under article 95 bis of the Criminal Code
and article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09.
28.
On 23 February 2023, an application for provisional release was filed with the
indictment division of Court of Constantine. On 6 March 2023, the indictment division
upheld the warrant of commitment against Mr. Farrah and his relative.
29.
On 13 March 2023, Mr. Farrah’s relative was released on bail owing to his state of
health. The investigating judge and the prison governor told Mr. Farrah several times that he
was to blame for his relative’s imprisonment, in an attempt to intimidate him.
30.
On 16 March 2023, an orthopaedic surgeon requested Mr. Farrah’s release, stating
that he had undergone surgery on 17 June 2022 and still had problems with patellar instability
requiring rehabilitation. The request was rejected a few days later.
31.
On 8 May 2023, a new appeal was filed against the warrant of commitment concerning
Mr. Farrah, which was again rejected. The trial, which had been due to open on 8 August
2023, was postponed until 22 August.
32.
According to the information received, Mr. Farrah’s arrest and trial followed the
discovery on Mr. Bendjama’s telephone of exchanges between the two men concerning a
money transfer. During the trial, Mr. Bendjama confessed to having sought Mr. Farrah’s
assistance so that he would not be paid at the local exchange rate. Mr. Bendjama stated that
he did not enter into this arrangement because he considered it to be safer, as the criminal
investigation police claimed, and that his work was legal.
33.
As for the second charge, one of Mr. Farrah’s lawyers stated that none of the
documents disseminated by Mr. Farrah were classified and that, in the absence of actus reus,
there was no proof of criminal intent. According to the source, the judge did not furnish any
additional evidence regarding the alleged disclosure by Mr. Farrah of classified documents.
The prosecution attempted to prove that the information transmitted to an NGO was harmful
to Algeria. In addition, the judge accused Mr. Farrah of being a Mossad agent on account of
his exchanges with a foreign journalist. Mr. Farrah was also accused of channelling money
from an NGO to a human rights defender who had been granted refugee status abroad.
34.
On 29 August 2023, Mr. Farrah was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of
DA 200,000.
35.
At the appeal hearing on 19 October 2023, the judge questioned Mr. Farrah at length
about a book he had published in 2023 and accused him of wanting to damage the country’s
reputation.
36.
On 26 October 2023, the Court of Constantine, ruling on the appeal, sentenced
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah to 8 months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation. Having
already served his sentence, Mr. Farrah was released the same day.
37.
Mr. Bendjama remains in detention in connection with the case of the activist. The
trial opened on 31 October 2023 and, on 7 November, the Court of Constantine sentenced
him to 6 months’ imprisonment. According to the source, the prosecutor and the investigating
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
5
judge decided to remand Mr. Bendjama in custody for the duration of the sentence, even
though he had already served more than 6 months in pretrial detention.
(ii)
Legal analysis
a.
Category I
38.
The source alleges that Mr. Bendjama’s police custody was illegally extended, in
breach of article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that police custody
may not exceed 48 hours unless there is serious and consistent evidence to justify bringing
charges. Police custody may be extended five times, with the written authorization of the
competent prosecutor, in cases related to terrorism or subversive acts. Mr. Bendjama was
arrested on 8 February 2023 at 11 p.m., and the prosecutor extended his custody four times
over a period of 10 days. According to the source, Mr. Bendjama should have been released
on 18 February at 11 p.m. but he was kept in police custody until 19 February at 9 a.m., in
other words, for a further 10 hours, without authorization from the prosecutor. The source
therefore submits that there was a violation of article 9 of the Covenant.
39.
In addition, the source claims that the duration of police custody – 10 days in the case
of Mr. Bendjama and 5 days in that of Mr. Farrah – was excessive and therefore contrary to
article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The source stresses that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to
satisfy the requirement of bringing a detained person promptly before a judge and any longer
delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. 2
According to the source, the circumstances of the case do not justify such an extension.
40.
The source also argues that the authorities retroactively invoked article 38 of
Ordinance No. 21-09, which entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette of
9 June 2021. The source submits that the documents classed as “secret” were sent by
Mr. Bendjama in May 2021, before the ordinance entered into force. At the trial, the judge
rejected this argument, considering that the defence had failed to produce any evidence to
support it and that the date of the discovery of the alleged offence, following Mr. Bendjama’s
arrest and the search of his telephone, was the date of its commission. The source argues that
the discovery of an offence by the police while Mr. Bendjama was in police custody is not
sufficient to prove that it was committed at that time.
41.
The source recalls the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, according to
which neither crime nor penalty can exist without having been foreseen by law, and submits
that article 4 of the Civil Code and article 15 of the Covenant have been violated.
42.
According to the source, Mr. Farrah was convicted under article 38 of Ordinance
No. 21-09, which punishes “anyone who creates, administers or supervises an electronic site
or account or a computer program for the purpose of publishing classified information or
documents, in full or in part”. The source asserts that Mr. Farrah has not published any
confidential documents. Evidence was admitted that Mr. Farrah had spoken to a diplomat in
Algeria and had sent three research reports, which, according to the judgment, were available
online. It has not been demonstrated that these reports were classified or how sending them
to a foreign diplomat disturbed public order. Mr. Farrah was also accused of speaking to a
foreign national about political issues and relations between Algeria and another State,
among other things. The subject of the conversation and the foreign nationality of the
interlocutor were seemingly sufficient to convict Mr. Farrah. The source submits that, in the
absence of actus reus, the legal basis of the accusation against Mr. Farrah is invalid and his
detention is therefore arbitrary.
43.
The source also points out that article 95 bis of the Criminal Code establishes the
offence of receiving funds with a view to undermining public order. Mr. Farrah’s bank
account, however, was used only to collect Mr. Bendjama’s remuneration. The source states
that two people cannot be held criminally liable, as principal perpetrators, for receiving a sum
of money that only one of them has collected in full. It emphasizes that the receipt of funds
is an offence only when these are collected with the intention of committing acts likely,
2 Opinion No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 65/2019, para. 64; and No. 79/2022, para. 61.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
6
GE.24-09685
among other things, to disturb public order. In this case, Mr. Bendjama received the funds as
payment for writing a report for an organization, which the judgment does not refute.
44.
According to the source, the court failed to prove that any acts likely to disturb public
order, which would have been committed by Messrs. Bendjama and Mr. Farrah, in fact
existed. Moreover, noting the retroactive application of article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09,
the source submits that the offence set forth under article 95 bis of the Criminal Code is
constituted in neither of the two cases. The source adds that, considering the evidence against
them, Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah have been convicted for their opinions, their actions in
solidarity with activists and their activities as researchers and, in Mr. Bendjama’s case, as a
journalist.
45.
The source considers that the prosecution of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah on the
basis of article 95 bis of the Criminal Code and article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09 contravenes
the principle of legality. It notes that several special procedure mandate holders have
expressed the view that the particularly vague terms of article 95 bis grant the authorities
considerable discretionary power to prosecute human rights defenders and other activists who
receive foreign funding, which constitutes an obstacle to international cooperation between
associations or with foreign institutions such as universities and research centres.3
46.
According to the source, the imperative of non-disclosure and the severe penalties set
forth in article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09 remove any real protection for whistle-blowers
and investigative journalists, including the possibility of their justifying their actions by
invoking the public interest. The source adds that the vagueness of the law has led to the
improper application of its provisions, as the documents disseminated by Mr. Bendjama were
not classified and the court does not seem to have identified the documents that were
supposedly sent by Mr. Farrah. According to the source, the findings contained in the
judgment do not give any explanation as to evidence of the alleged offences. Indeed, the
source argues that it has not been demonstrated that the offences of which Messrs. Farrah and
Bendjama stood accused were constituted.
47.
In addition, the source maintains that Mr. Farrah’s actions in solidarity with prisoners
of conscience were taken as evidence of the commission of offences. These actions refer to
requests by Mr. Farrah to a relative concerning the transfer of money to families of prisoners
of conscience from the Hirak movement and to their lawyers, in order to cover their transport
and accommodation costs, and to the fact of his having passed on money from an NGO to a
third party.
b.
Category II
48.
The source argues that the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah is arbitrary, as
they are being prosecuted for their journalistic and research activities.
49.
The source submits that Mr. Bendjama’s arrest and conviction came after a series of
prosecutions directly linked to his exercise of fundamental rights, in particular his right to
freedom of expression. Thus, he was charged with “inciting an unarmed gathering”,
“opposing the conduct of the electoral process” and “opposing through a gathering actions
authorized by the public authorities” for being in the vicinity of a demonstration organized
during the 2019 presidential election campaign, before he was acquitted on 18 November
2020. On 27 June 2021, an appeal court handed Mr. Bendjama a two-month suspended prison
sentence for “publishing material harmful to the national interest” after he had shared a police
report describing him as a subversive. He was also prosecuted for “defamation and libel” and
“contempt of a public authority” following a complaint lodged by the Directorate General of
National Security in connection with a post he had made on social networks. Mr. Bendjama
was acquitted on appeal on 18 July 2021.
50.
The source considers that these prosecutions are directly linked to the exercise of the
right to freedom of expression, as protected by article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3 See communication DZA 12/2021, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26905.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
7
51.
The authorities, however, hold that these prosecutions are unrelated to
Mr. Bendjama’s status as a journalist. At the trial on 22 August 2023, the Public Prosecution
Service contested his professional status, citing lack of evidence. Nevertheless, the source
notes that the judgment does not question his status as a journalist and presents him as the
editor-in-chief of the newspaper Le Provincial. The source also submits that the appeal judge
questioned Mr. Bendjama at length about his contacts with a foreign journalist.
52.
The source states that the profession of journalist is governed by Organic Act
No. 23-14 of 27 August 2023, the Information Act, replacing Organic Act No. 12-05 of 2012.
It points out that the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern about the latter and at
claims it is being used to impede the work of journalists.4
53.
The source alleges that Mr. Farrah has been prosecuted for his work as a researcher
and notes that several aspects related to his research, including his sharing of research reports
with a foreign diplomat and his discussion with a journalist about the dispute between Algeria
and another State, have been used to justify his conviction. The appeal judge also accused
Mr. Farrah of seeking to damage the reputation of Algeria with his book. The source asserts
that this amounts to clear targeting by the judge, who took the view that Mr. Farrah’s research
activities were of a criminal nature.
54.
According to the source, the accusations against Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah
demonstrate the Government’s hostility to the professions of journalist and researcher.
55.
Furthermore, Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were convicted of “publishing classified
information or documents on an electronic network” under article 38 of Ordinance No. 21-09.
The source believes that this is not a valid charge in the case of Mr. Farrah, as no evidence
to suggest that he had disseminated classified documents was presented at the trial.
56.
As for Mr. Bendjama, the authorities provided a list of purportedly classified
documents that he had circulated. These documents relate to a legal dispute between two
companies. Noting that article 6 of Ordinance No. 21-09 defines a “secret” document as one
whose disclosure would cause serious harm to the interests of the State, the source questions
the necessity and legitimacy of attributing this status to the documents in question. The source
asserts that these documents relate to private companies and not the State and considers that
their disclosure poses no credible risk of serious harm to the State’s interests. The source
therefore argues that the principles of necessity and proportionality have not been respected.
57.
The source also argues that the convictions of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah violate
their freedom of association.
58.
According to the source, Mr. Bendjama received funds from Mr. Farrah, under a
contractual arrangement with an NGO, to conduct research on good governance in Algeria.
Mr. Farrah had US$ 1,400 sent to a relative, but no transfers were made between Tunisia and
Algeria. The source considers that the activities of the NGO are protected by the freedom of
association as enshrined in article 22 of the Covenant. In addition, article 37 of the Guidelines
on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa of the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights states that “associations have the right to seek, receive and use funds
freely in compliance with not-for-profit aims”. The source considers that this applies to the
situation of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah, as the research was not for profit.
59.
The source asserts that Mr. Bendjama was convicted on account of his relationship
with an NGO and that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were convicted for their involvement in
raising funds to support the families of detainees from the Hirak movement. It points out that
the freedom of association extends to informal groups.
60.
According to the source, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association has explained that the ability of civil society organizations to
access funding and other resources from domestic, foreign and international sources is an
integral part of the right to freedom of association as protected by article 22 of the Covenant.5
In Algeria, this right is governed by Act No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012, the Associations Act,
4 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, par. 43.
5 A/HRC/23/39, para. 20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
8
GE.24-09685
which in the view of multiple human rights organizations does not guarantee the rights of
associations.
61.
The source states that the funds allocated by Mr. Farrah to Mr. Bendjama are legal
and cannot be considered to have been received with the aim of committing acts likely to
undermine public order, as they were allocated in conformity with the freedom of association
protected by article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of the
Covenant. Moreover, the source asserts that Algeria has no jurisdiction over transactions that
took place entirely in other countries and considers that foreign transactions such as the one
between Mr. Farrah and an organization should not be the subject of monitoring by the
Algerian authorities.
c.
Category III
62.
The source argues that the authorities have violated international norms relating to the
right to a fair trial in the case of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah.
63.
The source submits that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were held in police custody for
an excessive length of time. It claims that police officers subjected Mr. Bendjama to torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during his custody, including the use of a
screwdriver in attempt to open his fist so that they could make him unlock his phone. The
source claims that these acts constitute a violation of article 5 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, article 7 of the Covenant, articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and principles
1 and 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
64.
The source also states that Mr. Bendjama was interrogated until 4 a.m. on the nights
of 8 to 10 February 2023, with the interrogation resuming at 6 a.m., so that he had no sleep
for three nights. His hands were handcuffed behind his back at all times, including at night.
The handcuffs were removed only at the request of officers from the Directorate General of
Internal Security and the Directorate General of Documentation and External Security.
65.
Furthermore, Mr. Bendjama was threatened many times with the use of physical force,
which led him to sign statements not of his own making, in violation of principle 22 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and article 15 of the Convention against Torture. For example, two colonels
from the aforementioned directorates told Mr. Bendjama to stop answering officers’
questions about the second case, as he might otherwise be subjected to violence.
66.
The source considers that the appeal judge should have opened an inquiry into the
allegations of torture made by the defence. However, the judge decided that these allegations
bore no relevance to the case, taking the view that Mr. Bendjama and his lawyers should file
a complaint against the police officers who had administered the ill-treatment.
67.
The source claims that, by subjecting Mr. Bendjama to torture and cruel and inhuman
treatment in order to obtain a confession, the authorities have interfered with his right to a
fair trial, which is contrary to principles 1, 6, 21 and 22 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, article 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against
Torture.
68.
Furthermore, the source considers that the Court of Constantine did not have territorial
jurisdiction. Article 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that jurisdiction to try
ordinary offences rests with the court of the place where the offence was committed, of the
place of residence of the accused or of their accomplices, or of the place where the arrest took
place, even if the arrest was made for other reasons. The court with jurisdiction was therefore
that of Annaba, the place of residence of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah, the place of their
arrest and the place where the alleged offence was committed. The source adds that the
exception provided for in article 329 (5) did not apply, as Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were
charged with an ordinary and not a serious offence.
69.
In the proceedings at first instance, Mr. Bendjama’s defence requested that the court
declare itself incompetent and release Mr. Bendjama and the other defendants. The judge did
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
9
not accept this argument and it does not appear in the judgment. The source submits that
Mr. Bendjama’s right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal, enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant, was violated.
70.
The source asserts that Mr. Bendjama’s and Mr. Farrah’s right to a fair trial has not
been respected in view of the lack of independence of the judiciary. It notes that the Human
Rights Committee has expressed concern that the independence of the judiciary is not
sufficiently guaranteed and that the executive plays a significant role, and concern at
allegations of outside interference in the decisions of judges and public prosecutors.6
71.
Accordingly, the source concludes that the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah
is arbitrary.
(b)
Response from the Government
72.
On 23 November 2023, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed
information about them by 22 January 2024 and to guarantee their physical and mental
integrity.
73.
The Government requested an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the
Working Group’s methods of work, which was granted until 22 February 2024. The
Government replied to the communication on 1 February 2024.
(i)
Case No. 1
74.
According to the Government, on 16 September 2021, the wali (Governor) of Annaba
filed a complaint against Mr. Bendjama for publishing, on 18 March 2020, a video on social
networks with the aim of undermining State institutions.
75.
The prosecutor of the Court of Annaba instituted proceedings against Mr. Bendjama
further to a request to open an investigation into the offences of publication of material
harmful to the national interest and defamation under articles 96, 296 and 298 of the Criminal
Code.
76.
Following an initial appearance before the investigating judge on 1 June 2021,
Mr. Bendjama was placed under judicial supervision.
77.
On 22 September 2021, Mr. Bendjama appeared again before the investigating judge,
who ordered the referral of the case to the criminal court and the withdrawal of judicial
supervision.
78.
On 20 December 2021, Mr. Bendjama was sentenced in his absence to 1 year’s
imprisonment and a fine of DA 50,000. After challenging the judgment, he was sentenced to
a fine of DA 30,000 on 16 July 2023. On 11 July 2023, the court of appeal upheld the verdict.
(ii)
Case No. 2
79.
According to the Government, on 12 April 2019, Mr. Bendjama published on his
account material intended to harm the national interest, namely, images of the caps worn by
the security services as part of their official uniform, accompanied by expressions inciting
the members of the police and the army to disobey orders and participate in a plan designed
to undermine troop morale.
80.
Mr. Bendjama was prosecuted before the Court of Annaba for the offence of exposing
to public view and displaying for propaganda purposes publications harmful to the national
interest. On 10 January 2021, he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of
DA 20,000.
81.
On 27 June 2021, the appeal court upheld the first-instance judgment in
Mr. Bendjama’s absence. An appeal in cassation, lodged on 15 November 2021, is pending
before the Supreme Court.
6 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 39.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
10
GE.24-09685
(iii)
Case No. 3
82.
According to the Government, on 22 October 2019, Mr. Bendjama published on social
networks information harmful to the national interest, namely, a photocopy of an official
administrative document belonging to the national security services, accompanied by a
comment about the monitoring of acts of incitement on social networks which contained
expressions insulting to the national security apparatus.
83.
Mr. Bendjama was prosecuted before the Court of Annaba for the offence of exposing
to public view and displaying for propaganda purposes publications harmful to the national
interest. On 19 January 2021, he was given a suspended sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment
and ordered to pay a fine of DA 20,000. The judgment was upheld on 27 June 2021 in
Mr. Bendjama’s absence. An appeal in cassation was lodged on 4 July 2021.
(iv)
Case No. 4
84.
The Government states that Mr. Bendjama was prosecuted before the Constantine
specialized criminal justice unit for his involvement in the case of a person who fled to
Tunisia. Together with five other defendants, he was charged with criminal conspiracy,
leaving the country illegally and criminal association with the goal of committing the offence
of migrant smuggling. Mr. Bendjama was remanded in custody on 20 February 2023.
85.
On 27 July 2023, the investigating judge of the Constantine specialized criminal
justice unit ordered that Mr. Bendjama and his co-defendants not be prosecuted for criminal
conspiracy. The judge also ordered that Mr. Bendjama be committed for trial before the
criminal division in connection with the offence of migrant smuggling. The indictment
division confirmed the order on 28 August 2023.
86.
On 7 November 2023, the specialized criminal justice unit convicted Mr. Bendjama
and sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine of DA 20,000. The court of appeal
upheld the verdict on 11 January 2024.
(v)
Case concerning Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah before the Constantine specialized
criminal division
87.
The Government explains that this case concerns the publication of classified
documents on an electronic network and the receipt of funds from foreign and domestic
institutions with the aim of committing acts likely to undermine public order.
88.
According to the Government, as part of the investigation into Mr. Bendjama’s
involvement in the presumed illegal departure of an individual who travelled to Tunisia,
Mr. Bendjama’s smartphone was subjected to an electronic search, which proved that he was
in contact with people abroad. Mr. Bendjama discussed with one such person the signing of
a contract under which he would provide the other person with information and files from
Algeria. Mr. Bendjama also informed this person that lawyers and journalists wished to speak
out on this subject but were afraid to go on record. Mr. Bendjama requested that the person
cooperate with a pilot or air traffic controller and another individual to whom Mr. Bendjama
had already sent 54 of his articles. The investigation concluded that Mr. Bendjama was
collaborating with foreigners to whom he had provided various pieces of information in
exchange for money. According to the Government, Mr. Bendjama was also working with
media such as the Twala website, founded by Mr. Farrah and other persons living abroad.
89.
Mr. Bendjama has admitted passing an active file, in a case before the Court of
El Hadjar, to a person facing prosecution who has fled the country.
90.
On 8 February 2023, the national gendarmerie took Mr. Bendjama into custody in the
context of the investigation into migrant smuggling. Mr. Farrah was taken into custody on
14 February 2023.
91.
On 19 February 2023, Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were remanded in custody
following a request to open an investigation into the offence of publishing classified
information and documents or their content, in full or in part, on an electronic network or
other medium, in order to receive funds from foreign or domestic institutions with a view to
committing acts likely to undermine public order.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
11
92.
On 29 August 2023, Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were each sentenced to 2 years’
imprisonment, of which 16 months were suspended, and a fine of DA 200,000. On
26 October 2023, the court of appeal upheld the judgment. Having served his full sentence,
Mr. Farrah was released the same day. An appeal in cassation was lodged on
29 October 2023.
93.
The Government asserts that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah enjoyed all the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution and by law, such as the right to an appeal, the right of defence
and the right to a fair trial. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
94.
The Government explains that article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows
criminal investigation officers to extend police custody five times in the case of offences
characterized as acts of terrorism or subversion. The accused must then be brought before the
prosecutor, who may alter the characterization of the offence as he or she sees fit. The
Government asserts that Mr. Bendjama’s police custody was therefore lawful.
95.
Furthermore, the Government argues that the source’s allegations of torture are not
supported by any evidence. It notes that Mr. Bendjama never made any statement to the
investigating judge in this regard, nor has any formal complaint been registered in respect of
these allegations.
96.
The Government submits that the application of Ordinance No. 21-09 and
article 95 bis of the Criminal Code, and the territorial jurisdiction of the Constantine
specialized criminal justice unit, are the prerogative of the judge hearing the case, whether at
first or second instance. It adds that the Supreme Court alone has the authority to review an
error in the application of the law.
97.
With regard to the criticisms expressed in respect of certain laws, in particular Organic
Act No. 23-14 and article 95 bis of the Criminal Code, the Government points out that
Algeria, in keeping with its legislative sovereignty, can draft such laws as it deems
appropriate provided that they do not run counter to the international conventions the country
has ratified.
98.
In addition, the Government claims that the allegations that Mr. Bendjama was
prosecuted for his journalism and Mr. Farrah for his work as a researcher are nonsensical. It
states that the two men were prosecuted for offences under ordinary law on the basis of
evidence considered at first instance and on appeal, in accordance with the Constitution, the
law and fair trial guarantees.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
99.
In its additional comments, the source reiterates its initial arguments and deplores the
lack of information provided by the authorities. It notes that the authorities have not refuted
most of the allegations. The source submits clarifications regarding the Government’s
responses, stating in particular that Mr. Bendjama mentioned acts of torture and other
ill-treatment to the investigating judge and showed him his hands and wrists.
100.
In addition, the source expresses concern about Mr. Bendjama’s state of health and
the excessively long delays in receiving medical care in prison, which have allegedly caused
him to lose three teeth since the beginning of his detention.
2.
Discussion
101.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
102.
At the outset, the Working Group notes that Mr. Farrah was released on
26 October 2023 at the end of his sentence. In accordance with paragraph 17 (a) of its
methods of work, the Working Group reserves the right to render an opinion on whether the
deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the person concerned. As
Mr. Farrah has allegedly been the victim of serious violations of his rights, the Working
Group considers it important to render an opinion on his case.
103.
In determining whether the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah 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
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
12
GE.24-09685
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.7 Mere assertions by the Government
that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.8
(a)
Category I
104.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without a legal basis.
105.
According to the source, Mr. Bendjama was arrested on 8 February 2023 and
Mr. Farrah on 14 February 2023. The source argues that their police custody, which lasted
10 and 5 days respectively, was excessive and therefore contrary to article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.
106.
In its response, the Government did not contest the dates of the police custody, but
stated that they were in conformity with article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
allows criminal investigation officers to extend police custody five times in cases of terrorism
or subversive acts, up to a maximum of 12 days.
107.
As a preliminary matter, the Working Group reiterates that even if the detention is in
conformity with national legislation, regulations and practices, the Working Group can and
must determine whether such detention is also consistent with the relevant provisions of
international law.9 In this regard, article 9 (3) of the Covenant guarantees the right of any
person arrested or detained on a criminal charge to be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. As the Human Rights Committee
has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detained
person “promptly” before a judge, and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional
and be justified under the circumstances.10 Considering that the parties have established that
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were in police custody for 10 and 5 days respectively, without
said custody being subject to judicial review, the Working Group concludes that the
authorities violated article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
108.
The source also asserts that Mr. Bendjama was charged under article 38 of Ordinance
No. 21-09, which entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette of 9 June 2021,
despite his having transmitted the documents classed as “secret” in May 2021, before the
ordinance entered into force. The Government states that the application of Ordinance No.
21-09 is a prerogative of the judge hearing the case. It adds that the Supreme Court alone has
the authority to review an error in the application of the law.
109.
Once again, the Working Group reiterates that domestic law alone cannot circumvent
the application of international human rights law. Article 15 of the Covenant states that no
one may be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did
not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. The source claims that the documents sent by Mr. Bendjama were not classed as
secret at the time they were sent, and were only given this classification ex post facto, after
the adoption of Ordinance No. 21-09. Noting that the Government has not refuted this claim,
the Working Group concludes that the ordinance was applied retroactively, in violation of
article 15 of the Covenant.
110.
The source states that the Government has violated the rights of Messrs. Bendjama
and Farrah by applying article 95 bis of the Criminal Code, which establishes the offence of
receiving funds from foreign or domestic institutions with a view to undermining public
order. According to the Government, this law has been legitimately adopted and its
application falls within the competence of the courts. It notes that Algeria enjoys legislative
sovereignty and can draft such laws as it deems appropriate. While the Working Group
reiterates its concerns about the scope of article 95 bis of the Criminal Code, it considers that
the application of the provision in the present case falls within the competence of national
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
8 Ibid.
9 See, inter alia, opinions No. 20/2018, No. 37/2018 and No. 50/2018.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
13
courts and that it is not well placed to examine such application and cannot draw conclusions
in this regard.
111.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group finds the detention of Messrs. Bendjama
and Farrah arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
112.
The source submits that the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah is arbitrary as
they have been targeted for their journalistic and research activities, in violation of their rights
to freedom of expression and freedom of association. In its response, the Government states
only that these allegations are nonsensical and that Mr. Bendjama and Mr. Farrah were
prosecuted for offences under ordinary law on the basis of evidence considered during the
trial at first instance and the appeal proceedings.
113.
Article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights enshrine the right of all persons to freedom of opinion and expression. This right
includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media.11 Under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the right to
freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, but only such as are provided
by law and are necessary for the protection of national security or of public order.
114.
In the present case, the Working Group considers that the source has demonstrated
that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah were prosecuted for their journalistic and research
activities. It notes, for example, that Mr. Bendjama – who had already been accused of
sharing a police report describing him as a subversive and of publishing certain materials on
social networks – was questioned by the judge about his contacts with a foreign journalist.
For his part, Mr. Farrah was rebuked for, among other things, sharing research reports with
a foreign diplomat and seeking to harm Algeria through an academic publication he had
authored. The Working Group notes that the Government, on the other hand, has not shown
how these activities constituted incitement to violence or how the restrictions imposed were
lawful, necessary and proportionate, as required by article 19 of the Covenant. Accordingly,
the Working Group considers that the authorities have violated article 19 of the Covenant
and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
115.
Moreover, article 22 (1) of the Covenant and Article 20 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights protect the right to freely associate with others. Under article 22 of the
Covenant, this right includes the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of one’s
interests. The source claims that Mr. Bendjama and Mr. Farrah were convicted for taking part
in a fundraising event in support of the families of detainees from the Hirak movement.
Mr. Bendjama is said to have received funds from Mr. Farrah for a research project on
governance in Algeria, which was conducted for an NGO. The Government has not
responded to these claims, nor has it demonstrated how the prosecutions fall within the
permitted exceptions to the right of freedom of association. The Working Group therefore
finds that the authorities violated article 22 (1) of the Covenant and article 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
116.
Accordingly, the Working Group considers the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and
Farrah to be arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
117.
Given its finding that the detention of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah was arbitrary
under category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
However, they were each sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, 16 months of which were
suspended, and a fine of DA 200,000.
118.
The source claims that Mr. Farrah was unjustly convicted under article 38 of
Ordinance No. 21-09, which punishes “anyone who creates, administers or supervises an
electronic site or account or a computer program for the purpose of publishing classified
information or documents, in full or in part”. According to the source, this article is not
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 11 and 12.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
14
GE.24-09685
applicable to Mr. Farrah, since there is no evidence that he published classified documents.
In its response, the Government merely states that Mr. Farrah was prosecuted for publishing
classified information and documents or their content, in full or in part, on an electronic
network or other medium, in order to receive funds from foreign or domestic institutions with
a view to committing acts likely to undermine public order. With regard to the application of
Ordinance No. 21-09, the Working Group notes that the Government has not refuted the
source’s allegations in a detailed and substantiated manner, but simply states that the
Supreme Court alone has the authority to monitor the application of the law. Reiterating the
above conclusions regarding the application of Ordinance No. 21-09 in violation of article
15 of the Covenant, and noting the source’s allegations that the ordinance was also
improperly applied in Mr. Farrah’s case and that the judgment does not specify which
documents Mr. Farrah published, the Working Group finds that the authorities violated
Mr. Farrah’s right to a fair trial, including his right to have his conviction and sentence
reviewed by a higher tribunal, under article 14 (5) of the Covenant.12
119.
In addition, the Working Group reiterates its concerns about the use of Ordinance No.
21-09 to target human rights defenders and organizations, as it has already expressed to the
Government in the joint communication issued with several special procedure mandate
holders on 27 December 2021.13 In particular, the severe penalties that are envisaged and the
absence of exceptions for whistleblowers or investigative journalists render the law open to
abuse and to an overly broad application.
120.
The source also asserts that Mr. Bendjama was subjected to torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment by the police. It explains that the police used a screwdriver
to try to force open his fist in order to make him unlock his telephone. It notes, too, that
Mr. Bendjama was questioned at length without being able to sleep for three days, his hands
handcuffed behind his back for most of the time. He was also allegedly threatened with
physical violence to make him sign statements. In response, the Government states that these
allegations are not supported by evidence, that Mr. Bendjama did not raise them with the
investigating judge and that no official complaint was lodged.
121.
The Working Group notes the source’s assertion, in its additional comments, that the
allegations of ill-treatment were raised with the investigating judge. The source also stated,
in its initial submission, that these allegations were raised during the trial but the judge did
not take them into account when considering the charges and the evidence that could be
presented during the trial. Noting that the Government does not respond directly to these
allegations, the Working Group considers that the source has established a reasonable basis
to demonstrate that Mr. Bendjama was subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment, which may
amount to torture, in order to forcibly gain access to evidence against him and to make him
sign confessions, and that at least some of this evidence was used during the trial.
122.
The Working Group considers that the events recounted by the source give rise to a
serious risk of evidence obtained through torture being used during the trial, in breach of
article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, article 15 of the Convention against Torture and principle
21 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment.14 As the Working Group has previously indicated, the admission into
evidence of a statement allegedly obtained through torture or ill-treatment renders the entire
proceedings unfair, regardless of whether other evidence is available to support the verdict.15
The Working Group points out that 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 article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the right not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant. The Working Group notes the source’s claim that Mr. Farrah’s arrest and trial
followed the discovery of exchanges on Mr. Bendjama’s telephone, which the Government
12 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007).
13 See communication DZA 12/2021, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26905.
14 Opinions No. 48/2016, para. 52; No. 29/2017, para. 64; and No. 84/2022, para. 107.
15 Opinions No. 32/2019, para. 43; No. 59/2019, para. 70; and No. 73/2019, para. 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
GE.24-09685
15
does not deny. The Working Group therefore considers that the above-mentioned violations
have had a bearing on the detention of both men.
123.
The source also asserts that the Court of Constantine lacked jurisdiction and that the
trial should have taken place before the Court of Annaba, where Messrs. Bendjama and
Farrah had their place of residence, where they were arrested, and where the alleged offence
was committed. The Government states that it for the judge to decide upon this matter and
notes that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah enjoyed the right of appeal throughout the
proceedings. The Working Group considers that this is primarily a matter of national
procedural arrangements and that it does not have sufficient information to conclude that the
right to a fair trial has been violated in this regard.
124.
Regarding the source’s allegation as to the lack of independence of the Algerian
judiciary, the Working Group shares the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee
regarding the inadequacy of guarantees of judicial independence, the significant role played
by the executive and allegations of outside interference in the decisions of judges and public
prosecutors.16
125.
In view of the above, the Working Group finds that the violations of Mr. Bendjama’s
and Mr. Farrah’s right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to render their detention arbitrary
under category III.
3.
Disposition
126.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mustapha Bendjama and Raouf Farrah, being in
contravention of articles 3, 9, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9, 14, 15, 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II and III.
127.
The Working Group requests the Government of Algeria to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah 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.
128.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Bendjama immediately and accord
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in
accordance with international law.
129.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Messrs.
Bendjama and Farrah and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
130.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
131.
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. Bendjama has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
16 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 39.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/24
16
GE.24-09685
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Algeria with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
132.
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.
133.
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 of any failure to take action.
134.
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.17
[Adopted on 26 March 2024]
17 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.